Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CONCLUDES GENERAL DEBATE ON THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD
24 March 2005
Share
Commission on Human Rights
24 March 2005
The Commission on Human Rights this morning concluded its general debate on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world.
Issues raised by speakers included the need for Governments to cooperate with the United Nations and its special mechanisms, and the need to reform the Commission, as was particularly evident in light of this controversial agenda item.
In between accusations and counter-accusations, speakers said the global human rights approach should be based on an appreciation of objective social realities in different regions and countries, and should also be guided by the principles of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity. The current challenge to be overcome was to change the general approach to this item in order for the Commission to redeem its image and integrity. The spirit of multilateralism and cooperation should be demonstrated if the necessary conditions for the enjoyment of human rights through the world were to be created.
Speaking this morning were the delegates of Canada, Eritrea, Indonesia, Australia, Cuba, Kenya, and the United States.
Speaking in right of reply were Turkey, Cyprus, Japan, Colombia, Bangladesh, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, China, Nepal, Eritrea, Philippines, Côte d’Ivoire, and Australia.
Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations; International Human Rights Association of American Minorities; European Union of Public Relations; International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations; Centro de Estudios Europeos; Centrist Democratic International; Interfaith International; International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples; International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities; Union of Arab Jurists; Pax Romana speaking on behalf of Catholic Institute for International Relations and Franciscans International; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development; Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization; Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education); Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; International Union of Socialist Youth and Amnesty International.
The Commission will this afternoon discuss the situation of human rights in a number of countries under its confidential 1503 procedure. The next public meeting of the Commission will be held on Tuesday, 29 March at 10 a.m., when it will be addressed by the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Belarus, and Myanmar. The Commission will then begin consideration of its agenda item on economic, social and cultural rights.
General Debate on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Any Part of the World
PAUL MEYER (Canada) said there was no excuse for violations of the physical integrity of the person. Yet today, the world was witness to torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. That plague of abuses needed to be confronted and eradicated. For instance, in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the lack of respect for human rights was endemic. The two resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on Iran over the last two years reflected the serious concerns expressed by the international community on the human rights situation in that country. Regrettably, the situation in Iran with respect to human rights, democratic development and good governance did not improve in 2004. Arbitrary arrests and detention, as well as torture, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances continued to plague Turkmenistan, where the human rights situation was deplorable. In Belarus and Uzbekistan, intimidation of political opponents and journalists also remained a common occurrence. Canada remained preoccupied by the situation in Chechnya and it encouraged the Russian Federation to continue working with all relevant international institutions.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Canada condemned the execution of civilians, the armed conflicts, the extortion by the army and militias, the sexual violence against women and girls, and the general climate of impunity. The human rights and humanitarian situation in northern Uganda remained dire due to the ongoing insurgency by the Lord's Resistance Army. The speaker also highlighted human rights situations in Burundi, Nigeria, Eritrea, Pakistan, Sudan, Liberia, Colombia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Burma, Nepal Zimbabwe, Iraq, the Middle East, Togo, Sierra Leone, Cuba, Viet Nam, China and Kosovo.
AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) said peace blossomed in an environment in which States respected the sovereignty, territorial integrity and equality of each other. It flourished when each member of the international community was governed by the provisions of myriad international instruments which articulated the principles, norms and procedures that regulated peaceful resolutions and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Included in these was the principle that the final and binding decisions of arbitration commissions should be faithfully implemented. Should one of the parties renege on its obligations, those who had played an active role in the process that led to the agreement and willingly became witnesses had the moral and political responsibility to ensure its implementation, while those who had become guarantors had the legal responsibility to enforce the agreements.
It was therefore unfortunate that the tenuous peace that had prevailed after the signing of the Algiers Agreements was on the brink of being shattered because Ethiopia had now definitively rejected the final and binding decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission. During the past two and a half years, Ethiopia had been systematic in its subversion of international law and accepted norms of international behaviour. The people and Government of Eritrea wished to inform the Commission that Ethiopia's unrestrained assault on the rule of law, including international law, and the sanctity of treaty agreements, would not be limited to their bad effects on the well-being of the States as well as the peoples of the two countries and the region only. Lawlessness was a highly contagious virus and it spread wide and far at great speed. The people of the Horn of Africa had been through untold hardship during the past century because of war, and they should no longer be exposed to it, nor to hunger and pestilence. The right to life, peace and development were rights for which they were yearning.
EDDI HARIYADHI (Indonesia) said that while the growing globalization of human rights and fundamental freedoms all over the world testified to the fact that human rights had entered the current lexicon, no item on the agenda of the Commission on Human Rights had excited such politicization as the present one. The application of country-specific resolutions did not best serve the interest to protect and promote human rights. The key to the Commission's success lay in effective dialogue and international cooperation among States. The human rights protection system should be strengthened in conformity with the vision elaborated by late-High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and further highlighted by his successor, Louise Arbour. That vision should be pursued both under the present item, and under the item on technical cooperation and advisory services.
Human rights protection was not achieved by imposition from outside, he affirmed, but by growing demand from the people themselves, which resulted from enhanced awareness of human rights. In recent years, the human rights protection system in Indonesia had been built up through several measures including enhancement of public awareness of human rights, human rights education and dissemination; strengthening of national legislation; strengthening of the institutional framework to deal with human rights abuses; increasing the professionalism of the law enforcement apparatus; strengthening of the independence of the judiciary; and harmonizing of national legislation with international human rights standards and norms. Indonesia's civil society had played a role in enhancing the awareness of human rights throughout the country, as well as in developing national legislation related to human rights, and actively monitored and disclosed any occurrence perceived as a violation of human rights.
MIKE SMITH (Australia) said the delegation of Australia applauded those countries that had advanced the human rights of their citizens in practical and meaningful ways. The trend to freedom and democracy in various parts of the world was to be welcomed as shown by the recent elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia and the Palestinian Authority, and demonstrations of people power in Lebanon and Ukraine. The progress in the Middle East peace process was also to be welcomed. Australia valued China's frank approach to their bilateral human rights dialogue and welcomed its increased awareness of the need to improve human rights. The appalling humanitarian crisis in Darfur should end. The Government of Sudan had failed to rein n in pro-government militias or punish those who committed crimes, including widespread sexual violence. Australia remained deeply concerned about Zimbabwe's human rights record. Australia condemned the systematic use of state-sponsored violence, intimidation and harassment and called for the repeal of anti-democratic legislation that denied rights of free expression, association and assembly.
Australia urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to address pressing human rights and humanitarian concerns, including the torture of political prisoners and severe restrictions on religious freedom. Australia remained gravely concerned about human rights, national reconciliation and genuine political reform in Burma. Ongoing violations of legal due process and
suppression of press and other freedoms of expression in Iran particularly concerned Australia. Australia also called on the King of Nepal to restore multiparty democracy.
JORGE IVAN MORA GODOY (Cuba) said the Commission had started this session knowing it was about to commit suicide, as a result of the actions taken by the main industrialised Western powers which subjected its work to their spurious desires of domination and hegemony. In the face of this crisis, some deep rectification would have been expected, however, nothing had changed, and this issue would take the same course of confrontation as it had for the last few years. In fact, the United States, with the complicity of its closest allies, had confirmed its decision to impose a new anti-Cuban manoeuvre on the Commission. A shameful selectivity, the very obvious political manipulation, and absolute lack of objectivity had marked for over one decade the treatment of anti-Cuban resolutions imposed by the United States Government every year. This shameful practice was perhaps the most compelling example of the wrong and unfair path that the Commission had been dragged to in dealing with the so-called resolutions on countries. This practice had nothing to do with human rights, as all knew.
How long, Cuba asked, would the Commission allow impunity of arbitrary detentions and torture and humiliation of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and the international torture centre at the illegal Naval Base in Guantanamo. Why were the Commission's mechanisms not allowed to express their views? The countries of the South, those who were discriminated against, victims of these dirty political manoeuvres, and all the honest people in the world, demanded urgent answers, which radically and permanently changed the current state of affairs. It was about time the Commission was liberated from the burden weighing it down. The international community was forced to prevent the current United States administration from continuing with its unjustified, disproportionate and ruthless wars. The world should say "NO" to war, to crime, and to torture.
PHILLIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya) said that, since much of the criticism of the work and credibility of the Commission revolved around the present agenda item, the current challenge to be overcome was to change the general approach to this important item, in order for the Commission to redeem its image and integrity. The protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms remained a legitimate concern for Governments and the international community as a whole; however, the spirit of multilateralism and cooperation must be demonstrated if the necessary conditions for the enjoyment of human rights through the world were to be created. Were developing countries singled out for condemnation by coincidence, or by design? Or, was that situation proof of the correlation between human rights and poverty -- that in conditions of poverty and deprivation, human rights could not be guaranteed?
The global human rights approach must be based on an appreciation of objective social realities in different regions and countries, he affirmed, and must also be guided by the principles of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity. In recent years, there had been instances of human rights abuse in parts of the world not addressed by the Commission. That situation could only support the contention that this item had been applied selectively, and remained driven by ulterior motives invoked to settle bilateral disputes between Member States. The Commission must not be allowed to become the tool of power politics. A strengthened and more representative Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was vital to realizing the objective of impartiality and non-selectivity. It must be provided with the human and financial resources to enable it to provide objective reports on which the Commission could base its decisions. The special mechanisms must be empowered to make objective reports on all the countries of the world. And all Governments must cooperate with them if meaningful results were to be achieved.
RUDY BOSCHWITZ (United States) said in the three years since the fall of the Taliban regime, the people of Afghanistan had struggled against terrorism and traditional ethnic, religious and tribal cleavages, to extend fundamental rights to women and minorities, and to open their society to unprecedented political competing and freedom of expression. They had also crafted a
new Constitution faithful to their values and way of life. On January 30, Iraqis took an important step towards democracy, when millions braved violence and threats to cast their votes in the most democratic and transparent election in their history. Though not yet a State, the Palestinian Authority had held successful presidential elections. In nearby Lebanon, the people had recently used their internationally recognized right to assembly to demand the right to determine their own future. In Yemen, a female minister for human rights continued her struggle on behalf of women. Saudi Arabia held limited municipal elections earlier this year. In Jordan, the reform effort continued. Egypt had announced it would amend its Constitution to allow contended multi-party presidential elections. Morocco had changed its Family Code to increase the rights of women. Algeria had held its first contested presidential elections. Ukraine had consolidated its democracy.
In Russia, regression towards the concentration of power in the Kremlin posed questions for that country's democratic transition. There was a steady deterioration of democracy in Venezuela. In Nepal, the King's recent dismissal of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet set back that country's already cautious movement towards parliamentary democracy. Cuba, the Western Hemisphere's only totalitarian regime, had maintained its stance of rejection of all democratic processes and continued its harassment and intimidation of pro-democracy activists, dissidents, librarians and journalists. The Commission should send a powerful signal to the Government of Belarus to halt its assault on its own citizens’ rights. In Sudan, the United States was working directly with both the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement to facilitate the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The speaker also enumerated the human right situation in China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Burma, Iran, and Zimbabwe.
JAN LONN, of International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, said there was deep concern over the silence among Member States on the grave and systematic violations of human rights and humanitarian law taking place in Iraq. There was no international scrutiny of human rights in present-day Iraq. It was a matter of great importance for the credibility of the United Nations human rights work that the Commission take prompt action at this session. The Commission should not shirk its responsibilities to condemn the many instances of torture in Iraq, and to reaffirm the prohibition of torture as a peremptory norm of international law.
SADIA MIR, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, noted that, year after year, the Commission had been informed about the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. The United States State Department had reported significant human rights abuses including extrajudicial killings and the excessive use of force by security forces, torture and rape by police and other agents of the Governments, poor prison conditions, arbitrary arrests and incommunicado detention, prolonged detention, occasional limits on the freedom of the press and movement, and harassment and arrest of human rights defenders. Independent monitoring organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as by the international media, had observed the brutal oppression of the population in Indian-held Kashmir. Many cases of disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture and violence against women had been submitted to the special mechanisms of the Commission. The Commission must reassure Kashmiris that they may be out sight, but they were not out of mind.
MOHAMMED MUMTAZ KHAN, of European Union of Public Relations, drew attention to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, where violence in the Indian-administered Kashmir continued against those who held different political opinions. Elected councillors were gunned down alongside dozens of common people to punish them. Those killings and violence were apparently attributed to the militia groups allied to India. The disputed status of the State had widely been used to hold back basic freedoms and human rights. The two disputed regions under Pakistan known as Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas (Gilgit Balistan) had been ignored by the international community, despite the fact that the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and other members of civil society had documented widespread denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms there.
SHAMIN SHAW, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said the Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir happened to be amongst the most brutalised places on earth. Living under perpetual occupation, humanity continued to suffer and bemoan the loss of innocent lives. The situation could be portrayed as a gross, systematic and massive abuse of all basic rights. There was no dearth of information about human rights violations in Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir, only extreme apathy of the Commission and its mandate holders towards remedial action. The High Commissioner for Human Rights should appoint a Special Representative on Kashmir to monitor and issue periodic reports on all aspects of the disputes.
LAZARO T. MORA SECADE, of Centro de Estudios Europeos, said numerous Governments and non-governmental organizations had denounced the manipulation of the present agenda item, which allowed developed countries to exert pressure on developing countries to extract advantages that had nothing to do with human rights. That selectivity was made clear by the lack of allusion to the human rights violations committed through the torture and degrading treatment to which prisoners had been subjected in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and at the United States naval base of Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba. If one wanted to speak of protecting Cubans' human rights, the flagrant violations of the Cuban people's economic, social and cultural rights, and of their right to self-determination, which were violated by the commercial, economic and financial blockade imposed by successive United States administrations, must be addressed. The Commission should insist that the blockade be ended, and that the rights of Cubans be observed.
JOHN SUAREZ, of Centrist Democratic International, said the systematic human rights violations in Cuba continued to deprive people of their fundamental freedoms, which were enshrined in the international human rights norms. In 2003, 14 dissidents had been freed conditionally for health reasons. The international community had also pressed the Government of Cuba to release them. According to Amnesty International, the Government of Cuba still held in detention 70 prisoners of conscience. The majority of Cuban prisoners were living in conditions that did not respect the international standard on prison conditions.
MEHRAN BALUCH, of Interfaith International, said the military regime of Pakistan had suppressed the Baluch people for nearly six decades, exploiting their lands and natural resources which were exploited by the ruling oligarchy, and suppressing their legitimate political, and economic, social and cultural rights, including their right to self-determination. As a result, the Baluch nation lived in deprivation and fear. The Commission should send a special fact-finding team to Baluchistan to investigate the ongoing operations there.
VERENA GRAF, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples, said the people of Cyprus had been suffering widespread and ongoing violations of fundamental human rights since the 1974 Turkish military invasion of the island. The northern part of Cyprus had been occupied by tens of thousands of Turkish troops for more than 30 years. It had been colonized by settlers, via forcible displacement and population transfer in that occupied territory, in an attempt to create an ethnically homogenous Turkish zone. The European Court of Human Rights had found Turkey responsible for violations of basic human rights in Cyprus, yet Turkey continued to ignore that judgment, and to occupy the northern part of Cyprus. The international community and the United Nations preferred to present the Cyprus problem as one of internal strife between ethnic groups, rather than the invasion of a sovereign State by another sovereign State. The Annan plan had been exceptionally unfair and unbalanced, and had been rejected by the Cypriots. The international community, and the Commission on Human Rights, should not close their eyes to such grave and massive violations of human rights. They should demand that Turkey comply with the judgments of international courts, and take immediate steps to remove its troops and settlers.
KURT OTZ, of International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities, said in Cyprus, due to Turkey's act of aggression, basic human rights and decisions by international courts were all breached and violated in an ongoing
and widespread manner for over 30 years. In the occupied part of Cyprus, the illegal and unrecognized regime was governed by an electorate body, whose vast majority was comprised of settlers, rather than the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population. That, in itself, eliminated the right of the Turkish Cypriots to express their free will and aspirations. The Turkish Cypriots were continuously oppressed and harassed by the Turkish army and settlers, as were the Greek Cypriots who remained in the occupied territories after the invasion.
