COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CONCLUDES SPECIAL MEETING ON SITUATION IN KOSOVO

EVENING

HR/CN/99/20
1 April 1999


Debate Continues on Question of Human Rights Violations Anywhere in World


The Commission on Human Rights concluded this evening a special meeting on events in Kosovo, with speakers diverging on whether or not international military intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was justified but agreeing that the region's sole long-term hope was a political solution arrived at through negotiation.

Among those supporting the NATO intervention was Albania, which charged that the "bloody" regime of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was trying to achieve a centuries-old dream of Serbians -- the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. More than 500,000 had been expelled from Kosovo while thousands of others were in concentration camps or had been herded into areas the Serbs expected the NATO forces to bomb, the Albanian representative said. He said it was apparent that many other Kosovars simply were being murdered.

Croatia and Bulgaria termed the intervention regrettable but justified, and, among non-governmental organizations, Pax Romana said the use of force seemed necessary, although military action was always a sign of failure -- of democracy, of international diplomacy, of civil society.

Diverging opinions were heard from Cuba and China.

The Cuban representative remarked that other speakers had only referred to one part of the tragedy being lived through in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; he asked if the Commission was going to talk about the other part -- the civilians, the women, the children who were suffering and dying under the NATO bombs falling on houses around the country. The war was a recurrence of a situation earlier in the century under which Europe tore itself apart through war while the US enriched itself, Cuba charged.

China contended that a political solution must be sought to the crisis, which it termed an internal affair of Yugoslavia. The Chinese representative said all countries had the right to deal with internal affairs free from outside interference -- any other action was a violation of international law and should be dealt with as such.

Following completion of the special meeting around 7 p.m., the Commission returned to its debate on the question of human-rights violations anywhere in the world. A long series of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) took the floor.

Among them was the International Association for Religious Freedom which decried intolerance or violence linked to religious extremism in a number of countries and regions, including Israel, India, Algeria, Afghanistan, Jammu and Kashmir, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.

Amnesty International alleged abuses by, among other countries, the United States, contending there were many human-rights violations there affecting racial or ethnic minorities and that increasing imposition of the death penalty in the US was arbitrary, with race, ethnic origin, and economic status as key factors determining who was condemned.

Addressing the meeting were representatives of Norway, Cuba, China, Mexico, Argentina, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, New Zealand, Lebanon, and Ethiopia.

The following non-governmental organizations also delivered statements: International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; Pax Romana; Transnational Radical Party; National Union of Jurists of Cuba (joint statement with two other NGOs); International Association of Democratic Lawyers; Christian Solidarity International; International Association for Religious Freedom; Human Rights Watch; Union of Arab Lawyers; International Commission of Jurists; World Organization against Torture; Amnesty International; International Indian Treaty Council; International PEN; International Human Rights Association of American Minorities; American Association of Jurists; International League for Human Rights; Movement against Racism and for Friendship Among Peoples; and Al-Khoei Foundation.

Representatives of Rwanda, Malaysia, Cuba, Turkey, North Korea, Sudan, Iraq, Greece, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kuwait, and Belarus spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. Tuesday, 6 April, to continue its debate on the question of human-rights violations anywhere in the world. The Commission’s morning meeting will be a private session.


Statements


BJORN SKOGMO (Norway) said the situation unfolding in Kosovo was serious, and deplored the massive infringements of human rights taking place there as reported by refugees. Among the violations were forcible detentions and campaigns of eviction.

The campaign to get rid of ethnic Albanian politicians was deplored. All necessary assistance should be given to the International Criminal Tribunal in bringing to trial those responsible for human-rights violations in Kosovo. The ongoing campaign had created an enormous need for international assistance. Financial assistance was required, but little could be done within Kosovo itself. Only a solution based on democratic procedures could succeed in the region.

CARLOS AMAT FLORES (Cuba) said many speakers had only referred to one part of the tragedy being lived through in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; was the Commission not going to talk about the other part -- the civilians, the women, the children who were suffering and dying under the NATO bombs falling on houses around the country? A single NATO bomb could kill more people than many of the human-rights violations that were being referred to again and again. Yugoslavians, it should be remembered, fought with the greatest heroism against the Nazis in World War II.

