COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CONTINUES DEBATE ON THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD

Commission on Human Rights
58th session
8 April 2002
Afternoon



The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon continued its debate on the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world by hearing statements from representatives of Governments and non-governmental organizations about alleged violations in specific countries and regions.
Many delegates defended their Governments' records of human rights promotion and respect and some highlighted the human rights violations committed in other countries. Some delegations also spoke against what they termed as selectivity and double standards used by some States in the Commission.
Violations were alleged in Iraq, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Colombia, China, Cuba, the Republic of Chechnya, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia, Burma, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the occupied Palestinian territories and parts of Israel, Sudan, East Timor, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Haiti, Turkish-occupied Cyprus, the United States and in developed countries.
The representatives of the following countries contributed to the debate: Norway, New Zealand, India, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Sudan, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Tunisia, the United States, Belarus, Australia, Cyprus, Greece, Qatar, Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Azerbaijan and Latvia.
The following non-governmental organizations also spoke: World Union for Progressive Judaism; International Fellowship of Reconciliation; Arab Organization for Human Rights; Aliran Kesedaran Negara: National Consciousness Movement; and Transnational Radical Party.
Exercising their right to reply were the Czech Republic, Eritrea, Thailand, Viet Nam, Bangladesh, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Pakistan, Swaziland, China, Sudan, Germany, Cyprus and Argentina.
When the Commission reconvenes at 10 a.m., it will continue its debate on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world.

Statements
JOHN PETTER OPDAHL (Norway) said that the promotion and strengthening of human rights and fundamental freedoms was a cornerstone of his Government's policy. Norway regarded human rights as being not exclusively a national concern but also an international one. Thus, Norway would continue to raise human rights issues in a constructive manner whenever it was required and strongly believed that increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms would make an effective contribution to the promotion of peace and stability. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms must, therefore, be an integral part of any national policy. He said Norway remained concerned about massive human rights violations in Iraq; that there was a need to broaden and deepen the participation of all, including ethnic groups, in the transition towards democracy in Myanmar; that the authorities of Zimbabwe must put an end to the extreme levels of systematic violence and restore the respect for human rights; that Ethiopia and Eritrea must bring their conflict to a final and peaceful conclusion; and that only a negotiated solution could put an end to the conflict in Colombia. Concerns were also voiced about the situation in China, Cuba and the Republic of Chechnya.
Concerning human rights violations of the most vulnerable, women and children, it was stressed that they were at risk of suffering from grave and systematic abuses. In this context, Norway was particularly concerned about the situation in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, and the Central African Republic. Recent reports confirmed that sexual and other gender-specific abuses of women and children were flagrant in all of these countries.
DEBORAH GEELS (New Zealand) said that for her country, the protection and promotion of human rights for all people in all countries was a priority. Over the past 50 years, the United Nations had built up an increasingly comprehensive framework of human rights protections, embracing civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. These were universal rights, not specific to particular regions or cultures. The important task facing the Commission was to work together to ensure the implementation of these universal principles of human rights. Promoting the better implementation of fundamental rights and freedoms was, in itself, an effective means of tackling the new uncertainties and challenges facing our world today, promoting peace, security and development.
New Zealand expressed concern about the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, Iraq, Israel and the occupied territories, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Myanmar, Cambodia, China, East Timor and Indonesia. Fully achieving the promotion and protection of all fundamental human rights and freedoms was a challenge for all States and we must all strive to do better.
DEEPA GOPALAN WADHWA (India) said that she was certainly not in favour of the accountably of States being given the go by. However, if the objective was to promote and protect human rights, merely spotlighting human rights abuses would not suffice. Better results could be achieved by encouraging self-criticism and inducing positive change through technical cooperation and national capacity building, in particular to promote democracy and the rule of law. The complexity, vastness and diversity of India had posed gigantic challenges at the time of its independence. However, independent India had all along provided an example of democratic organization of an intensely pluralistic society in which myriad individual manifestations of identity were not submerged in a melting pot but allowed full freedom to add richness to national life.
Memories could be fickle; however, mistakes should never be forgotten if those were not to be repeated in the future. The Minister of Law of the military regime of Pakistan, speaking before the Commission last year, had said that with the Taliban being a reality in Afghanistan, the Government of Pakistan believed that to promote the international community's goal of peace and stability in the region, to eradicate terrorism, to deal with the course of drugs and arms, it was necessary for Pakistan and for the international community to engage with the Taliban regime. India had pointed out that except for the active assistance of Pakistan, the Taliban would not have succeeded in imposing their cruel rule over the Afghan people. India regretted that Pakistan, where minorities lived under pitiable conditions, was resorting to tactics of quoting out of context in the unfortunate incidents in the Indian state of Gujarat. Pakistan forgot about its active assistance and support to terrorist elements that committed cross-boarder terrorism.