ELIAS KHOURI, of Union of Arab Jurists, said the protection of human rights was impossible in an environment of war, occupation, injustice and violence, which bred counter-violence and terrorism, as in the Middle East, where peoples did not just have to put up with violations of their own rights from their own Governments, but also with foreign aggression. After two years, the situation of human rights in Iraq was getting worse, contrary to the reports of the media. The occupiers were completely flouting international law. In Israel, the Government built walls and flouted the most elementary human rights. These were crimes that could be considered as war crimes. The people of the region aspired to peace, freedom and democracy. It was a situation of double standards which endangered peace and security in the region.
YOHANES BUDI HERNAWAN, of Pax Romana, delivering a joint statement on behalf of the Catholic Institute for International Relations and Franciscans International, said he wished to call attention to serious violations of human rights in Papua, Indonesia. Extrajudicial killings had been reported, and those who were only injured had been charged with treason and membership of the Free Papua Movement. However, they had only asked for fair compensation for their land rights from the Djayanti timber company. In another area, the security situation remained unclear following the killing of a local priest by security forces. The judicial system had proved itself unable to convene fair trials due to the pervasive influence of the security apparatus. Moreover, Papua remained second lowest in rank on the Indonesian Human Development Index in 2004, despite a Gross Regional Domestic Product ranking third highest in the country. The Commission should urge the Indonesian Government to apply a rights-based approach to development in the region, to protect and respect the human rights of indigenous peoples in Papua, and to uphold the rule of law to combat impunity and corruption, among other steps.
ARJUN KARKI, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, said the Forum was greatly concerned about serious human rights violations, abandoned rule of law, worsening democratic rule in Nepal and the restrictions placed on the work of human rights defenders and independent media personnel in Nepal. The suspension of human rights on 1 February had further increased the gross and systematic violations committed by both the Government and the Maoist insurgents. A lack of democratic space had created serious obstacles to the prospect for dialogue and negotiated settlement. The United Nations and the international community should play a significant role in reinstating democracy and lasting democratic peace in Nepal.
SHAUKAT BALOCH, of Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization, said in Balochistan a military operation had been launched by the Pakistan army. The need to use heavy weapons against its own people proved that the people of Balochistan were not willing to remain as a part of Pakistan. A solution of political issues by peaceful means was believed in, and not the use of missiles, mortars and gunship helicopters, and this should take the form of a referendum held under the supervision of the United Nations. The right to life was the most sacred of all human rights and this right was in imminent and immediate danger in Balochistan. The Commission, the international community and others should prevail upon the Government of Pakistan to refrain from further military operations in Balochistan.
VICTORIA TAULI CORPUZ, of Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education), recalled that it had been nearly two years since the Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples had released his official report on the Philippines, and the Foundation was concerned that his recommendations had not been taken on board by the
Government of the Philippines. Among those recommendations upon which the Government should have acted figured the establishment of an office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Philippines to provide technical cooperation in the field of protection and promotion of human rights. Another recommendation that had been blatantly ignored was to the effect that the resolution of land rights issues should always take priority over commercial development. Even its manner of implementing the free and prior informed consent act was problematic. Consent had been engineered through creation of fake tribal councils. In light of the situation, the Special Rapporteur should again be invited to visit the country to follow-up his initial recommendations. The Government should also work with the Office of the High Commissioner to establish an office in the Philippines.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said the pseudo-election in Iran had reinforced the regime in its strict control of all forms of individual freedom and intensified its abuse of power, arbitrary detention, the use of torture and summary executions. Iranian women and religious minorities were subjected to institutional persecution. Freedoms of opinion and expression were seriously violated and the country remained a large prison for journalists. The speaker also raised the human rights situation in China.
OUBBI BOUCHRAYA, of International Union of Socialist Youth, said the international community should pay attention to the situation of human rights in Western Sahara where grave violations of human rights continued, without the international community taking any action. The Saharan people had undergone foreign domination for the last 121 years, and over the last 30 by Morocco which had invaded the territory and continued to deny the people their right to self-determination and independence. In the occupied territories, human rights defenders had suffered intimidation and threats of reprisal against themselves and their families.
PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said the situation in Nepal remained a hidden crisis not fully appreciated by the international community. For many years the people of Nepal had suffered grave and widespread human rights abuses in the context of an internal insurgency. Now Nepal was on the brink of a human rights and humanitarian catastrophe. Disappearances and extrajudicial killings had increased over the past year, as had instances of torture and rape by security forces in counter-insurgency operations. Maoist insurgents had also committed illegal killings, abduction, torture and child recruitment. Nepal's human rights community had been paralyzed by new restrictions under the state of emergency imposed on 1 February, with the National Human Rights Commission as well as national non-governmental organizations unable to investigate reports of abuses. The Commission was in a unique position to prevent a human rights catastrophe in the country by passing a robust resolution to condemn abuses by the State and by the Maoists, and by providing effective monitoring. This was not about naming-and-shaming, but about protecting victims and taking preventive measures to arrest the disastrous deterioration of the human rights situation.
Right of Reply
MUSTAFA LAKADAMYALI (Turkey), speaking in a right of reply, informed the Commission of the United Nations Secretary-General's reply to the letter of the Greek Cypriot leader, which had been referred to by the "Greek Cypriot Representative". The Secretary-General's reply was as follows: "As you will have inferred from my report, I take a different view from you on most of the ground covered in your letter and its annex. I do stand fully by my report, including the narrative and the analysis contained therein, the appeals I have formulated and the recommendations I have put forward, to which I hope the Greek Cypriot side will respond positively. It follows that I do not share your characterization of the conduct of the efforts of the United Nations".
JAMES DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), speaking in a right of reply in response to the right of reply by Turkey, said Turkey's invasion and occupation of a large part of Cyprus was blatantly a use of force counter to the United Nations Charter. There were resolutions calling for the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Cyprus, and condemning secessionist acts inspired by Turkey. Cyprus had put forth to the Commission indisputable facts regarding the human rights situation in Cyprus, as dealt with by international human rights organizations including the Commission that were charged with upholding human rights. Cyprus called for the implementation of the United Nations and Security Council resolutions.
SHU NAKAGAWA (Japan), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had given no satisfactory explanation on the fate of all the abductees. Thus, the issue was not resolved at all. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea should ensure the return of the remaining family members of the returned abductees to Japan, and provide information on the other cases. With respect to the past, the position of Japan had already been made clear and need not be repeated here.
CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia), speaking in a right of reply, said it was wrong to attribute the deaths of trade union leaders in Colombia to the Government. The Government of Colombia was working to resolve the situation by increasing its budget allocated to security. Following the recommendations by the Committee against Torture, the Government had realized the seriousness of the situation. It had therefore undertaken measures to train law-enforcing personnel, including the police. In 2001, the Government had implemented special programmes under its technical cooperation with the International Labour Office, to strengthen rights in the labour sector.
TOUFIQ ALI (Bangladesh), speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement of the European Union, said incidents of terrorism were not unique to Bangladesh, and happened anywhere in the world. Bangladesh was at the forefront of attempts to curb terrorism globally: each incident that occurred was investigated fully with utmost seriousness. The Government was taking the task of law enforcement very seriously, and in the recent past considerable strides had been made. What the European Union in its statement had asked for was a State guarantee of security for all. No country, and certainly not the Members of the European Union, had been able to achieve what the European Union was demanding from Bangladesh. The Government remained committed to striving for security to all, and would do everything in its power to achieve that end.
DANG TRAN NAM TRUNG (Viet Nam), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement of Canada, said that no one in Viet Nam was punished or detained for political or religious reasons. All fundamental human rights and freedoms of Vietnamese citizens were protected by the Constitution and laws, and were fully guaranteed in practice. Violators of the law were treated in accordance with the law. It was to be regretted that the Canadian statement had been based upon untrue information and did not confirm to the spirit of dialogue and cooperation in this forum.