NATO, which was led by the United States, should have found other ways of ensuring international peace and security instead of violating the UN Charter and many standards of human rights and international law. This war was hare-brained and tragic; it was a recurrence of the situation earlier in the century under which Europe tore itself apart through war while the US enriched itself. The strongest power in the world was wreaking destruction on a small country to serve the interests of a few countries that sought to remake the world in their image. This unjustified aggression must be ended and negotiation used to solve the Yugoslavia's internal problems.

LIU XINGSHENG (China) said that the developments in Kosovo had caused concern among all peace-loving peoples in the world. A political solution should be sought, since after all it was an internal affair of Yugoslavia. Any other action was a violation of international law and should be dealt with as such.

China had always advocated that a peaceful solution through negotiation should be reached. China considered that it was the right of all countries to deal with internal affairs free from outside interference. All attacks against Yugoslavia should come to an end, so that peace could be restored at an early date.

CARMEN MORENO DEL CUETO (Mexico) said the situation in Yugoslavia was rapidly becoming a catastrophe; Mexico very much regretted that a peaceful solution to the Kosovo problem had not been found through dialogue; and it condemned the horrible human-rights violations now occurring that were leading to massive population movements; the UN could not remain inactive in the face of such a situation. The Security Council had the responsibility for dealing with this crisis, and yet it had not given approval for the current international military action.

Violence had never solved any problems; violence begot violence. It was imperative that the fighting stop immediately, and that human-rights abuses cease immediately. The Commission must make a strong appeal for an immediate cease-fire and good-faith negotiations. A lasting peace would not result in any other way.

PABLO CHELIA (Argentina) said the Argentine delegation was grateful for the information provided by previous speakers, such as the Special Rapporteur on Yugoslavia and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and for the efforts being taken to maintain human rights and the rule of law in the area. The statement of Mexico was fully endorsed.

The role that could be played by the Commission, related to the universal application of human rights, should be considered. Measures for restoring respect for human rights and healing the wounds of the civilian population were necessary.

KSENOFON KRISAFI (Albania) said the holding of the special meeting was a sign of legitimate concern on the part of the Commission and the international community; the tragedy in Kosovo was solely the responsibility of Milosevic and his clique; the bloody Milosevic regime was perpetrating one of the worst crimes in Europe since the Second World War; Belgrade was trying to achieve a centuries-old dream of Serbians -- the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. More than 500,000 had been expelled from Kosovo while thousands of others were in concentration camps or had been herded into areas the Serbs expected the NATO forces to bomb. And it was apparent that many others simply were being murdered.

NATO's intervention was necessary to put an end to this diabolical plan for ethnic cleansing which had been in development for some time. It would have been better if the international community had reacted firmly in 1989, when Milosevic first ended autonomy for Kosovo Albanians -- instead there had been years of violence and human-rights abuses leading to this current tragedy.

PETKO DRAGANOV (Bulgaria) said the country was deeply concerned about the impact of the human rights situation in the region as a whole, both in political and economic terms. Humanitarian and financial assistance should be rendered as soon as possible. No re-direction of the refugee flows should be done, since this could hamper their eventual return, which was a most important goal. The basis for the solution to the conflict should be autonomy and recognition of Kosovo by the international community.

Yugoslavia should sign the Rambouillet Accords. The international community should signify its support for the refugees by providing humanitarian aid as soon as possible via the appropriate authorities. The Yugoslav Government should cease its activities with regard to the Kosovars immediately, notably its attempts towards ethnic cleansing. Bulgaria would not be involved in military action in Yugoslavia either directly or indirectly, but expressed solidarity with the European Union in its efforts to achieve a solution, and urged the Government in Belgrade to sign the peace agreement.

SPOMENKA CEK (Croatia) said it regretted that the Government of Yugoslavia had not accepted the peace agreement drafted by the international community; Croatia strongly supported the international community's use of all necessary means to force Yugoslavia to accept such an agreement.

Under the circumstances, the use of force was justifiable; what was being attacked militarily here were ethnic cleansing and human rights violations on a vast and severe scale. There was nothing else to do but to stand up to such aggression. It also had to be pointed out that any solution to Kosovo must take into account the wishes and aspirations of the vast majority of Kosovo's population, and must grant them full human, civil, and political rights.

YMER YAKA, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said the Federation had warned the Commission for more than 10 years of the situation in Kosovo. Every year the Commission had received reports by the Special Rapporteur about human rights violations in Kosovo. The current situation was the tragic result of a policy of terror and ethnic cleansing that had been continuing for several years.