SHAMSSUZAKIR KAZEMI (Afghanistan) said that regarding the report of the Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan, the chronology of events in the country served as a useful reference to the situation there following the downfall of the Taliban regime. Afghanistan fully supported the recommendations that had been made, both internationally and nationally, and would do its utmost to undertake their implementation. The Interim Authority had taken immediate action to create an administration aimed at dealing with a wide range of issues and problems confronting the Afghan people, as a result of long years of neglect and systematic destruction of the economic, social and cultural fabric of their society. Initially, the Interim Authority had undertaken an assessment of immediate needs of the Afghan people in all these areas throughout the country. The several administrative bodies that had been set up required adequate staffing and the building up of their capacities aimed at taking appropriate measures to improve the over all human rights situation in Afghanistan, of women and children in particular. The efforts initiated to this effect by the Interim Authority called for the immediate and active support of the international community. The Office of the High Commission played a paramount role in this context.
An examination of the concept of the right to development in Afghanistan was dealt with through a "needs assessment" covering all walks of life, bearing in mind both current and future considerations. The realization of all the goals set out by the Interim Authority was largely dependent on the availability of resources ear-marked for 2002. He trusted that the pledges made by donors at the Tokyo Conference for the coming five years would be promptly met. Effective and continued international assistance and cooperation was essential in order to help the Afghan people attain their fundamental rights and live in peace and dignity.
WALID A. NASR (Lebanon) said that the Commission had adopted resolution 10/2001 on the situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel, calling on Israel to release all Lebanese detainees and requesting the Secretary-General to report to the Commission on the implementation by Israel of this resolution. The report of the Secretary-General indicated that in May 2001 the Secretary-General sent a note verbale to the Government of Israel requesting information on the implementation of the resolution. The report indicated that no response had been received by the Government of Israel by the date of the publication of the report. This attitude by Israel was not new, Israel had always disregarded UN resolutions.
Lebanese detainees were held in solitary confinement and subjected to torture in Israeli prisons. Scores of Lebanese citizens had been transferred into prisons in Israel, where they were held without trial. Others who had completed their prison terms were not freed, but were used as bargaining chips. Another issue of concern was mines in southern Lebanon. During its occupation of southern Lebanon, Israel had planted thousands of land mines, causing numerous victims among the civilian population. Lebanon had asked Israel to provide it with maps indicating their location. Israel, however, did not give Lebanon these maps. Lebanon continued to demand all the maps from Israel. Israel continued to refuse to hand over these maps.
YASSIR SID AHMED (Sudan) said that every country in the world suffered from violations of human rights, particularly in the Middle East, which had left a negative notion of human rights. The international community, particularly the pioneering States, should stop the human rights violations in the Middle East. The policy currently pursued by the North should prove its objectivity. Sudan had experience with cooperating with the international community. Sudanese civil society had been proposing a number of positive initiatives in its efforts to cooperate with the international community. The Government of Sudan, on its part, had been making efforts to establish a peaceful society which would improve the human rights of its population; and would continue to do so in order to achieve progress for its population.
ANA NAVARRO (Nicaragua) said in past decades, the Nicaraguan people had suffered from the experience of living under a totalitarian regime. During the past twenty years, she had had the sad privilege of meeting the victims of the totalitarian regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba. She had met political prisoners, and seen the scars on their bodies and in their souls. Since Nicaragua had experienced a similar political regime, Nicaraguans had to lend their voices to speak for those who could not do so for themselves. During 2001, repression had increased in Cuba. For the last 43 years, the basic human rights of the Cuban people had been violated. The Cuban people did not have political rights because the Communist Party, the only legal party, and its leader Fidel Castro had absolute power. Those who had peacefully tried to promote changes had ended up in prisons. For the Cuban people, there was no justice. The fundamental democratic precept of judicial independence was not valid as judges were chosen by the Communist Party based on their political integration and their commitment to the regime. People under arrest were held incommunicado indefinitely.
Political prisoners were also denied medical attention as a form of punishment. In Cuba, freedom of the press was suppressed totally. All mass media -- radio, television and written press -- belonged to the Government, and there was not the slightest possibility of expressing dissenting opinion. The repression in Cuba was such that distribution of the Declaration of Human Rights was classified by the Government as a "counter-revolutionary activity". The Nicaraguan Government could not forget about Cuba, which had been enslaved for 43 years and it was therefore speaking on behalf of the voiceless -- the Cuban people.