SAMUEL MHANGO (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, said this morning he had heard hate speeches from British overseas territories singing from the same hymnbook with the same tone. That was normal and predictable for they represented their master's interests. What other view could Canada, Australia and New Zealand express on Zimbabwe, a country that had dumped Britain and taken back stolen land from white settler thieves. It was no wonder that Australia would lead Zimbabwe's condemnation for it was a country made up of convict descendents, rejects from British, with a ruthless reputation for butchering the aborigines, who were sadly today almost extinct. Nobody from the Commission should expect any constructive ideas from such people.
ABDUL MONEIM OSMAN TAHA (Sudan), speaking in a right of reply in response to the statements by the United States and Canada, said these statements had reflected a feeling of superiority, selectivity, and double standards. Nothing had been said of the efforts of the Government to find a solution to the Darfur crisis and provide assistance to all in unflinching cooperation with the African Union. Nothing had been said of the global peace process which had put an end to one of Africa’s longest wars. Regional constitutions had been adopted, provinces guaranteed a share of wealth and given a share of autonomy. The United States and the international community should pay more attention to the violations of human rights and international law committed by the rebels in Darfur, trying to whip up trouble. The international community should bring pressure to the rebels to accept a peace deal, nominating high-level delegates to the upcoming meeting held under the auspices of the African Union.
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement of the United States, said he had felt personally insulted, as should all those present at the Commission. How dare the United States come to the Commission and talk about human rights, democracy and freedom? Did it think that the Commission could not see things clearly? He showed pictures of United States' actions at Guantanamo Bay, and in Falluja and Abu Ghraib. What rights did these people have? The United States should have apologized and pledged not to commit such acts again. The world was currently witnessing crimes that had not been seen since the Fascist days.
BERNABE CARRERO CUBEROS (Venezuela), speaking in a right of reply in reference to the statement made by the United States, said when one talked of participative democracy, it included all aspects of democracy. Venezuela was in fact a direct democracy and it had carried out elections in all regions. There was a division of power with each state power separately exercising its power. There was no interference of the executive in the affairs of other powers. It was surprising that a genocidal State was talking of others while it was committing untold human rights violations in countries such as Iraq. That State should instead apologize for the mistakes it was committing.
BASHAR JA’AFARI (Syria) speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement by the United States, said that the statement made today mentioned Syria among other countries. The speaker had appointed himself a judge, levelling criticism on many countries. This happened although the United States refused to accede to international legality, accepted that Israel broached law, perpetrated an embargo on Cuba, and tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. The world today was not of one colour. It was a product of many civilisations, and could not be managed by the United States. It was the world of all, not of the representative of the United States, and needed helpful cooperation among civilisations and cultures, instead of returning to an era of occupation, invasion, hegemony and power. The world needed a human civilisation based on law, and not on brutal globalization.
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement of the United States, said he completely rejected the allegations. The United States was a systematic and consistent offender of human rights, and its sanctions and military threats against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea posed major obstacles to that country's full enjoyment of human rights. The United States had recently enacted legislation on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in an attempt to overthrow the Government. That served as a supreme form of the violation of the rights of sovereign States. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea rejected that move completely. The United States’ invasion of Iraq represented merely the tip of the iceberg of the violations committed by that State. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea remained determined to defend its values and its social system against the reckless efforts of the United States. The United States should address its own problems, instead of pointing the finger at others. Moreover, the delegations of Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Canada had been motivated purely by political
purposes. If they were truly interested in the situation of human rights in other countries, they should have focused their attention on the illegal invasion of Iraq by the United States, including its acts of harsh treatment and torture at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
Second, on the so-called "abduction" case, he said that it had been completely resolved. Japan had the moral and legal responsibility to address its past crimes including acts of genocide, kidnapping and sexual slavery perpetrated against Koreans. Instead of beautifying its military past, Japan must make its present clear in the eyes of the community.
LA YIFAN (China), exercising the right of reply in reference to the statement by the United States, said if there was a match of human rights violators, evidently, the United States would be the champion. In that country, racial discrimination was widespread and deep-rooted. The Black population was subjected to various forms of discrimination, including Black prisoners serving longer prison terms than white prisoners. In addition, acts of torture were encouraged.
GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal), speaking in a right of reply in response to the allegations levelled against it, said Nepal had been subjected to atrocities perpetrated by insurgents over the last nine years. The work of the Government in this context had been to ensure peace and security for all. The State of Emergency had been declared as the best possible means of countering the situation imposed by the terrorists. In this situation, certain derogable fundamental rights had been suspended, but this was only temporary and was being gradually relaxed. Non-derogable rights had never been suspended, and never would be. Political parties had not been banned. The King had confirmed his commitment to multi-party democracy. Violations of rights brought to the attention of the Government had been investigated and punished, and there was no culture of impunity. Government employees had been sensitised to human rights issues, and those found guilty of human rights crimes had been dismissed, tried and sentenced. There were also allegations about the freedom of human rights defenders which were not true. Nepal's cooperation with the international community would continue.
AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement by Canada, said he would refrain from addressing the issues raised as he had had prior occasions to address them. However, he wished to note that he had tried both here at the Commission, and during the Third Committee meetings in New York to engage Canada in a constructive manner. Two years ago, he had been told by the deputy leader of the delegation that she could not conduct a dialogue because she was reading a communication from her headquarters. He had not received any information on the charges levelled against his country, as he had requested. Also, last year, he had tried again to contact the Canadian delegation for a dialogue, unsuccessfully. As Canada did not have an embassy in Asmara, the Eritrean capital, he wondered how it gathered its information. Moreover, the Representative of Eritrea in Nairobi had been unsuccessful in contacting his Canadian counterpart. He would continue his attempts to have a meaningful dialogue with anyone from Canada.
GRACE R. PRINCESA (Philippines), speaking in a right of reply in reference to a statement by a non-governmental organization, said the Government of the Philippines was taking measures as regards land with the aim of making it beneficial to all of its people.
CHRISTIAN-CLAUDE BEKE DASSYS (Côte d’Ivoire), speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement of Canada, said that regarding impunity, trials were underway to combat this, and serious investigations had taken place. No foreigners had ever been driven out. The war situation and the events in November did force some foreigners to leave the country, but many had returned. These events were regretted, and were being investigated to identify those who were responsible. Human rights were a universal requirement, and nowhere had they been universally realised. What had Canada and the international community done for disarmament in order to promote and protect human rights, the speaker asked.
MIKE SMITH (Australia), speaking in a right of reply in response to an earlier statement by the Representative of Zimbabwe, said that a number of preposterous allegations had been made about the state of the country’s democracy and its treatment of indigenous people. Australia was one of the freest societies in the world, with a robust democracy in which elections were held frequently, the opposition was free to act without fear of intimidation, newspapers could present criticism of the Government, and in which every vote counted. He said that Australia's indigenous population was the most disadvantaged segment of society, but stressed that successive Governments had attempted to redress that situation, and had devoted well over $ 2 billion per year to that end. Moreover, indigenous Australians' land rights had been addressed, and they owned more than 20 per cent of the continent.
SHU NAKAGAWA (Japan), speaking in a second right of reply, urged the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to avoid its insincere attitude in dealing with the cases of the abducted persons.
CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply in response to the right of reply by Australia, said Australia was unique in the so-called developed world. The Aboriginal people were pitied, as they had not been able to escape the murderous settlers. Africa had also suffered from this kind of slavery. The Commission had some terrible racist blood-thirsty members, and Australia was one of these, and it was not surprising it had rushed to join the killings in Iraq.
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in exercise of his second right of reply, said that the abduction issue had been completely resolved. Historically, Japan had been the real violator of human rights. Japan was now provoking territorial conflicts with its neighbours on the basis of its territorial aspirations. Moreover, it was distorting its history with the aim of hiding its past crimes against humanity. The country had also become involved militarily in the affairs of other States, in breach of its peace Constitution, and motivated by the desire to recommence the invasion of other countries. Japan must curtail such activities or the international community would face a new catastrophe with even graver consequences than World War II. These were the consequences that could be brought about by Japan's failure to address its past crimes.