The errors committed by the international community were now clear, since the Serbian Government was convinced that it could get away with its policies. There was a need to reform international methods for dealing with such problems. The international community needed to intervene whenever gross violations of human rights occurred, such as the genocide occurring in Kosovo with its deliberate intention of destroying the ethnic Albanian population. The international community should take action urgently, and the International Criminal Tribunal should launch procedures against those responsible for the atrocities.

ANTOINE SONDAG, of Pax Romana, said recourse to force seemed necessary to enforce a peace plan for Kosovo; recourse to military force was always a sign of failure. This failure was also a failure of international civil society, including non-governmental organizations; no one had known how to strengthen the democratic currents in Yugoslavia; no one had been able to strengthen the ability to forge peaceful democratic agreements in Yugoslavia so that problems could be solved without violence.

The OSCE had intervened too late to succeed. The embargo against Yugoslavia also had been a mistake -- it had rebounded to the detriment of the inhabitants of Yugoslavia. A lack of firm international diplomacy had reinforced Milosevic's feeling that he could continue to manipulate the situation to his advantage.

PAOLO PETROSANTI, of Transnational Radical Party, said the entire international community had the responsibility for having left the people of Yugoslavia alone in the hands of a person such as Milosevic.

The responsibility of the international community was to remedy the situation. Violence, however, was not the solution, but the chance for peaceful resolution had been denied. The international trade unions of Yugoslavia had been asked by the Transnational Radical Party to indict Milosevic. Milosevic should be brought to trial.

LAZARO MORA, of National Union of Jurists of Cuba, speaking on behalf of European Study Centre and another NGO, said member States and NGOs should come out against the current international attacks against Yugoslavia, recalling that the UN Charter prohibited such actions. The point of the Charter was to promote peace; and peaceful means should be used in this case to resolve the difficulties being discussed. In any case it was up to the Security Council to determine when there was such a threat to peace that international military interference was justified.

No regional military bloc, in complete violation of international law, should be allowed to attack a sovereign nation. Problems could not be solved by military aggression. Or was NATO going to act in the same way against Israel and other countries that systematically violated human rights?

ROGER FARRELL (New Zealand) said armed conflict and massive population movements had led to serious violations of human rights in parts of Africa. Refugee populations were among those most vulnerable to human rights abuses. The situation in Algeria was tragic, and the international community needed to find a solution. Iraq's continuing refusal of access to the UN Special Rapporteur was deplored, but the findings of the Special Rapporteur on Iran were encouraging.

The political instability in Afghanistan continued to give rise to grave human rights concerns, especially in areas under the control of the Taliban. The human rights abuses in the former Yugoslavia and Myanmar were deplored, and the positive evolution in Cambodia greeted with pleasure. As to East Timor, the positive developments there were also encouraging. Human rights standards in China remained worrying, but China's signature of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was encouraging. The efforts of New Zealand to promote peace in Bougainville had progressed.

WALID NASR (Lebanon) said Lebanon was concerned about Israel's continued occupation and human rights violations in south Lebanon in defiance of UN and Commission resolutions; Israel carried out daily bombardments and a naval blockade; attacks were made on civil facilities; women and children suffered.

Israel's detention camps recalled the camps the world had known half a century ago. Such camps held 200 Lebanese citizens and were a gross violation of human rights. Some of those imprisoned without trial in them were very young. Many others were not released when they completed their sentences. Monitoring organizations, including the Red Cross, were not allowed to visit these camps. Meanwhile citizens of south Lebanon continued to suffer. The Israeli occupation must end.

MINELIK ALEMU (Ethiopia) said that since the Eritrean Government had unleashed unprovoked aggression against Ethiopia, it had persistently violated the cardinal principles enshrined in all international human rights instruments, and continued to do so. These systematic and gross violations had been committed by the Eritrean regime against Ethiopian nationals in the illegally occupied areas, as well as against those who legally resided in Eritrea and against prisoners of war.

The Eritrean government had struck against civilian targets deliberately, as well as deliberately destroying civilian infrastructures. Ethiopia had illegally and forcefully imposed Eritrean nationality on Ethiopians in occupied areas and had held thousands of Ethiopian nationals hostage, while concealing their whereabouts. The Eritrean authorities, members of the police force, and private individuals who took part in these atrocities should answer for their crimes.