PRASAD KARIYAWASAM (Sri Lanka) said that consistent with Sri Lanka's commitment to human rights, his country had ratified no less that 15 international human rights instruments. Several ground breaking measures and initiatives had been taken in the recent past to enhance good governance and the rule of law. Towards this end, the Parliament had adopted an amendment to the Constitution which through a Constitutional Council enhanced independence of key State institutions and the judiciary, and ensured transparency in governance as well as consensual policy. The newly elected Government of Sri Lanka was fully conscious that for democracy to flourish and for people to enjoy fundamental freedoms, it was essential to ensure freedom of expression.
The Government was also taking concrete steps to accelerate the process of ending the conflict in the North and the East and restoring durable peace in the country. The Government had reached a landmark agreement for a permanent cease-fire with the LTTE and considered the agreement as a first step and firm foundation for achieving a political solution to the conflict. All communities in Sri Lanka and the international community had warmly welcomed the revival of the peace process. The Government was committed to speedily restoring normalcy throughout the country and had announced a moratorium on the application of the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Government had also launched an accelerated rehabilitation programme for the North and the East involving shelter, health, power supply communications, road constructions, as well as a programme for promoting human rights in the region.
BADR ABDEL ATTY (Egypt) said that it rejected the targeting of Arab and African countries by the Commission. Western countries attempted to impose a certain concept of human rights that ignored the complexity of the world and the plurality of values. The Commission's resolutions contained negative aspects which did not encourage the promotion of human rights. These resolutions ignored progress made in developing countries and the circumstances surrounding human rights violations, some of which were beyond the control of governments, such as violations caused by economic crises and globalization. The resolutions were also selective. There were no draft resolutions targeting advanced countries, despite the fact that many violations occurred in these countries. The greatest violations of human rights in the world were the Israeli violations of the rights of the Palestinian people.
MOHAMED HATEM BEN SALEM (Tunisia) said that his country rejected any partial assessment of human rights based on a given non-verifiable or selective manner. The human rights situations in the countries that gave lessons to others was alarming. In those same States, legislation was enacted on the pretext of combatting terrorism, which in fact tended to reduce respect for fundamental freedoms. The insecurity, prison overcrowding and suicide rates in the police stations were high.
Tunisia was building a democratic society and was devoted to the promotion and respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Those were the irreversible policies of the State, which were advocated for by its Head of State. The people of Tunisia, who had struggled for decades and who had paid heavy sacrifices to restore their freedom, were today, more than ever, attached to universal human rights values.
KEVIN EDWARD MOLEY (the United States) said that many positive things had happened over the last year, including the democratization of Sierra Leone, the elections in Peru and the fall of the oppressive Taliban regime, which had denied the people their inalienable human rights. Unfortunately there were still countries where little or no progress had been made. Iraq neither respected the rule of law nor the rights of its citizens and defied United Nations Security Council resolutions. Cuba continued to violate the fundamental rights of its citizens as its authorities routinely harassed, imprisoned, and defamed human rights advocates and others who criticized the Government. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea continued to commit egregious human rights abuses and to deny its citizens fundamental freedoms.
China's human rights record remained poor and repression in Iran had intensified as hard-liners increased efforts to contain the majority supported calls for a more free and open society. Recent elections in Zimbabwe had been neither free nor fair and the Sudanese Government continued to intentionally target Sudanese civilians, and increasingly the United Nations itself, in a war that had already killed two million people and displaced another four million. Reports of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in Chechnya continued and the record of Viet Nam's human rights situation had worsened in some respects last year. Burma's record on political repression, forced labour, ethnic persecution, religious freedom and trafficking in persons remained dismal and Haiti's historically poor human rights record had deteriorated even more in the last year. The United States sought respect for universal human rights and looked forward to working with the international community on these matters of concern to everyone.
VLADIMIR KOROLEV (Belarus) said that item 9 remained one of the most pressing items on the agenda of the Commission. There was a need for increased international cooperation to promote a constructive approach to human rights. Belarus was prepared to accept constructive criticism but rejected a politicized approach to human rights. The objective of the Commission was to promote human rights at the international level and the Commission must accord more importance to general concepts such as racism, poverty and terrorism. Belarus was striving to create a healthy civil society and achieve a clear balance of powers.
Belarus believed that the protection and promotion of human rights constituted an integral part of any democratic development. After 10 years of independence, presidential elections were held in the country for the second time. Over 20,000 international and national observers monitored the elections. Belarus was one of the few States of the former Soviet Union where there were no conflicts based on ethnic or religious grounds. Belarus respected the human rights of every person regardless of his or her gender, education or faith.
LESLIE LUCK (Australia) said that in an increasingly unsettled world environment it was easy to overlook the fact that human rights abuses remained prevalent around the globe, and it was up to the international community to continue to pressure the perpetrators of those abuses until they ceased. Only then, when the inalienable rights and dignity of every human being were fostered, cherished and protected, could one be proud of the way one cared for people. Australia believed that when democracy was not allowed to flourish, human rights would suffer accordingly. The trauma of the past years made it therefore even more pertinent that every nation remain committed to the principles of truly democratic governance. Democracy, together with good governance and the rule of law, were the foundation of freedom and peace, natural custodians of human rights, and were a step towards a prosperous and equitable civil society. Human rights were violated in many countries, including Zimbabwe, Indonesia, China, Burma, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the West Bank, Gaza and parts of Israel, and Sudan.
ALEXANDROS VICKIS (Cyprus) said that there was a need to take the floor to inform the Commission of the unacceptable situation of human rights in Cyprus since 1974 as a result of the Turkish invasion and occupation of more than a third of the island. Turkey continued with impunity to obstinately refuse to accept and implement countless United Nations resolutions. Moreover, Turkey had been found guilty by the European Court of Human Rights and the Commission of Human Rights of the Council of Europe of continuous violations of human rights in Cyprus in connection with, among others, the more than 1,300 missing Greek Cypriots, the inhuman treatment of their relatives, and the continued violation of the rights of the remaining few Greek Cypriots still living in the area.
The report before the Commission did not fulfill the purpose for which it was requested. The situation of human rights in Cyprus was unacceptable, and the report avoided presenting the reality of the situation of human rights in the island. The report failed not only the people of Cyprus, but also all that the Commission stood for. Some of the more serious violations included the colonization of the occupied part of the island by 115,000 settlers from mainland Turkey; the nearly 200,000 displaced persons as a result of the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Turkey; the deliberate, systematic and massive destruction of the cultural heritage in the occupied part of the island; and the inhuman conditions imposed by the occupation regime on the enclaved Greek Cypriot and Maronites, whose numbers as a result, had been steadily diminishing. Human rights in Cyprus were violated by Turkey which maintained an occupation army of more than 40,000 fully equipped and heavily armed troops. It was hoped that Turkey would change its attitude and adopt a constructive approach so that the negotiations taking place in Nicosia between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash would be successful.
PANAYOTIS SARRIS (Greece) said that the human rights situation in Cyprus continued to remain an issue of grave concern. Violations of the rights of the population of Cyprus had been committed by Turkey during the invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and were being committed every day to this day by the occupying power, the subordinate local administration of Turkey in the northern part of the island. A recent ruling of the European Court of Justice found Turkey guilty of violating 14 articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, including the right to life, the right to liberty and security, the right to freedom of thought and the right to freedom of expression.
The systematic pillage and destruction of the island's cultural heritage continued. More than 500 orthodox churches had been ravaged, others had been converted to mosques, hotels or restaurants. Icons and frescos were sold off in the international black market. Greece recalled that the Commission's resolution 1987/50 called for full restoration of all human rights to the population of Cyprus, in particular to the refugees and expressed alarm at changes in the demographic structure of Cyprus with a continuing influx of settlers, called for the accounting of missing persons in Cyprus and called for the restoration of respect of the human rights of all Cypriots, including the freedom of movement, the freedom of settlement and the right to property.
MOHAMED AL-MALKI (Qatar) said that some quarters in the Commission had been attempting to distort the reality of the violations in the occupied territories of Palestine. The fact was that barbaric atrocities were being committed by the occupying Israeli forces in the name of self-defence. Palestine had also the right to defend itself. The consciousness of the international community should be able to condemn the situation that was taking place in the occupied territories of Palestine. The Commission was urged to take additional measures to stop the human violations committed by Israel.
PAYMANE HASTAIE (Iran) said application of the various human rights mechanisms were, to a large extent, influenced by the economic and political interests of a minority. A whole list of dos and don'ts had been defined by the interpretation of these interests, with the result that double standards, selectivity and subjectivity had become the best-known features of the system. The process of reform in Iran represented a genuine product of its dynamic society and was certainly not a result of politically motivated moves coming from outside. Iran was taking unprecedented strides into a new historical phase of democracy, prosperity and the rule of law. This was a conclusion that would be naturally drawn by any impartial observer. The Government had accorded top priority to the promotion and protection of human rights. Since last year, substantial steps had been taken to consolidate the democratic institutions, to encourage more active civil and political participation, to reinforce the rule of law, to promote women's rights, and to foster national mechanisms for the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
There was a growing consensus in the international community on the fact that Iran enjoyed a participatory, representative and democratic government, which had increasingly demonstrated its transparency and accountability vis-a-vis its people and the world. In this context, the Commission was informed about a series of measures the Government had taken to promote human rights in the context of promoting the human rights of religious minorities, women's empowerment and their participation in the society, and the promotion of freedom of expression.
CHOE MYONG NAM (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said that in some areas of the world, attempts aimed at redefining sacrosanct sovereignty and further justifying its infringement were rampant. The infringements of sovereignty by military force and the resultant violations of innocent people's right to life under the pretext of "humanitarian intervention" and "anti-terrorist action" were typical examples in this context. The principle of objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity in dealing with human rights should be thoroughly implemented. Human rights should not be used as means for political purposes under any circumstances.
In actual fact, those countries urging others to observe human rights had critical problems of human rights violations. Money-dominated political scenes, deep-rooted racial discrimination, large numbers of unemployed, acute problems of education and health, assassinations, violence and excessive use of force and brutality of the police were only the tip of the iceberg of the many violations they had domestically. Externally, they had been repeating notorious records of infringing upon the sovereignty of others and killing innocent peoples through many wars and military invasions.
MURAD NAJAFOV (Azerbaijan) said military conflicts could be disastrous for human rights. At least 20 per cent of Azerbaijan's territory had been invaded through military means. In those territories, the occupying army had been committing untold human rights violations against Azerbaijanis. Five thousand Azerbaijanis were on the list of missing persons, while genocide was perpetrated against others under occupation. Azerbaijan believed that the only way to settle the conflict was through negotiations.
JANIS KARKLIND (Latvia) that said in April 2001, the Commission had adopted a resolution deploring abuses of human rights in Chechnya and had called on Russia to investigate them. This was the second time the Commission had singled out a permanent member of the Security Council in this manner. Latvia had favoured the resolution and still considered that a solution to the conflict required a political solution to be reached through dialogue between all parties concerned. Latvia had repeatedly expressed its concerns regarding military activities, civilian casualties and disrespect with regard to human rights. Continuing the use of excessive force with different kinds of military techniques put under question the Russian Federation's expressed willingness to find a peaceful settlement. Latvia recognized the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and did not question the necessity to fight international terrorism. However, the way the Russian Federation had tried to solve the situation undermined the international commitments the Russian Federation had undertaken. The very respect of human rights and the obligation of a State to cooperate with the special procedures was being put under question. Latvia called upon the Russian Federation to respect the recommendations of the international community.
His delegation had been astonished by the ignorant legal terms used by the delegate of Algeria in using the word "apartheid". This was not a beauty contest of diplomats showing off their ability to speak, but an international forum where representatives expressed positions of their Governments. Were the allegations expressed in the statement of Algeria regarding Latvia the official position of the Algerian Government?
DAVID LITTMAN, of the World Union of Progressive Judaism, said that these past years had never seen so much talk of the dialogue of civilizations and the peace of culture, while one was confronted with an absolute culture of hate, of an outburst of terrorism against civilians, of discrimination, and of religious intolerance. This culture of hate had justified international terrorism, which had caused countless innocent victims. This hate called itself Islamic Jihad. It drew on religious texts that other Muslims disputed. The Commission was called upon to seriously examine this venomous culture of hate, now rampant in the Arab world and spreading everywhere in Europe. This culture of hate was encouraged by Arab silence regarding that ideology of Jihad as well as by discriminatory laws that were now returning in Islamic countries under the influence of religious fundamentalists. With regard to the Middle East cauldron, an entire generation of Palestinian children were taught to hate at school.
TENZING CHOKEY RUBLING, of International Fellowship of Reconciliation, said that China was one member of the Commission that committed human rights violations on a massive scale. Victims in Tibet wondered why the Commission did not act upon China. Why that selectivity when Beijing had been responsible for gross and systematic patterns of human rights violations in Tibet for more than 50 years. If that continued, some Tibetans might respond by engaging in a violent freedom struggle, under the belief that that might be the only way to wake up the international community. There was a general consensus that the current policy of intensifying repression in Tibet was not only wrong and dangerous but also short-sighted and would prove disastrous in the long run.
INSAF YASIN, of the Arab Organization for Human Rights, said she had come from the south of Lebanon to bring up the situation of the Lebanese prisoners in detention for fighting for their country. Israel had responded neither to the Secretary-General's nor the High Commissioner's calls for the end of such violations of human rights. Israel continued to defy the international community and kept these innocents detained. There was no legal nor political legitimacy to these actions. Israeli landmines, 400,000 at that, had been left by the Israeli armed forces in Lebanon. She had come to speak also about the genocide of the Palestinian people, the mistreatment of refugees and women. She called upon the Commission to act so that Israel ended these practices, which were in clear violation of all human rights and humanitarian law.
BAHIRAH TAJUL ARIS, of Aliran Kesedaran Negara: National Consciousness Movement, said that Malaysia's Internal Security Act had destroyed her family's security. Her husband, Mohamed Ezam Mohd Noor (political secretary to former Deputy Minister Anwar Ibrahim), had been detained without trial for the past year. Her husband was being detained with five of his colleagues simply because they believed in human rights and democracy. The speaker said that she was taking a big risk in coming to the Commission since any Malaysian who dared to criticize the Government faced harsh punishment. Her family members had been constantly humiliated, harassed and persecuted. Her children had been traumatized by the experience. The worst agony of all was not knowing when the detainees might be released. Her petitions to the Government had been ignored. Malaysians wanted human rights and democracy to exist in their daily lives, not just as words on paper. The speaker appealed to the members and observers of the Commission to speak to the Malaysian Government to ensure the release of the detainees and the abolishment of the Internal Security Act.
DANIELE CAPEZZONE , of the Transnational Radical Party, said that Italy, a State where the principles of democracy and freedom were known to be deep-rooted, found itself in the dramatic situation in which its very institutions were unlawful. The malfunctioning of its justice system was well known -- four sentences per day were pronounced against Italy by the European Court of Human Rights in the first two months of the current year alone. But a far more serious situation would emerge when the actual status of the political rights of Italian citizens was verified. How would one judge a country in which the results of referenda were decided by the deceased and the missing, whose names still appeared on electoral rolls?

Rights of Reply
A Representative of the Czech Republic , speaking in a right of reply, said in response to the delegate from Algeria that there was no wall separating the Roma from the rest of the population in the Czech Republic. There had been one specific case but that was three years old and it had been settled in accordance with internal law. The Czech Government had undertaken several actions, including affirmative action, in order to integrate the Roma population into society. Regarding the specific means to assist the Roma children, schools had been established and were there for the benefit of all children. There were to date about 230 such classes. The Czech Republic was ready to discuss the human rights situation in the world, including in its own country. However, the discussion was expected to be based on facts. The delegate of Algeria would be given all the information available on the Roma in a bilateral meeting to prevent him from making such inaccurate and ignorant statements in the future.
A Representative of Eritrea, speaking in right of reply, said the EU had correctly pointed out that Eritrea had committed itself to the release of all prisoners of war detained as a result of the armed conflict. The two parties had initiated the process of exchanging prisoners. However, the process was stopped by Ethiopia. Eritrea was ready to resume the process at any time. The delegate also wished to point out that some senior Government, party and military leaders who were detained had committed acts that endangered the sovereignty of the nation and the safety of the population. Eritrea also noted that the expulsion of diplomats was not a human rights issue. The ambassador in question was expelled because of his engagement in activities that were not related to his status and the decision was taken after long consultations.
A Representative of Thailand, speaking in right of reply in reference to the European Union's statement presented by Spain, said that capital punishment was exercised only against those who had committed serious offenses and it was supported by the Thai people. The issue of press freedom was also regulated by the existing laws and that freedom was not in any way suppressed. With regard to the refugees and displaced persons, the Government had been following policies which it had designed for that purpose. No country or region had the right to appoint itself as judge to impose its standard on other countries or regions. Thailand did not believe that a "shopping list" approach to human rights situations around the world by the EU and its individual members was conducive to promoting cooperation on human rights. It was only useful for domestic consumption.
A Representative of Viet Nam , speaking in right of reply, said in response to the statements of the EU, the United States and Canada that the civil and political rights, including freedom of expression, assembly and religion, were protected by the Government of Viet Nam. Viet Nam had obligations according to eight major human rights instruments to ensure that political and civil rights were protected and promoted. There was no repression of freedom in Viet Nam. Relating to cooperation with other countries on human rights issues, Viet Nam had undertaken a dialogue with several countries on issues of human rights. Viet Nam followed an approach on human rights that was constructive and was based on dialogue, as opposed to finger-pointing. Regarding Cambodia, Viet Nam and that country were in the process of trying to find a durable solution to an issue of humanitarian nature. UNHCR must be held responsible for not seriously implementing the Tripartite Agreement by delaying the repatriation of those who had expressed their desire to Viet Nam and disassociating itself with the Agreement. UNHCR must play a more constructive role in the future rather than allowing any action that would attract more minority people to cross the border.
A Representative of Bangladesh, speaking in right of reply in response to the statement by the European Union (EU), said that it appeared that the EU's sole interest in speaking under this agenda item was to look at the multilateral dimension of human rights. The EU was using the Commission to level allegations against selected countries that were on their "target" list. Democratic processes and institutions had taken firm root in Bangladesh. All had acknowledged the exercise in Bangladesh of the freedom of expression, including that by the media. Last year, Bangladesh held elections that were acknowledged to be free and fair, with a voter turnout of almost 75 percent of the electorate. In the brief period between the holding of the elections and the assumption of office of the new Government, there had been law and order problems. The new Government, after assumption of office, took immediate steps to curb the violence and to prosecute the offenders, in accordance with the law of the land. There had not been a continued deterioration of law and order as alleged.
A Representative of Cuba, speaking in a right of reply, said that the person who was sitting in Nicaragua's seat and who spoke against Cuba this afternoon was a member of the Miami mafia who was holding a United States passport. It was a big hypocracy for her to speak about Cuba. The United States had no moral authority to speak against the Cuban people whom it had been starving through its blockade that it placed 40 years ago.
A Representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speaking in a right of reply, said he rejected the customary anti-DPRK sentiment from the delegate of the United States. The United States had been guilty of human rights violations in his country since a United States battleship had arrived there in 1886. Since then the United States had been responsible for massive human rights violations, including massacres. These days the United States was still violating the rights of his fellow citizens through military threats and economic sanctions. He reminded the Commission of the barbarious killings that the United States army had carried out in his country, It was time for the United States to accept responsibility for the fact that it was also responsible for the today's suffering of the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The United States rated itself as judge of human rights, but was as a matter of fact one of the greatest human rights violators. The United States also faced human rights violations in its own country because of, amongst other things: greed, oppression, torture, detention, unemployment, assassinations, homelessness, and its many military interventions abroad. It was time the United States looked into its own problems rather than looking at others. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea would defend its political system and its people.
A Representative of Turkey, speaking in a right of reply, said that every year this forum witnessed the same scenario under this agenda item. The scenario was to attack and defame Turkey by twisting and distorting the realities of the Cyprus question. The scenario was the same this year despite direct talks between the leaders of the Turkish and the Greek Cypriots. . The accusations were one-sided misrepresentations. The human rights record of the Greek Cypriot administration was not spotless. Gross human rights violations were perpetrated by this administration such as the punishment of Greek Cypriots and tourists who traded with Turkish Cypriots, the harassment and beating up of the Roma community crossing to south Cyprus and prohibiting marriage between Turkish and Greek Cypriots, and the systematic settlement of thousands of Greeks in Turkish Cypriot properties left in South Cyprus. Turkey still believed that the parties should avoid destructive accusations at a time when there was hope for reconciliation. There was no use in repeating the same allegations over and over again, It did not bring advantage to any side.
A Representative of Iraq, speaking in right of reply in response to the statements made by Australia, New Zealand and the United States, said that Australia and New Zealand should have better called for the easing of the continued economic embargo which created new victims each day. The United States had said that Iraq should respect the laws, but which laws? Did the United States respect international laws? The United States was conscious that its actions were harming the people of Iraq.
A Representative of Pakistan, speaking in right of reply on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the members of the Conference were most disappointed that the representative of Spain, and hence the European Union, had resorted to cataloguing countries on human rights concerns. As usual this catalogue had included a large number of Islamic countries. Of course, no mention had been made of human rights violations in the European Union or in associated countries. This marked the selectivity and the politicization of the work of the Commission. There was also resentment as to the call of the speaker from Germany for a discussion on the incompatibility of Sharia with human rights.
It was upsetting that no mention had been made about the treatment of Muslims in various parts of the world. After 11 September, Muslims had become the favourite target of several European and associated countries. The war of terrorism had also been used as an excuse to deprive Muslims of their human rights. That the European Union had only looked outward seemed to mean that only in Europe were human rights upheld. In fact, the human rights violations in terms of immigration in Europe was but one example of human rights violations. A list of human rights violations taking place in European Union countries would be distributed, in the hope that this would end the finger-pointing.
A Representative of Pakistan, speaking in right of reply, said that India, which claimed to be the largest democracy in the world, was using the most dictatorial laws against its own people and the occupied people of Jammu and Kashmir. One such example was its recent adoption of an anti-terrorism act. In actual fact, the fight of India was against Muslims. If India truly wanted peace it should accept Pakistan's proposals for the deployment of an international observer force in Jammu and Kashmir. India, however, rejected this proposal.
A Representative of Swaziland, speaking in right of reply in reference to the statement presented by Spain on behalf of the European Union, said that the kingdom was promoting the human rights of its citizens in line with universal values. He regretted that the Union had addressed the issue of human rights violations in his country while the Government was seriously dealing with such issues. The Union should refrain putting pressure on the Government.
A Representative of China, speaking in right of reply in response to the statement of the United States, said that the delegate was clearly not basing his arguments on human rights standards but on political standards. The real concern of the United States must be its own poor human rights record. One example was the treatment of the African American people in the United States who faced disproportionate and biased treatment in criminal law, since a disproportionate ratio of African Americans were in jail. It was particularly telling that the United States had even boycotted the World Conference against Racism. The United States was advised to stop attacking other countries human rights records and to take a look at its own.
A Representative of Sudan, speaking in right of reply, referred to the statements made by Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States with regard to the human rights situation in Sudan. Sudan thanked these countries for the interest they expressed in Sudan but wished they had heeded the call to avoid adopting an attitude of trustees and to avoid selectivity in the targeting of countries. Sudan would have felt satisfied if their statements had included violations in their own countries, including the deteriorating human rights situation after the events of 11 September and widespread poverty. Sudan was living an internal war and it would have been more fitting for these countries to assist Sudan instead of launching empty accusations against it.
A Representative of Germany, speaking in a right of reply in response to the right of reply exercised by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the statement delivered by the Member of the German Parliament and Chairperson of its Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid did not attack either Islam as a religion nor the cultures of other countries. What she did was to correctly state Germany's evaluation of capital punishment and other cruel and degrading punishments within a human-rights perspective.
A Representative of Cyprus, speaking in a right of reply, said that Turkey was consistently disrespecting the United Nations, the Commission on Human Rights and the European legal and humanitarian instruments and the international community as a whole. Only Turkey refused to acknowledge the legitimate Government of Cyprus. Turkey had instead set up a puppet regime that was not recognized by the international community. Turkey also kept on insisting that the occupation was in fact a "peace operation". The question was: would the international community continuously and repeatedly condemn something that was actually a peace operation? One could perhaps not expect more from Turkey -- a country that was accustomed to human rights violations -- both in Cyprus and Turkey itself.
A Representative of Argentina, speaking in right of reply, said that the Commission had been considering the question of Cyprus since 1967, and Argentina had participated in the debate. Argentina had not issued any condemnation but had encouraged dialogue on the question. The delegate regretted that Turkey, a country which Argentina did not even mention in its statement, had misinterpreted its intentions.


CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/02/29 of 8 April, the third paragraph on the first page of the release should read as follows:
Violations were alleged in Iraq, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Colombia, China, Cuba, the Republic of Chechnya, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia, Burma, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the occupied Palestinian territories and parts of Israel, Sudan, East Timor, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Haiti, Cyprus, the United States and in developed countries.
In the same press release, the right of reply of Turkey on page 11 should read as follows:
A Representative of Turkey, speaking in a right of reply, said that every year this forum witnessed the same scenario under this agenda item. The scenario was to attack and defame Turkey by twisting and distorting the realities of the Cyprus question. The scenario was the same this year despite direct talks between the leaders of the Turkish and the Greek Cypriots. The accusations were one-sided misrepresentations. The human rights record of the Greek Cypriot administration was not spotless. Gross human rights violations were perpetrated by this administration. Turkey still believed that the parties should avoid destructive accusations at a time when there was hope for reconciliation. As for the statement by Argentina, it was neither realistic nor accurate. At a time when it was expected that the Argentinian Government would rather concentrate on restoring the rights of its citizens, its intervention was indeed unfortunate. Argentina seemed to be assuming a self-proclaimed prerogative to speak on the question of Cyprus. He assured his colleague from Argentina that, from the human rights point of view, the people living in Cyprus were much better off than an average person trying to survive in Argentina today.



* *** *