LA YIFAN (China), speaking in a second right of reply, said the Japanese Government should still make apologies for its past crimes, and it should correct its history books to reflect the reality.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
24 March 2005
The Commission on Human Rights this morning concluded its general debate on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world.
Issues raised by speakers included the need for Governments to cooperate with the United Nations and its special mechanisms, and the need to reform the Commission, as was particularly evident in light of this controversial agenda item.
In between accusations and counter-accusations, speakers said the global human rights approach should be based on an appreciation of objective social realities in different regions and countries, and should also be guided by the principles of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity. The current challenge to be overcome was to change the general approach to this item in order for the Commission to redeem its image and integrity. The spirit of multilateralism and cooperation should be demonstrated if the necessary conditions for the enjoyment of human rights through the world were to be created.
Speaking this morning were the delegates of Canada, Eritrea, Indonesia, Australia, Cuba, Kenya, and the United States.
Speaking in right of reply were Turkey, Cyprus, Japan, Colombia, Bangladesh, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, China, Nepal, Eritrea, Philippines, Côte d’Ivoire, and Australia.
Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations; International Human Rights Association of American Minorities; European Union of Public Relations; International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations; Centro de Estudios Europeos; Centrist Democratic International; Interfaith International; International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples; International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities; Union of Arab Jurists; Pax Romana speaking on behalf of Catholic Institute for International Relations and Franciscans International; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development; Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization; Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education); Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; International Union of Socialist Youth and Amnesty International.
The Commission will this afternoon discuss the situation of human rights in a number of countries under its confidential 1503 procedure. The next public meeting of the Commission will be held on Tuesday, 29 March at 10 a.m., when it will be addressed by the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Belarus, and Myanmar. The Commission will then begin consideration of its agenda item on economic, social and cultural rights.
General Debate on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Any Part of the World
PAUL MEYER (Canada) said there was no excuse for violations of the physical integrity of the person. Yet today, the world was witness to torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. That plague of abuses needed to be confronted and eradicated. For instance, in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the lack of respect for human rights was endemic. The two resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on Iran over the last two years reflected the serious concerns expressed by the international community on the human rights situation in that country. Regrettably, the situation in Iran with respect to human rights, democratic development and good governance did not improve in 2004. Arbitrary arrests and detention, as well as torture, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances continued to plague Turkmenistan, where the human rights situation was deplorable. In Belarus and Uzbekistan, intimidation of political opponents and journalists also remained a common occurrence. Canada remained preoccupied by the situation in Chechnya and it encouraged the Russian Federation to continue working with all relevant international institutions.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Canada condemned the execution of civilians, the armed conflicts, the extortion by the army and militias, the sexual violence against women and girls, and the general climate of impunity. The human rights and humanitarian situation in northern Uganda remained dire due to the ongoing insurgency by the Lord's Resistance Army. The speaker also highlighted human rights situations in Burundi, Nigeria, Eritrea, Pakistan, Sudan, Liberia, Colombia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Burma, Nepal Zimbabwe, Iraq, the Middle East, Togo, Sierra Leone, Cuba, Viet Nam, China and Kosovo.
AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) said peace blossomed in an environment in which States respected the sovereignty, territorial integrity and equality of each other. It flourished when each member of the international community was governed by the provisions of myriad international instruments which articulated the principles, norms and procedures that regulated peaceful resolutions and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Included in these was the principle that the final and binding decisions of arbitration commissions should be faithfully implemented. Should one of the parties renege on its obligations, those who had played an active role in the process that led to the agreement and willingly became witnesses had the moral and political responsibility to ensure its implementation, while those who had become guarantors had the legal responsibility to enforce the agreements.
It was therefore unfortunate that the tenuous peace that had prevailed after the signing of the Algiers Agreements was on the brink of being shattered because Ethiopia had now definitively rejected the final and binding decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission. During the past two and a half years, Ethiopia had been systematic in its subversion of international law and accepted norms of international behaviour. The people and Government of Eritrea wished to inform the Commission that Ethiopia's unrestrained assault on the rule of law, including international law, and the sanctity of treaty agreements, would not be limited to their bad effects on the well-being of the States as well as the peoples of the two countries and the region only. Lawlessness was a highly contagious virus and it spread wide and far at great speed. The people of the Horn of Africa had been through untold hardship during the past century because of war, and they should no longer be exposed to it, nor to hunger and pestilence. The right to life, peace and development were rights for which they were yearning.
EDDI HARIYADHI (Indonesia) said that while the growing globalization of human rights and fundamental freedoms all over the world testified to the fact that human rights had entered the current lexicon, no item on the agenda of the Commission on Human Rights had excited such politicization as the present one. The application of country-specific resolutions did not best serve the interest to protect and promote human rights. The key to the Commission's success lay in effective dialogue and international cooperation among States. The human rights protection system should be strengthened in conformity with the vision elaborated by late-High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and further highlighted by his successor, Louise Arbour. That vision should be pursued both under the present item, and under the item on technical cooperation and advisory services.
Human rights protection was not achieved by imposition from outside, he affirmed, but by growing demand from the people themselves, which resulted from enhanced awareness of human rights. In recent years, the human rights protection system in Indonesia had been built up through several measures including enhancement of public awareness of human rights, human rights education and dissemination; strengthening of national legislation; strengthening of the institutional framework to deal with human rights abuses; increasing the professionalism of the law enforcement apparatus; strengthening of the independence of the judiciary; and harmonizing of national legislation with international human rights standards and norms. Indonesia's civil society had played a role in enhancing the awareness of human rights throughout the country, as well as in developing national legislation related to human rights, and actively monitored and disclosed any occurrence perceived as a violation of human rights.
MIKE SMITH (Australia) said the delegation of Australia applauded those countries that had advanced the human rights of their citizens in practical and meaningful ways. The trend to freedom and democracy in various parts of the world was to be welcomed as shown by the recent elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia and the Palestinian Authority, and demonstrations of people power in Lebanon and Ukraine. The progress in the Middle East peace process was also to be welcomed. Australia valued China's frank approach to their bilateral human rights dialogue and welcomed its increased awareness of the need to improve human rights. The appalling humanitarian crisis in Darfur should end. The Government of Sudan had failed to rein n in pro-government militias or punish those who committed crimes, including widespread sexual violence. Australia remained deeply concerned about Zimbabwe's human rights record. Australia condemned the systematic use of state-sponsored violence, intimidation and harassment and called for the repeal of anti-democratic legislation that denied rights of free expression, association and assembly.
Australia urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to address pressing human rights and humanitarian concerns, including the torture of political prisoners and severe restrictions on religious freedom. Australia remained gravely concerned about human rights, national reconciliation and genuine political reform in Burma. Ongoing violations of legal due process and
suppression of press and other freedoms of expression in Iran particularly concerned Australia. Australia also called on the King of Nepal to restore multiparty democracy.
JORGE IVAN MORA GODOY (Cuba) said the Commission had started this session knowing it was about to commit suicide, as a result of the actions taken by the main industrialised Western powers which subjected its work to their spurious desires of domination and hegemony. In the face of this crisis, some deep rectification would have been expected, however, nothing had changed, and this issue would take the same course of confrontation as it had for the last few years. In fact, the United States, with the complicity of its closest allies, had confirmed its decision to impose a new anti-Cuban manoeuvre on the Commission. A shameful selectivity, the very obvious political manipulation, and absolute lack of objectivity had marked for over one decade the treatment of anti-Cuban resolutions imposed by the United States Government every year. This shameful practice was perhaps the most compelling example of the wrong and unfair path that the Commission had been dragged to in dealing with the so-called resolutions on countries. This practice had nothing to do with human rights, as all knew.
How long, Cuba asked, would the Commission allow impunity of arbitrary detentions and torture and humiliation of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and the international torture centre at the illegal Naval Base in Guantanamo. Why were the Commission's mechanisms not allowed to express their views? The countries of the South, those who were discriminated against, victims of these dirty political manoeuvres, and all the honest people in the world, demanded urgent answers, which radically and permanently changed the current state of affairs. It was about time the Commission was liberated from the burden weighing it down. The international community was forced to prevent the current United States administration from continuing with its unjustified, disproportionate and ruthless wars. The world should say "NO" to war, to crime, and to torture.
PHILLIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya) said that, since much of the criticism of the work and credibility of the Commission revolved around the present agenda item, the current challenge to be overcome was to change the general approach to this important item, in order for the Commission to redeem its image and integrity. The protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms remained a legitimate concern for Governments and the international community as a whole; however, the spirit of multilateralism and cooperation must be demonstrated if the necessary conditions for the enjoyment of human rights through the world were to be created. Were developing countries singled out for condemnation by coincidence, or by design? Or, was that situation proof of the correlation between human rights and poverty -- that in conditions of poverty and deprivation, human rights could not be guaranteed?
The global human rights approach must be based on an appreciation of objective social realities in different regions and countries, he affirmed, and must also be guided by the principles of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity. In recent years, there had been instances of human rights abuse in parts of the world not addressed by the Commission. That situation could only support the contention that this item had been applied selectively, and remained driven by ulterior motives invoked to settle bilateral disputes between Member States. The Commission must not be allowed to become the tool of power politics. A strengthened and more representative Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was vital to realizing the objective of impartiality and non-selectivity. It must be provided with the human and financial resources to enable it to provide objective reports on which the Commission could base its decisions. The special mechanisms must be empowered to make objective reports on all the countries of the world. And all Governments must cooperate with them if meaningful results were to be achieved.
RUDY BOSCHWITZ (United States) said in the three years since the fall of the Taliban regime, the people of Afghanistan had struggled against terrorism and traditional ethnic, religious and tribal cleavages, to extend fundamental rights to women and minorities, and to open their society to unprecedented political competing and freedom of expression. They had also crafted a
new Constitution faithful to their values and way of life. On January 30, Iraqis took an important step towards democracy, when millions braved violence and threats to cast their votes in the most democratic and transparent election in their history. Though not yet a State, the Palestinian Authority had held successful presidential elections. In nearby Lebanon, the people had recently used their internationally recognized right to assembly to demand the right to determine their own future. In Yemen, a female minister for human rights continued her struggle on behalf of women. Saudi Arabia held limited municipal elections earlier this year. In Jordan, the reform effort continued. Egypt had announced it would amend its Constitution to allow contended multi-party presidential elections. Morocco had changed its Family Code to increase the rights of women. Algeria had held its first contested presidential elections. Ukraine had consolidated its democracy.
In Russia, regression towards the concentration of power in the Kremlin posed questions for that country's democratic transition. There was a steady deterioration of democracy in Venezuela. In Nepal, the King's recent dismissal of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet set back that country's already cautious movement towards parliamentary democracy. Cuba, the Western Hemisphere's only totalitarian regime, had maintained its stance of rejection of all democratic processes and continued its harassment and intimidation of pro-democracy activists, dissidents, librarians and journalists. The Commission should send a powerful signal to the Government of Belarus to halt its assault on its own citizens’ rights. In Sudan, the United States was working directly with both the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement to facilitate the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The speaker also enumerated the human right situation in China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Burma, Iran, and Zimbabwe.
JAN LONN, of International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, said there was deep concern over the silence among Member States on the grave and systematic violations of human rights and humanitarian law taking place in Iraq. There was no international scrutiny of human rights in present-day Iraq. It was a matter of great importance for the credibility of the United Nations human rights work that the Commission take prompt action at this session. The Commission should not shirk its responsibilities to condemn the many instances of torture in Iraq, and to reaffirm the prohibition of torture as a peremptory norm of international law.
SADIA MIR, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, noted that, year after year, the Commission had been informed about the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. The United States State Department had reported significant human rights abuses including extrajudicial killings and the excessive use of force by security forces, torture and rape by police and other agents of the Governments, poor prison conditions, arbitrary arrests and incommunicado detention, prolonged detention, occasional limits on the freedom of the press and movement, and harassment and arrest of human rights defenders. Independent monitoring organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as by the international media, had observed the brutal oppression of the population in Indian-held Kashmir. Many cases of disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture and violence against women had been submitted to the special mechanisms of the Commission. The Commission must reassure Kashmiris that they may be out sight, but they were not out of mind.
MOHAMMED MUMTAZ KHAN, of European Union of Public Relations, drew attention to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, where violence in the Indian-administered Kashmir continued against those who held different political opinions. Elected councillors were gunned down alongside dozens of common people to punish them. Those killings and violence were apparently attributed to the militia groups allied to India. The disputed status of the State had widely been used to hold back basic freedoms and human rights. The two disputed regions under Pakistan known as Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas (Gilgit Balistan) had been ignored by the international community, despite the fact that the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and other members of civil society had documented widespread denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms there.
SHAMIN SHAW, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said the Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir happened to be amongst the most brutalised places on earth. Living under perpetual occupation, humanity continued to suffer and bemoan the loss of innocent lives. The situation could be portrayed as a gross, systematic and massive abuse of all basic rights. There was no dearth of information about human rights violations in Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir, only extreme apathy of the Commission and its mandate holders towards remedial action. The High Commissioner for Human Rights should appoint a Special Representative on Kashmir to monitor and issue periodic reports on all aspects of the disputes.
LAZARO T. MORA SECADE, of Centro de Estudios Europeos, said numerous Governments and non-governmental organizations had denounced the manipulation of the present agenda item, which allowed developed countries to exert pressure on developing countries to extract advantages that had nothing to do with human rights. That selectivity was made clear by the lack of allusion to the human rights violations committed through the torture and degrading treatment to which prisoners had been subjected in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and at the United States naval base of Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba. If one wanted to speak of protecting Cubans' human rights, the flagrant violations of the Cuban people's economic, social and cultural rights, and of their right to self-determination, which were violated by the commercial, economic and financial blockade imposed by successive United States administrations, must be addressed. The Commission should insist that the blockade be ended, and that the rights of Cubans be observed.
JOHN SUAREZ, of Centrist Democratic International, said the systematic human rights violations in Cuba continued to deprive people of their fundamental freedoms, which were enshrined in the international human rights norms. In 2003, 14 dissidents had been freed conditionally for health reasons. The international community had also pressed the Government of Cuba to release them. According to Amnesty International, the Government of Cuba still held in detention 70 prisoners of conscience. The majority of Cuban prisoners were living in conditions that did not respect the international standard on prison conditions.
MEHRAN BALUCH, of Interfaith International, said the military regime of Pakistan had suppressed the Baluch people for nearly six decades, exploiting their lands and natural resources which were exploited by the ruling oligarchy, and suppressing their legitimate political, and economic, social and cultural rights, including their right to self-determination. As a result, the Baluch nation lived in deprivation and fear. The Commission should send a special fact-finding team to Baluchistan to investigate the ongoing operations there.
VERENA GRAF, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples, said the people of Cyprus had been suffering widespread and ongoing violations of fundamental human rights since the 1974 Turkish military invasion of the island. The northern part of Cyprus had been occupied by tens of thousands of Turkish troops for more than 30 years. It had been colonized by settlers, via forcible displacement and population transfer in that occupied territory, in an attempt to create an ethnically homogenous Turkish zone. The European Court of Human Rights had found Turkey responsible for violations of basic human rights in Cyprus, yet Turkey continued to ignore that judgment, and to occupy the northern part of Cyprus. The international community and the United Nations preferred to present the Cyprus problem as one of internal strife between ethnic groups, rather than the invasion of a sovereign State by another sovereign State. The Annan plan had been exceptionally unfair and unbalanced, and had been rejected by the Cypriots. The international community, and the Commission on Human Rights, should not close their eyes to such grave and massive violations of human rights. They should demand that Turkey comply with the judgments of international courts, and take immediate steps to remove its troops and settlers.
KURT OTZ, of International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities, said in Cyprus, due to Turkey's act of aggression, basic human rights and decisions by international courts were all breached and violated in an ongoing
and widespread manner for over 30 years. In the occupied part of Cyprus, the illegal and unrecognized regime was governed by an electorate body, whose vast majority was comprised of settlers, rather than the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population. That, in itself, eliminated the right of the Turkish Cypriots to express their free will and aspirations. The Turkish Cypriots were continuously oppressed and harassed by the Turkish army and settlers, as were the Greek Cypriots who remained in the occupied territories after the invasion.