PEV SOLGI, of International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said massive human-rights violations continued in Iran; among the many problems there was that no independent political parties or publications were able to function; recently there had been murders of writers and political dissidents -- at least 10 had been killed. After the discovery of the bodies of the victims, and despite heavy pressure from the people of Iran and the international community, the Government had conspired in a concerted effort to conceal the true identities of the killers; now four months had passed without any concrete information being given to the families of the victims.

A documentary film on stoning in Iran had been shown by the Iranian Resistance outside the country and also in this building, although the Iranian Government had tried to stop information about stoning from reaching the international community. The situation in Iran remained very serious and deserved the continued attention of the Commission.

ABDON AGAW JOK NHIAL, of Christian Solidarity International, said CSI was disturbed at the Sudanese Government's policy of genocide in Sudan, which had killed more than had the genocide in Kosovo. It was difficult to consider why life-saving international aid was withheld in deference to a Government that was causing such enormous human destitution.

The regime in Khartoum had declared jihad in 1992. An international conference on jihad was suggested, to decide whether it was a religious right or a denial of the human rights of the victims. The numerous human rights violations against the people of Sudan were not voiced by Sudanese, since they were under the grip of a totalitarian Islamist Government. For a peaceful solution to be found, self-determination was necessary for the people of southern Sudan. It was time to end Africa's longest-running civil war.

GIAFRANCO ROSSI, of International Association for Religious Freedom, said totalitarianism linked to religious extremism was a cause of great concern; all great religions preached tolerance, but many extremists were not tolerant. Recently ultra-Orthodox groups in Israel had staged a large demonstration that had made most Israelis very worried; in India religious minorities were suffering violence at the hands of Hindu extremists; in Algeria Muslim extremists were violently trying to impose their view of a political-religious State on everyone else; in Afghanistan, the extremists of the Taliban were violating women's rights in unimaginable ways.

Also of concern were situations of religious extremism in Jammu and Kashmir, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. All States were urged to act to curb tendencies towards violent religious extremism within their borders.

CLARA KRISANTI, of Pax Romana, said that since the last session of the Commission, a series of flagrant violations of fundamental human rights had occurred and even developed on a large scale in, among other places, Mexico, Equatorial Guinea and Indonesia. Mexico, despite accepting the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and the elaboration of a National Public Security Programme, was continuing to effect arbitrary detentions and to harass and attack political and popular organizations in the country. Explicit condemnation by the international community was necessary.

As for Equatorial Guinea, there was a need for international institutions and States to reconsider their relations with the Guinean regime until there was an improvement of human rights and democracy. The human rights situation in Indonesia continued to worsen.

CHRISTINA PORTILLO, of Human Rights Watch, said that despite signing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights last October, China continued to restrict freedom of association, persecute pro-democracy activists, restrict freedom of expression, and deny religious rights; in Tibet it had launched an "atheist propaganda" campaign and continued "reeducation" programmes in Buddhist monasteries and nunneries.

No one could dispute that Algeria had a profoundly serious human-rights situation, although Algeria's Government tried to do so; the Government had failed to conduct or allow credible investigation of massacres there and refused to cooperate with the Commission's mechanisms; a Special Rapporteur should be appointed. The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo continued to be serious and the Special Rapporteur's mandate should be renewed.

FAROUK ABU EISSA, of Union of Arab Lawyers, expressed concern over the continuing violation of human rights in the Middle East, including Palestine, Israel, and in the Golan. Tribute was paid to the General Assembly for proposing a conference of the Geneva Conventions signatories, and all success was hoped for this meeting.

The suggestion for NGOs to hold a parallel conference was applauded. Justice could not exist without human rights. Terrorism impeded the process, for example in Algeria. Events in Sudan and Afghanistan were the result of the setting-up of theocratic states which persecuted persons of other religions. Laws restricting freedoms continued to exist, and human rights defenders continued to be imprisoned. Some States were asserting right to impose their own views on the international community, and this was unjust, since it often caused unjust sanctions, such as against Iraq and Libya. Such sanctions were a violation of international law.

ADAMA DIENG, of International Commission of Jurists, said the situation in Sierra Leone was beyond description; all sides were reported to have committed gross human-rights violations so atrocious that they cast a shadow of lasting shame on humanity; there had been slaying of women and children and maiming of scores of civilians. Those responsible must be brought to justice and the Commission should publicly consider the situation in the country, which now was dealt with under its confidential procedure.

No words could describe the situation in Kosovo, either. Serbian tactics of ethnic cleansing had to be ended and those responsible brought before the International Criminal Tribunal. Mexico was to be commended for taking positive steps to resolve the situation in Chiapas, but still there were serious human-rights problems there. Also deserving attention were human-rights situations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Congo Brazzaville.

ANNE-LAURENCE LACROIX, of World Organisation against Torture, expressed concern at State violence perpetrated against civilian populations, notably in Africa, and specifically in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Dialogue must be used to solve these trends -- all parties to the Great Lakes conflict must sit down around a table and find a peaceful solution.

Sanctions should be imposed against all perpetrators of human-rights violations, since this would help to find a peaceful solution to tragedies occurring across the globe. Media and political silence often surrounded these tragedies. There were, however, hopeful signs, for example in Algeria, where the international community had finally become involved. Non-state organizations also had responsibility, and needed to respect the law and fundamental freedoms. In Yemen recently, peace demonstrators had been arrested arbitrarily. The Commission needed to give Yemen more attention, and to adopt measures to make the authorities there take a more democratic stance.

ISABELLE SCHERER, of Amnesty International, said attention should be paid to human-rights situations in Algeria, Cambodia, and Turkey. In the United States, there were many human-rights violations affecting racial or ethnic minorities; over 3,500 were awaiting execution in US prisons; and the former Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary, or arbitrary executions had found that imposition of the death penalty in the US was arbitrary, with race, ethnic origin, and economic status as key factors determining who suffered this ultimate punishment. Torture, rape, and ill-treatment also were frequently reported in prisons.

In the Great Lakes region of Africa -- Burundi, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- extrajudicial executions, torture, and "disappearances" continued on a massive scale; trials often were unfair and resulted in death sentences; impunity for human-rights violations prevailed. A well-coordinated international response was vital, including use of human-rights monitors; also an extraordinary meeting of the Commission should be held on the Great Lakes region.

MARCELINO DIAZ DE JESUS, of International Indian Treaty Council, said the human rights situation in Mexico was serious; violations occurred regularly and systematically. Torture, rape, arbitrary detentions and executions were a regular part of daily life, especially in those areas lived in by indigenous peoples, but also all across Mexico. Operations against indigenous peoples were carried out by the police, the military, and paramilitaries. Reprisals were made against those who complained.

There was no independent, effective body to investigate human rights violations, and those guilty of them boasted publicly of their crimes. Indigenous peoples were held in humiliating and inhuman conditions in Mexican jails. They also lived in the poorest areas, and in many cases their land had been stolen. Land was the basis of their cultural existence, a sacred right. The Commission was requested to send a Special Rapporteur to investigate the situation of human rights in Mexico, and especially to look into the plight of indigenous peoples.

FAWZI ASSAAD, of International Pen, said the organization was deeply concerned about the existence of writers held under long terms of imprisonment in a number of countries. Sentences of several years' duration had been inflicted on writers and journalists in the following countries: China, Myanmar, Syria, Turkey and Vietnam.

These writers had been detained in violation of their rights as guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Recent amnesties of writers in a number of countries were warmly welcomed, yet the persistence of long-term detention as a means of silencing dissent remained a cause for concern. All writers and journalist held for the peaceful practice of their rights ought to be released.

MARQUETTA GOODWINE, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said she spoke on behalf of the Gulla/Geechee Sea Island Coalition; her people had been denied the opportunity to speak in public for generations; her ancestors were captives of British enslavers; the Sea Islands that were their home were located off South Carolina down to the coast of northern Florida; Gullah people later had been forced to work on the mainland as servants; they had lost many of their old cultural ways; most knew nothing of their history; many had lost their cultural characteristics and language.

The recent influx of tourists into the Gullah region had added to her people's cultural submersion; schools did not teach her people's children their history. The Commission was appealed to help the Gullah people.

CARMEN GARCES, of American Association of Jurists, said that violations of human rights occurred in cases where judicial proceedings did not happen in accordance with international law, such as when accusations were without proof, juries were not present, judges had their faces hidden, and the accused were denied lawyers.

A specific example of this kind of problem was a case in Chile, that of Doctor Margarita M. Chuquiure Silva. Doctor Silva had been imprisoned improperly, tortured, and kept in inhuman conditions. The Chilean Government was called upon to remedy the situation.

ANDREI SANNIKOV, of International League for Human Rights, said President Lukashenko of Belarus had forcibly changed the Constitution of Belarus and concentrated all power in his hands; now human rights and fundamental freedoms were widely denied to citizens of Belarus; the president continued his persecution of political opponents, democratic parties, public organizations, and trade unions. There was constant pressure on the independent press, and this was a serious matter, as independent newspapers were the only Belarusian source of objective information since the electronic media were completely controlled by the authorities.

Two parliamentarians remained in jail despite the fact that they had committed no criminal offenses and their parliamentary immunity had never legally been lifted The country had turned into a dictatorship; it was time for the international community to act.

JEAN-JACQUES KIRKYACHARIAN, of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said human rights violations of all kinds were occurring in overwhelming fashion, but he would pay specific attention to Iran. The conditions for taking seriously the intentions of the Iranian people regarding human rights were emphasized. The Iranian people, having elected Ayatollah Khatami, had indicated their desire for democracy and freedom.

The first thing to do was to free those prisoners jailed for their opinions, to cancel political prosecutions, to free those condemned for their beliefs, and to abolish cruel and degrading punishments. Freedom of speech was also necessary, as was freedom of religion.

YOUSIF ALKHOEI, of Al-Khoei Foundation, said human-rights violations continued on a great scale in Iraq; the Special Rapporteur's work had been impaired by the Government's refusal to allow him to visit the country. The list of offences committed was seemingly endless: arbitrary, extrajudicial and summary executions; arrests, torture, and other unusual and degrading punishments; forced displacements; denial of freedoms enjoyed by normal civil societies.

Recently there had been pronounced persecution of the Shi'as, including the assassination of Ayatollah al-Sadr on 19 February, only a week after he demanded release of prisoners in what was to be his last sermon. He was the third high-ranking Shi'a cleric to be murdered in the last 12 months. The Commission must urge the Iraqi Government to allow the Special Rapporteur to visit and must release all prisoners of conscience and allow the stationing of human-rights monitors throughout Iraq.

Rights of reply

GERALD GAHIMA (Rwanda), speaking in right of reply, said the EU had criticized Rwanda, but the Rwandan Government had amply demonstrated its commitment to human rights by bringing the violence in Rwanda under control. There was a distinct improvement in human rights as a result. Those guilty of violations against human rights and genocide were brought to justice, and such measures as the setting up of a new police force and local government had been taken -- even a system of administration of justice had been built from scratch. The problems of conditions of detention should be put into context: the widespread participation of Rwandan society in genocide was to blame for the overcrowding. The policy to establish grouped settlements was based on purely economic and social considerations. There were still some human-rights problems, but the statement of the EU on Rwanda did not go far enough in recognizing the improvements made. Rwanda valued the support it had received from the EU for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes.

HASNUDIN HAMZAH (Malaysia), speaking in right of reply, said the European Union had not understood the situation in Malaysia; measures taken by the Government to maintain public order had been taken in conformity with Malaysian laws; efforts were justified to protect public order in some cases. The Government would allow visits of international human-rights authorities; it had nothing to hide. The trial of Anwar Ibrahim was open and thus open to public scrutiny -- thus it was clear that Malaysia held open and fair trials.

CARLOS AMAT FLORES (Cuba), speaking in right of reply, said the United States and the European Union had criticized human rights situations in many countries, but the United States was a consistent violator of human rights itself, and this had been acknowledged in the Commission. Violence against immigrants, racism, poor conditions of detention, and other such abuses occurred in the US. The only way that the US could speak of the poor conditions of human rights in the countries of the South was through applying a hypocritical double standard and taking a paternalistic attitude. The US had a declared intent of promoting subversion and destroying Cuba. The EU, which claimed to be the critical conscience of mankind, did not tackle its own problems, let alone those of its allies. This was again proof of double standards and political hypocrisy.

MURAT SUNGAR (Turkey), speaking in right of reply, said the European Union had passed judgement on nearly half the world; the EU's approach obviously was a selective one, among other things, in its approach to terrorism. It was interesting that terrorism in Turkey wasn't deemed worth mentioning by the EU, and perhaps terrorism's many innocent victims in Turkey weren't worthy of notice. But Turkey held to the highest standards of human rights and the rule of law; Turkey would never deviate from that course and give in to the terrorists.

RIM YONG CHOL (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in right of reply, said the statement made by the US had to be denounced. The US had had a policy of isolating Korea for over half a century, and thus it should be aware that the more it indulged in human-rights accusations, the stronger Korea would defend socialism. If the US were truly interested in human rights, it would address human-rights violations committed within its borders and by its nationals abroad. GIs had committed human-rights violations in Korea; they were a result of capitalism and a policy of hatred towards Korea. As for the statement of Canada, it was an attempt to slander Korea.

DAVID DE CHAND (Sudan), speaking in right of reply, said an NGO was persistently offering its offices to allow a group of human-rights violators against Sudanese to speak before the Commission. Christian Solidary International had allowed a spokesman for a rebel terrorist group to address the Commission; this group had committed many human-rights violations in Sudan. The group alleged that Sudan allowed slavery; but that simply was not true, as indicated by the fact that the country's 14 independent newspapers had said nothing about it. The Government was currently filing criminal charges against this rebel organization for violating laws against slavery.

SAAD HUSSAIN (Iraq), speaking in right of reply, said the statement made by the United States was uncalled for, as the US was the last country with a right to talk about human rights. It was the country with the atomic bomb, as well as the country that had invaded Vietnam; the US maintained an economic blockade against Iraq, in violation of international human-rights instruments. The daily violation of human rights by the US made it unjustifiable for them to point the finger at other regimes. Kuwait had also spoken of Kuwaiti missing people. This issue was being discussed by Iraq with the Red Cross, and the Iraqi regime was doing its best to find an appropriate solution to the matter.

DIMITRIS KARAITIDIS (Greece), speaking in right of reply, said Turkey's statement earlier today was totally unfounded, false, and malicious; Greece also denounced categorically the booklet distributed by Turkey today against the rules and traditions of this Commission. Greece had great respect for human rights and had a long tradition of doing so; it respected the territorial integrity of all States and condemned all terrorist activity wherever or whenever it occurred. Greece did not support any activity of the PKK and never had tolerated illegal activity on her territory that could be used against any third country.

AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea), speaking in right of reply, said the Ethiopian representative had accused Eritrea of expelling Ethiopians, torturing them, targeting civilians, and destroying infrastructure. Ethiopia was challenged to bring any credible reports on the matter before the Commission. Eritrea could quote impartial reports that showed clearly that all such accusations were unjustified. Ethiopia was asked to identify their sources for such allegations, and the UN and any other organizations or Governments were invited to Eritrea to investigate the allegations. A peaceful settlement was hoped for, without reservations, and Eritrea hoped for a speedy denouement.

MINELIK ALEMU GETAHUN (Ethiopia) said Eritrea's statement did not match reality; Eritrea was the aggressor in the situation referred to, as an international observer -- the Organization for African Unity -- had confirmed. Ethiopia's persistent effort to persuade the international community to take a firm stand on this conflict had been interpreted by Eritrea as a sign of weakness; as a result, in the end, Ethiopia had had no choice but to respond militarily to Eritrean aggression.

DHARAR RAZZOOQI (Kuwait), speaking in right of reply, said the statement made by Iraq had been a tissue of lies. All present knew the facts, and the Special Rapporteur was clear in his report. After the cessation of hostilities, it was part of the Geneva Conventions to release prisoners of war. There were prisoners of war and third-party nationals abducted by Iraq, and Iraq had consistently engaged in obstructive behaviour when it came to releasing or accounting for them. Iraq was shirking its obligations under international law.

STANISLAU OGURTSOV (Belarus), speaking in right of reply, said the statement made by one of the representatives of opposition circles in Belarus -- he stressed "opposition", but not an opposition group in favour of human rights -- had talked about some alleged violations supposedly taking place in Belarus; but his claims had the smell of hypocrisy and falsehood. Belarus made mistakes like all other countries, but violations of human rights which unfortunately took place in Belarus were in no case representative of a State policy. The person who had made this accusation on behalf of the International League for Human Rights was concerned only with spreading slander against the country that granted him the freedom to speak freely.