ELIAS KHOURI, of Union of Arab Jurists, said the protection of human rights was impossible in an environment of war, occupation, injustice and violence, which bred counter-violence and terrorism, as in the Middle East, where peoples did not just have to put up with violations of their own rights from their own Governments, but also with foreign aggression. After two years, the situation of human rights in Iraq was getting worse, contrary to the reports of the media. The occupiers were completely flouting international law. In Israel, the Government built walls and flouted the most elementary human rights. These were crimes that could be considered as war crimes. The people of the region aspired to peace, freedom and democracy. It was a situation of double standards which endangered peace and security in the region.
YOHANES BUDI HERNAWAN, of Pax Romana, delivering a joint statement on behalf of the Catholic Institute for International Relations and Franciscans International, said he wished to call attention to serious violations of human rights in Papua, Indonesia. Extrajudicial killings had been reported, and those who were only injured had been charged with treason and membership of the Free Papua Movement. However, they had only asked for fair compensation for their land rights from the Djayanti timber company. In another area, the security situation remained unclear following the killing of a local priest by security forces. The judicial system had proved itself unable to convene fair trials due to the pervasive influence of the security apparatus. Moreover, Papua remained second lowest in rank on the Indonesian Human Development Index in 2004, despite a Gross Regional Domestic Product ranking third highest in the country. The Commission should urge the Indonesian Government to apply a rights-based approach to development in the region, to protect and respect the human rights of indigenous peoples in Papua, and to uphold the rule of law to combat impunity and corruption, among other steps.
ARJUN KARKI, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, said the Forum was greatly concerned about serious human rights violations, abandoned rule of law, worsening democratic rule in Nepal and the restrictions placed on the work of human rights defenders and independent media personnel in Nepal. The suspension of human rights on 1 February had further increased the gross and systematic violations committed by both the Government and the Maoist insurgents. A lack of democratic space had created serious obstacles to the prospect for dialogue and negotiated settlement. The United Nations and the international community should play a significant role in reinstating democracy and lasting democratic peace in Nepal.
SHAUKAT BALOCH, of Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization, said in Balochistan a military operation had been launched by the Pakistan army. The need to use heavy weapons against its own people proved that the people of Balochistan were not willing to remain as a part of Pakistan. A solution of political issues by peaceful means was believed in, and not the use of missiles, mortars and gunship helicopters, and this should take the form of a referendum held under the supervision of the United Nations. The right to life was the most sacred of all human rights and this right was in imminent and immediate danger in Balochistan. The Commission, the international community and others should prevail upon the Government of Pakistan to refrain from further military operations in Balochistan.
VICTORIA TAULI CORPUZ, of Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education), recalled that it had been nearly two years since the Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples had released his official report on the Philippines, and the Foundation was concerned that his recommendations had not been taken on board by the
Government of the Philippines. Among those recommendations upon which the Government should have acted figured the establishment of an office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Philippines to provide technical cooperation in the field of protection and promotion of human rights. Another recommendation that had been blatantly ignored was to the effect that the resolution of land rights issues should always take priority over commercial development. Even its manner of implementing the free and prior informed consent act was problematic. Consent had been engineered through creation of fake tribal councils. In light of the situation, the Special Rapporteur should again be invited to visit the country to follow-up his initial recommendations. The Government should also work with the Office of the High Commissioner to establish an office in the Philippines.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said the pseudo-election in Iran had reinforced the regime in its strict control of all forms of individual freedom and intensified its abuse of power, arbitrary detention, the use of torture and summary executions. Iranian women and religious minorities were subjected to institutional persecution. Freedoms of opinion and expression were seriously violated and the country remained a large prison for journalists. The speaker also raised the human rights situation in China.
OUBBI BOUCHRAYA, of International Union of Socialist Youth, said the international community should pay attention to the situation of human rights in Western Sahara where grave violations of human rights continued, without the international community taking any action. The Saharan people had undergone foreign domination for the last 121 years, and over the last 30 by Morocco which had invaded the territory and continued to deny the people their right to self-determination and independence. In the occupied territories, human rights defenders had suffered intimidation and threats of reprisal against themselves and their families.
PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said the situation in Nepal remained a hidden crisis not fully appreciated by the international community. For many years the people of Nepal had suffered grave and widespread human rights abuses in the context of an internal insurgency. Now Nepal was on the brink of a human rights and humanitarian catastrophe. Disappearances and extrajudicial killings had increased over the past year, as had instances of torture and rape by security forces in counter-insurgency operations. Maoist insurgents had also committed illegal killings, abduction, torture and child recruitment. Nepal's human rights community had been paralyzed by new restrictions under the state of emergency imposed on 1 February, with the National Human Rights Commission as well as national non-governmental organizations unable to investigate reports of abuses. The Commission was in a unique position to prevent a human rights catastrophe in the country by passing a robust resolution to condemn abuses by the State and by the Maoists, and by providing effective monitoring. This was not about naming-and-shaming, but about protecting victims and taking preventive measures to arrest the disastrous deterioration of the human rights situation.
Right of Reply
MUSTAFA LAKADAMYALI (Turkey), speaking in a right of reply, informed the Commission of the United Nations Secretary-General's reply to the letter of the Greek Cypriot leader, which had been referred to by the "Greek Cypriot Representative". The Secretary-General's reply was as follows: "As you will have inferred from my report, I take a different view from you on most of the ground covered in your letter and its annex. I do stand fully by my report, including the narrative and the analysis contained therein, the appeals I have formulated and the recommendations I have put forward, to which I hope the Greek Cypriot side will respond positively. It follows that I do not share your characterization of the conduct of the efforts of the United Nations".
JAMES DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), speaking in a right of reply in response to the right of reply by Turkey, said Turkey's invasion and occupation of a large part of Cyprus was blatantly a use of force counter to the United Nations Charter. There were resolutions calling for the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Cyprus, and condemning secessionist acts inspired by Turkey. Cyprus had put forth to the Commission indisputable facts regarding the human rights situation in Cyprus, as dealt with by international human rights organizations including the Commission that were charged with upholding human rights. Cyprus called for the implementation of the United Nations and Security Council resolutions.
SHU NAKAGAWA (Japan), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had given no satisfactory explanation on the fate of all the abductees. Thus, the issue was not resolved at all. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea should ensure the return of the remaining family members of the returned abductees to Japan, and provide information on the other cases. With respect to the past, the position of Japan had already been made clear and need not be repeated here.
CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia), speaking in a right of reply, said it was wrong to attribute the deaths of trade union leaders in Colombia to the Government. The Government of Colombia was working to resolve the situation by increasing its budget allocated to security. Following the recommendations by the Committee against Torture, the Government had realized the seriousness of the situation. It had therefore undertaken measures to train law-enforcing personnel, including the police. In 2001, the Government had implemented special programmes under its technical cooperation with the International Labour Office, to strengthen rights in the labour sector.
TOUFIQ ALI (Bangladesh), speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement of the European Union, said incidents of terrorism were not unique to Bangladesh, and happened anywhere in the world. Bangladesh was at the forefront of attempts to curb terrorism globally: each incident that occurred was investigated fully with utmost seriousness. The Government was taking the task of law enforcement very seriously, and in the recent past considerable strides had been made. What the European Union in its statement had asked for was a State guarantee of security for all. No country, and certainly not the Members of the European Union, had been able to achieve what the European Union was demanding from Bangladesh. The Government remained committed to striving for security to all, and would do everything in its power to achieve that end.
DANG TRAN NAM TRUNG (Viet Nam), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement of Canada, said that no one in Viet Nam was punished or detained for political or religious reasons. All fundamental human rights and freedoms of Vietnamese citizens were protected by the Constitution and laws, and were fully guaranteed in practice. Violators of the law were treated in accordance with the law. It was to be regretted that the Canadian statement had been based upon untrue information and did not confirm to the spirit of dialogue and cooperation in this forum.
SAMUEL MHANGO (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, said this morning he had heard hate speeches from British overseas territories singing from the same hymnbook with the same tone. That was normal and predictable for they represented their master's interests. What other view could Canada, Australia and New Zealand express on Zimbabwe, a country that had dumped Britain and taken back stolen land from white settler thieves. It was no wonder that Australia would lead Zimbabwe's condemnation for it was a country made up of convict descendents, rejects from British, with a ruthless reputation for butchering the aborigines, who were sadly today almost extinct. Nobody from the Commission should expect any constructive ideas from such people.
ABDUL MONEIM OSMAN TAHA (Sudan), speaking in a right of reply in response to the statements by the United States and Canada, said these statements had reflected a feeling of superiority, selectivity, and double standards. Nothing had been said of the efforts of the Government to find a solution to the Darfur crisis and provide assistance to all in unflinching cooperation with the African Union. Nothing had been said of the global peace process which had put an end to one of Africa’s longest wars. Regional constitutions had been adopted, provinces guaranteed a share of wealth and given a share of autonomy. The United States and the international community should pay more attention to the violations of human rights and international law committed by the rebels in Darfur, trying to whip up trouble. The international community should bring pressure to the rebels to accept a peace deal, nominating high-level delegates to the upcoming meeting held under the auspices of the African Union.
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement of the United States, said he had felt personally insulted, as should all those present at the Commission. How dare the United States come to the Commission and talk about human rights, democracy and freedom? Did it think that the Commission could not see things clearly? He showed pictures of United States' actions at Guantanamo Bay, and in Falluja and Abu Ghraib. What rights did these people have? The United States should have apologized and pledged not to commit such acts again. The world was currently witnessing crimes that had not been seen since the Fascist days.
BERNABE CARRERO CUBEROS (Venezuela), speaking in a right of reply in reference to the statement made by the United States, said when one talked of participative democracy, it included all aspects of democracy. Venezuela was in fact a direct democracy and it had carried out elections in all regions. There was a division of power with each state power separately exercising its power. There was no interference of the executive in the affairs of other powers. It was surprising that a genocidal State was talking of others while it was committing untold human rights violations in countries such as Iraq. That State should instead apologize for the mistakes it was committing.
BASHAR JA’AFARI (Syria) speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement by the United States, said that the statement made today mentioned Syria among other countries. The speaker had appointed himself a judge, levelling criticism on many countries. This happened although the United States refused to accede to international legality, accepted that Israel broached law, perpetrated an embargo on Cuba, and tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. The world today was not of one colour. It was a product of many civilisations, and could not be managed by the United States. It was the world of all, not of the representative of the United States, and needed helpful cooperation among civilisations and cultures, instead of returning to an era of occupation, invasion, hegemony and power. The world needed a human civilisation based on law, and not on brutal globalization.
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement of the United States, said he completely rejected the allegations. The United States was a systematic and consistent offender of human rights, and its sanctions and military threats against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea posed major obstacles to that country's full enjoyment of human rights. The United States had recently enacted legislation on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in an attempt to overthrow the Government. That served as a supreme form of the violation of the rights of sovereign States. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea rejected that move completely. The United States’ invasion of Iraq represented merely the tip of the iceberg of the violations committed by that State. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea remained determined to defend its values and its social system against the reckless efforts of the United States. The United States should address its own problems, instead of pointing the finger at others. Moreover, the delegations of Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Canada had been motivated purely by political
purposes. If they were truly interested in the situation of human rights in other countries, they should have focused their attention on the illegal invasion of Iraq by the United States, including its acts of harsh treatment and torture at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
Second, on the so-called "abduction" case, he said that it had been completely resolved. Japan had the moral and legal responsibility to address its past crimes including acts of genocide, kidnapping and sexual slavery perpetrated against Koreans. Instead of beautifying its military past, Japan must make its present clear in the eyes of the community.
LA YIFAN (China), exercising the right of reply in reference to the statement by the United States, said if there was a match of human rights violators, evidently, the United States would be the champion. In that country, racial discrimination was widespread and deep-rooted. The Black population was subjected to various forms of discrimination, including Black prisoners serving longer prison terms than white prisoners. In addition, acts of torture were encouraged.
GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal), speaking in a right of reply in response to the allegations levelled against it, said Nepal had been subjected to atrocities perpetrated by insurgents over the last nine years. The work of the Government in this context had been to ensure peace and security for all. The State of Emergency had been declared as the best possible means of countering the situation imposed by the terrorists. In this situation, certain derogable fundamental rights had been suspended, but this was only temporary and was being gradually relaxed. Non-derogable rights had never been suspended, and never would be. Political parties had not been banned. The King had confirmed his commitment to multi-party democracy. Violations of rights brought to the attention of the Government had been investigated and punished, and there was no culture of impunity. Government employees had been sensitised to human rights issues, and those found guilty of human rights crimes had been dismissed, tried and sentenced. There were also allegations about the freedom of human rights defenders which were not true. Nepal's cooperation with the international community would continue.
AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement by Canada, said he would refrain from addressing the issues raised as he had had prior occasions to address them. However, he wished to note that he had tried both here at the Commission, and during the Third Committee meetings in New York to engage Canada in a constructive manner. Two years ago, he had been told by the deputy leader of the delegation that she could not conduct a dialogue because she was reading a communication from her headquarters. He had not received any information on the charges levelled against his country, as he had requested. Also, last year, he had tried again to contact the Canadian delegation for a dialogue, unsuccessfully. As Canada did not have an embassy in Asmara, the Eritrean capital, he wondered how it gathered its information. Moreover, the Representative of Eritrea in Nairobi had been unsuccessful in contacting his Canadian counterpart. He would continue his attempts to have a meaningful dialogue with anyone from Canada.
GRACE R. PRINCESA (Philippines), speaking in a right of reply in reference to a statement by a non-governmental organization, said the Government of the Philippines was taking measures as regards land with the aim of making it beneficial to all of its people.
CHRISTIAN-CLAUDE BEKE DASSYS (Côte d’Ivoire), speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement of Canada, said that regarding impunity, trials were underway to combat this, and serious investigations had taken place. No foreigners had ever been driven out. The war situation and the events in November did force some foreigners to leave the country, but many had returned. These events were regretted, and were being investigated to identify those who were responsible. Human rights were a universal requirement, and nowhere had they been universally realised. What had Canada and the international community done for disarmament in order to promote and protect human rights, the speaker asked.
MIKE SMITH (Australia), speaking in a right of reply in response to an earlier statement by the Representative of Zimbabwe, said that a number of preposterous allegations had been made about the state of the country’s democracy and its treatment of indigenous people. Australia was one of the freest societies in the world, with a robust democracy in which elections were held frequently, the opposition was free to act without fear of intimidation, newspapers could present criticism of the Government, and in which every vote counted. He said that Australia's indigenous population was the most disadvantaged segment of society, but stressed that successive Governments had attempted to redress that situation, and had devoted well over $ 2 billion per year to that end. Moreover, indigenous Australians' land rights had been addressed, and they owned more than 20 per cent of the continent.
SHU NAKAGAWA (Japan), speaking in a second right of reply, urged the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to avoid its insincere attitude in dealing with the cases of the abducted persons.
CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply in response to the right of reply by Australia, said Australia was unique in the so-called developed world. The Aboriginal people were pitied, as they had not been able to escape the murderous settlers. Africa had also suffered from this kind of slavery. The Commission had some terrible racist blood-thirsty members, and Australia was one of these, and it was not surprising it had rushed to join the killings in Iraq.
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in exercise of his second right of reply, said that the abduction issue had been completely resolved. Historically, Japan had been the real violator of human rights. Japan was now provoking territorial conflicts with its neighbours on the basis of its territorial aspirations. Moreover, it was distorting its history with the aim of hiding its past crimes against humanity. The country had also become involved militarily in the affairs of other States, in breach of its peace Constitution, and motivated by the desire to recommence the invasion of other countries. Japan must curtail such activities or the international community would face a new catastrophe with even graver consequences than World War II. These were the consequences that could be brought about by Japan's failure to address its past crimes.
LA YIFAN (China), speaking in a second right of reply, said the Japanese Government should still make apologies for its past crimes, and it should correct its history books to reflect the reality.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: