Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ENDS HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT
17 March 2005
Share
Commission on Human Rights
AFTERNOON
17 March 2005
Hears Statements from Rwanda, Timor-Leste,
Poland, Slovakia, Norway, Ireland,
Iran, and the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon concluded its high-level segment after hearing statements made by dignitaries from Rwanda, Timor-Leste, Poland, Slovakia, Norway, Ireland, Iran and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Several speakers provided an overview of the efforts taken by their Governments to promote and protect human rights in their countries, and raised issues pertaining to, among other things, multilateral efforts in upholding human rights principles and the links between human rights and conflicts.
Edda Mukabagwiza, Minister of Justice of Rwanda, said the effort to ensure justice and impunity against the planners and executioners of the genocide in Rwanda was still insufficient. States should demonstrate their adhesion to the principles and fundamental values of the United Nations by effectively collaborating with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and by prosecuting the perpetrators of the genocide.
José Ramos Horta, Senior Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Timor-Leste, stated that it was time for Timor-Leste and Indonesia to deal with the shared and turbulent past, whilst securing their democratic futures. If they were to deal with at least part of it in collaboration with each other, it would further demonstrate their political maturity as nations, and serve as a testament to their democratic gains.
Adam Daniel Rotfeld, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, said in the face of new threats and challenges, most of which involved the weakening and collapse of State institutions associated with the abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the United Nations must remain at the forefront of multilateral efforts and serve as the guarantor of international legitimacy.
Eduard Kukan, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, said Slovakia’s dialogue with United Nations' partners had prompted the Government to implement new projects and activities focused on improving the human rights standards of its citizens, while adhering to the principle of non-discrimination. Slovakia had also embarked on a number of programmes directed towards the most vulnerable groups in the population, in particular the Roma community
Vidar Helgesen, State Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said that making multilateralism more effective constituted a key theme for the global community this year. Norway also called on the international community to act on the close linkages between human rights and conflict, as gross human rights violations invariably served as advance warning, as well as a by-product, of conflict.
Conor Lenihan, Minister of State in the Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland, said the United Nations human rights system, and the Commission in particular, played an essential role in minimizing the potential for conflict, ensuring that the rights of people were respected, including during conflict situations, and that violations of those rights were properly investigated and punished.
Ali Khoshroo, Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs of Iran, said despite all efforts, the global movement to promote human rights continued to be confronted by chronic challenges and persistent obstacles. These challenges were so critical that they had the potential not only to further hinder progress in implementing the global agenda to reinforce human rights, but also to reverse the achievements gained at the national and international levels.
Wendy Chamberlin, Acting United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, said that, although the international protection regime continued to evolve, the interwoven relationship between refugee and human rights law remained constant.
This link was evident in UNHCR's work to improve protection measures on behalf of internally displaced persons who had figured as a constant feature of the Commission’s debates.
The Governments of Turkey, Greece, Armenia, the Philippines, Latvia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus and the Russian Federation exercised their right of reply.
When the Commission reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 18 March, it will begin its substantive work and take up its agenda item 4 on the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and follow-up to the World Conference on Human Rights.
Statements
EDDA MUKABAGWIZA, Minister of Justice of Rwanda, recalled that the previous session of the Commission was held while her country was commemorating the tenth anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. It was a sign of satisfaction for Rwanda to note the importance attached to that event by the international community, and most particularly by the United Nations for having observed a day of reflection on the occasion. The decision by the General Assembly to commemorate the Rwandan genocide on 7 April had been welcomed by Rwandans and their friends as an indication of universal solidarity for the commemoration of the most abominable of crimes against humanity. The effort to ensure justice and impunity against the planners and executioners of genocide was still insufficient. States should demonstrate their adhesion to the principles and fundamental values of the United Nations by effectively collaborating with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and by prosecuting the perpetrators of the genocide.
The Government of Rwanda continued to seek solutions to the problems that impeded actions in addressing the respect, protection and promotion of human rights aimed at building the rule of law in the country. The legislative and judicial reforms initiated by the Constitution in June 2003 had already been launched in 2004. The new tribunals and judges had started their work with the aim to ensure effective, impartial and rapid justice, on the basis of accessibility of justice for all. Moreover, Rwanda's search for a negotiated settlement of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi demonstrated how Rwandan leaders were conscious that peace in the Great Lakes region was the only way forward for the development and the well-being of the people.
JOSÉ RAMOS HORTA, Senior Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Timor-Leste, said the task before the Commission was indeed great, complex and urgent. Governments and peoples were duty-bound to collectively summon moral courage and political will to end gross and systematic abuses of human rights, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Timor-Leste and Indonesia had a long way to go towards consolidating democracy and the rule of law. It was time for Timor-Leste and Indonesia to deal with the shared and turbulent past, whilst securing their democratic futures. If they were to deal with at least part of it in collaboration with each other, it would further demonstrate their political maturity as nations, and serve as a testament to their democratic gains.
Timor-Leste remained a peaceful, politically dynamic and stable nation, Mr. Ramos Horta said. The country had continued to make progress in economic and social development, strengthening law and order, and consolidating democracy. The people of Timor-Leste believed that these elements, together with the promotion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, provided the essential determinants of individual capability. Much still had to be done to provide the conditions necessary for people to be able to enjoy their rights to work, to quality education and to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Significant progress had been made in terms of the State developing each of its core initial human rights reports in accordance with a reformed structure.
With regard to the reform of the United Nations, Mr. Ramos Horta said there was a lack of understanding of the rationale for universal membership of the Commission. Timor-Leste preferred for the General Assembly to take on a greater role in the field of human rights. An expansion of the Commission might make it more representative, but not necessarily democratic and operational. There was also concern for the status of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; the indigenous people of the world bore the brunt of the worst forms of western invasions, colonization and evangelization, in many cases leading to their virtual decimation.
ADAM DANIEL ROTFELD, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, said the world had gone through fundamental changes in recent years, which affected international security, peace and stability. New threats and challenges had emerged, most of which involved the weakening and collapse of State institutions which were associated with the abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms stemming from the violation of rules of domestic and international law, bad governance, corruption and civil conflict. In the face of such challenges, the United Nations must remain at the forefront of multilateral efforts and serve as the guarantor of international legitimacy. The Organization had untapped potential to provide adequate responses; the most effective solutions to adapt the political and legal foundations and operational infrastructure of the United Nations to suit new international realities must be found.
The principles of sovereignty, legitimacy, accountability, subsidiarity, complementarity, solidarity and responsibility must be adjusted to represent circumstances, Mr. Rotfeld said. The establishment of a human rights council should be the long-term strategic objective of the Organization, in order to transform human rights into one of the three main pillars of the United Nations system. Moreover, the prospect of universalizing membership on the Commission was appealing, but issues such as the risk of duplicating the work of the General Assembly’s Third Committee, the subordination of the Commission to the Economic and Social Council, and the relatively greater efficiency of smaller bodies must also be addressed. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should move from a culture of reaction to one of prevention, and should receive budgetary, organizational and human resources needed to match the challenges it faced.
Reaffirming the importance of combating all manifestations of intolerance, xenophobia and discrimination, Mr. Rotfeld said the key to countering such scourges lay in mutual understanding and the promotion of tolerance. Additionally, recognizing the interdependence of human rights, development and democracy was of fundamental importance in every effort to advance human rights. The universal enjoyment of human rights could not be ensured in the absence of democracy, and democracy could not flourish without good governance. Determined to continue its involvement in the activities of the "community of democracies", Poland favoured deepening cooperation between democratic States, including within the framework of international organizations, in order to strengthen the promotion of human rights and implement good governance.
EDUARD KUKAN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, expressed the Slovak Government’s satisfaction that the case of human rights, democracy and rule of law was resolutely taking ground in States and societies in its region. Slovakia had progressed in building up its development assistance strategy with its first 5-year programme adopted in 2003. Many projects in the western Balkan and Central Asian countries had been focusing on strengthening democratic institutions and supporting educational and social infrastructure. The progress in the Middle East peace process was also worth mentioning. Slovakia welcomed the commitments taken by both parties in Sharm el-Sheikh and hoped that the process would continue unimpeded with positive effect.
Slovakia had expressed its readiness to cooperate with the United Nations treaty bodies as well as with the special procedures of the Commission. Slovakia was among the countries which had issued a standing invitation to the mandate holders of the special procedures. Slovakia’s dialogue with United Nations' partners had prompted the Government to implement new projects and activities focused on improving the human rights standards of its citizens, while adhering to the principle of non-discrimination.
Slovakia, Mr. Kukan noted, had also embarked on a number of programmes directed towards the most vulnerable groups in the population, in particular the Roma community. A number of tasks outlined in the strategic document entitled "Basic Theses of the Slovak Government's Policies for the Integration of Roman Communities", adopted in 2003, were implemented in the course of 2004 and 2005, he noted.
VIDAR HELGESEN, State Secretary in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Norway, said that making multilateralism more effective constituted a key theme for the global community this year; human rights served as a measure of a State’s willingness to support multilateralism in practice. Thus, the United Nations must take a close look at how best to organize its work in order to enhance its impact and relevance. Expressing support for the proposal to universalize membership of the Commission on Human Rights, he cautioned that the participation of non-governmental organizations must not be weakened. Norway also supported the recommendation to increase the regular budget funding for human rights efforts and welcomed the increased attention shown by the Security Council in recent years to situations in which human rights violations constituted a threat to peace and security. However, the Organization’s credibility in promoting human rights depended upon its ability to keep its own house in order. Sexual misconduct by United Nations field personnel was deeply dismaying; it was essential that all staff and associated personnel acted in accordance with the fundamental values, rules and regulations of the United Nations.
Mr. Helgesen noted that the international community had developed an impressive and comprehensive body of legal instruments, norms and commitments in the field of human rights; if all human rights norms were effectively implemented, serious violations of human rights would be very rare. The framework of legally binding obligations must be respected. The international community must also act on the close linkages between human rights and conflict, as gross human rights violations invariably served as advance warning, as well as a by-product, of conflict. While maintaining and reinforcing the responsibility of States for human rights obligations, the international community must also engage with civil society and other actors in order to promote human rights.
Finally, Mr. Helgesen noted that while preventing acts of terror remained a fundamental responsibility of all States, State security and the fight against terrorism must not become a pretext for deviating from the fundamental principles of the rule of law and fair trial guarantees. Human rights and fundamental freedoms must be respected; to fail to do so would undermine the values upon which societies were founded, and ultimately defeat efforts to counter terrorism. Other areas of priority included combating discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation, and supporting the special procedures of the Commission, as well as other human rights defenders.
CONOR LENIHAN, Minister of State in the Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland, said Ireland had long been a strong supporter of the role of the United Nations. One of the main themes of Ireland’s recent Presidency of the European Union was the need for effective multilateralism. Effective multilateralism started from the recognition that the fundamental framework for international relations was the United Nations Charter. The United Nations human rights system, and the Commission in particular, played an essential role in minimizing the potential for conflict, ensuring that the rights of people were respected, including during conflict situations, and that violations of those rights were properly investigated and punished.
The elements that made up the concept of human security – the promotion of human rights, the advancement of human safety, and the protection of human lives – were also among the guiding principles that should inform all in their work in the Commission. Ireland’s membership of the Human Security Network of States underpinned those principles. Human security began with human rights. To be effective in advancing the cause of human rights, one should also be effective in other areas – conflict prevention and crisis management, peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, economic reconstruction, and development cooperation. Already acknowledged was the fact that it was impossible to guarantee the full enjoyment of human rights without development, but it was increasingly being recognized that it was also impossible to achieve sustainable development without respect for human rights.
Good governance and the respect for the rule of law were essential to create conditions whereby everyone might enjoy the fullest range possible of human rights. Furthermore, strong democratic institutions were an important basis for poverty eradication. That concept had been explicitly recognized by the Commission, which had adopted resolutions linked to good governance and the enjoyment of human rights. The Millennium Declaration, which outlined the international community's resolve to create an environment conducive to development and the elimination of poverty, reinforced the notion.
ALI KHOSHROO, Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs of Iran, said the international community had made remarkable progress in shaping the global network of instruments and diverse mechanisms aimed at promoting and protecting human rights in a world of ever-changing world politics. Democracy, development and human rights were considered as being strongly interlinked and these issues were at the centre of the international agenda of human rights. Despite all efforts, the global movement to promote human rights continued to be confronted by chronic challenges and persistent obstacles. These challenges and impediments were so critical that they had the potential not only to further hinder progress in the implementation of the global agenda to reinforce human rights, but also to reverse the achievements painstakingly gained at the national and international levels. In particular, the tragic events of 11 September 2001 and the ensuing policies of certain countries concerning their security arrangements were considered to be responsible for further aggravating the situation at many levels.
The universality of human rights, the principle of indivisibility and the international legitimacy of human rights were all concepts that carried certain requirements and imperatives. These imperatives needed to be correctly and carefully balanced in the overall programming and assessment of the processes related to setting and implementing standards if the United Nations human rights treaty bodies and mechanisms were to retain their credibility and strength. Accountability for all in the realisation of human rights, pursuing objectivity and eliminating double standards in the process relating to standard-setting and implementation, and viewing respect for cultural diversity as a prerequisite within universality, were among the imperatives and challenges ahead for creating an environment in which the United Nations machinery on human rights could fulfil its mission.
Cooperation and dialogue in the spirit of genuine concern for human rights had always proved effective in solving human rights problems and removing discrepancies in all fields including the situation of human rights in all parts of the world. It was in this context that Iran, apart from the institutional cooperation with the United Nations mechanisms, had established a defined framework for dialogue with a number of interested countries to facilitate the exchange of views and best practices as well as developing common positions on various human rights problems. The Government of Iran stood ready to engage in dialogue with any Member State on any issue that could help to eliminate misunderstandings and improve progress in all areas.
WENDY CHAMBERLIN, Acting United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, said that although the international protection regime continued to evolve, the interwoven relationship between refugee and human rights law remained constant.
This links was evident in UNHCR's work to improve protection measures on behalf of internally displaced persons (IDPs), who had figured as a constant feature of the Commission’s debates. The primary responsibility for IDPs continued to rest with the authorities of their countries, but the international community, and the United Nations in particular, had a responsibility to ensure that this obligation was fulfilled, particularly when States were unwilling, or unable, to do so. For its part, UNHCR had revisited internal procedures and guidelines for its involvement in IDP situations, and had a "predisposition" to help IDPs, while fully respecting the United Nations’ collaborative approach.
Reviewing the agency's involvement in the protection of IDPs in Darfur, Sudan, Ms. Chamberlin stressed that protection began with presence. The strong presence of international staff in the field had enhanced protection and emboldened IDPs, who had openly and persistently raised protection problems themselves. Beyond ensuring an international presence, protection work included extensive monitoring to direct intervention and shape programmes. However, there could be no doubt that the international response to the human rights crisis in Darfur had so far fallen short. Several points had emerged as immediate, and inarguable, needs: an individual’s right to leave his or her country to seek asylum must be preserved at all times; given the present situation, the return of refugees from Chad could not be urged, nor the return of IDPs to their areas of origin; more international staff should be deployed to the region; the United Nations must remain engaged, although every effort should be expended to avoid a protracted situation; and responsibilities and activities for the protection of IDPs should not be determined by funding levels.
The imperative to protect IDPs had illustrated the larger challenge of maximizing the effectiveness of international protection efforts as a whole. UNHCR welcomed the increased participation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the field, which offered great potential for close cooperation and effectively building upon each other’s work. However, UNHCR was not a human rights monitoring agency. Its monitoring functions were confined to promoting observance of the rights of persons under its mandate. Second, with regard to statelessness, she noted that many individuals continued to be deprived of a nationality. The Commission should look more closely at the issue, and consider measures that could be taken to return, to human and legal society, those who lacked what no human being should ever be denied: a place to call home and a legal identity.
Right of Reply
TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey), speaking in a right of reply in response to the Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister’s statement, said it was once again a sheer manifestation of a selective memory. He had forgotten the gross human rights violations committed by the Greek Cypriots since 1963 when the legitimate order established under the 1959-1960 Agreements were destroyed and the Turkish Cypriots were subjected to a campaign of ethnic cleansing. It was for this reason that a United Nations peacekeeping force was dispatched to the island in 1964. It was paradoxical that the Minister politicized the Commission by making baseless accusations pertaining to issues which would have been resolved within the context of an overall settlement under the United Nations plan. The dilemma was that the Greek Cypriots were not ready for a solution based on political equality and sharing of power with the Turkish Cypriots. It was incumbent on the international community to rectify this unjust situation and it would only then be possible to reach a viable solution.
TASSOS KRIEKOUKIS (Greece), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the rights of the members of the Muslim minority in Thrace were fully protected in Greece’s democratic society in which the rule of law prevailed. Greece’s legislation was in line with European human rights standards, as well as with the principles of the European Union.
ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN.(Armenia), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement made by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, said the statement was disappointing concerning the situation in Nagorny Karabakh. Armenia had been, as in all previous occasions, vilified in every possible way. Such an approach was hardly a useful contribution to a meaningful debate. Had Azerbaijan stepped aside from that trodden path of one-sided accusations, they might have recognized the fundamental issue of security for the people of Nagorny Karabakh. Not some amorphous, ambiguous, abstract security, but hardcore physical security. They might have demonstrated their willingness to recognize and state the very root cause of the problem to distinguish it from its consequences.
JUNEVER MAHILUM-WEST (the Philippines), speaking in a right of reply in response to the reference made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference on the situation of the Muslim community in Southern Philippines, said the assertions in the statement, if not clarified, conveyed a misleading and incomplete impression of what was actually happening in that region. The Government of the Philippines was strongly committed to a comprehensive peace process that was aimed at bringing sustainable peace and development to the Muslim communities in the region. The area today was receiving a large share of assistance from the Government, which, in addressing the development of the area, remained steadfast to its commitment to uphold the safety of civilians, to protect the human rights of their people and to pursue all avenues to achieve the final objective of a just and lasting peace and full participation in development of the people of the region.
RAIMONDS JANSONS (Latvia), speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement of the Russian Federation, said that the Deputy Minister of the Russian Federation had spoken about Latvia in historical terms and did not recognize that Latvia had been occupied by Soviet Russia, as the consequence of the Molotov-Ribentrop pact. The Government of Latvia condemned the crimes and holocaust of Nazism and Stalinism, for which there could never be an excuse or statutory limitations. The Latvian delegation would not accept selective historical perspectives, which diverted the focus of the work of the Commission from the current human rights issues, including racist and anti-Semitic activities in Russia itself. The Deputy Minister had rather bluntly expressed his views on the lives of national minorities in Latvia. It was highly questionable whether Russia had the right authority to express an accurate view on minority rights in other countries.
AZAD CAFAROV (Azerbaijan), speaking in a right of reply, said the delegation had already clearly expressed its position with regard to the opinions voiced by Armenia with regard to Nagorny Karabakh. Armenia had committed crimes against humanity, such as ethnic cleansing, and thus had no moral right to portray itself as an advocate of human rights. Nagorny Karabakh was and had always been an integral and inalienable part of Azerbaijan. Armenia should take a serious look at its position and respect the provisions of international humanitarian law. The occupation by the Armenian armed forces was in violation of these laws, and this had been recognised by a United Nations resolution. All those guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing should be punished.
JAMES C. DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement by Turkey, said that the people of Cyprus had been asked to approve or reject the Secretary-General's Plan in two separate and simultaneous referenda. A clear majority of Greek Cypriots had not approved of the "Annan Plan", but this did not signal rejection of a solution to the Cyprus problem. The status quo was not acceptable. The rights of the people of Cyprus continued to be violated by Turkey, and United Nations resolutions and decisions by the European Court of Human Rights had been rendered obsolete. Turkey had an obligation to respect them. The Turkish delegate had also referred to the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. That isolation was self-imposed and aimed at the separation of the two communities. The Greek Cypriots had worked in good faith to promote sound proposals to facilitate the reunification of the island by encouraging Turkish Cypriot development, particularly in the sphere of economic activities and relations between the two communities. He also wished to draw attention to relevant Security Council resolutions, which condemned the set-up of the illegal separatist entity, and recognized only one State in the territory.
PAVEL CHERNIKOV (Russian Federation), speaking in a right of reply, said it was necessary to answer the statement by Latvia. The statements made by many delegations had indicated that there was consensus in the room during this high-level segment that no State was perfect, and that the ability of States to take criticism was paramount. Russia did not hide its problems. Russia had listened to many critical statements from Baltic colleagues and from the Organization of the Islamic Conference and it had never occurred to Russia to use its right of reply, as it would consider these comments and muse upon them. However, there was no evidence of such maturity from the Latvian delegation. The victory in the Second World War was achieved by peoples against aggressor States, and it led to the foundation of the United Nations and the Commission. If States were members of the United Nations, they had to share the values of the Charter. There was concern that today, 60 years after the defeat of Fascism, there were still prosecutions of anti-Fascist veterans in Latvia, as well as prosecutions of the Waffen SS.
TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey), speaking in a second right of reply in response to the statement made by the representative of Cyprus, said the United States' State Department report indicated that Turkish Cypriots had been harassed by the opponents of the "Annan Plan". He also denounced the economic isolation of Turkish Cypriots.
JAMES C. DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), responding to Turkey, said he wished to remind the delegate of the relevant Security Council resolutions already cited. He also reiterated that 76 per cent of Greek Cypriots had voted against the "Annan Plan". That vote had been carried out in a free and democratic manner, and nothing the Turkish delegate said could deny that fact. Regarding the economic isolation, it was self-imposed by the occupation regime itself. The objective was to politically upgrade the secessionist entity. Finally, he wished to state that the reunification of the island would remain the absolute goal of the Government.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
AFTERNOON
17 March 2005
Hears Statements from Rwanda, Timor-Leste,
Poland, Slovakia, Norway, Ireland,
Iran, and the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon concluded its high-level segment after hearing statements made by dignitaries from Rwanda, Timor-Leste, Poland, Slovakia, Norway, Ireland, Iran and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Several speakers provided an overview of the efforts taken by their Governments to promote and protect human rights in their countries, and raised issues pertaining to, among other things, multilateral efforts in upholding human rights principles and the links between human rights and conflicts.
Edda Mukabagwiza, Minister of Justice of Rwanda, said the effort to ensure justice and impunity against the planners and executioners of the genocide in Rwanda was still insufficient. States should demonstrate their adhesion to the principles and fundamental values of the United Nations by effectively collaborating with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and by prosecuting the perpetrators of the genocide.
José Ramos Horta, Senior Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Timor-Leste, stated that it was time for Timor-Leste and Indonesia to deal with the shared and turbulent past, whilst securing their democratic futures. If they were to deal with at least part of it in collaboration with each other, it would further demonstrate their political maturity as nations, and serve as a testament to their democratic gains.
Adam Daniel Rotfeld, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, said in the face of new threats and challenges, most of which involved the weakening and collapse of State institutions associated with the abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the United Nations must remain at the forefront of multilateral efforts and serve as the guarantor of international legitimacy.
Eduard Kukan, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, said Slovakia’s dialogue with United Nations' partners had prompted the Government to implement new projects and activities focused on improving the human rights standards of its citizens, while adhering to the principle of non-discrimination. Slovakia had also embarked on a number of programmes directed towards the most vulnerable groups in the population, in particular the Roma community
Vidar Helgesen, State Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said that making multilateralism more effective constituted a key theme for the global community this year. Norway also called on the international community to act on the close linkages between human rights and conflict, as gross human rights violations invariably served as advance warning, as well as a by-product, of conflict.
Conor Lenihan, Minister of State in the Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland, said the United Nations human rights system, and the Commission in particular, played an essential role in minimizing the potential for conflict, ensuring that the rights of people were respected, including during conflict situations, and that violations of those rights were properly investigated and punished.
Ali Khoshroo, Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs of Iran, said despite all efforts, the global movement to promote human rights continued to be confronted by chronic challenges and persistent obstacles. These challenges were so critical that they had the potential not only to further hinder progress in implementing the global agenda to reinforce human rights, but also to reverse the achievements gained at the national and international levels.
Wendy Chamberlin, Acting United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, said that, although the international protection regime continued to evolve, the interwoven relationship between refugee and human rights law remained constant.
This link was evident in UNHCR's work to improve protection measures on behalf of internally displaced persons who had figured as a constant feature of the Commission’s debates.
The Governments of Turkey, Greece, Armenia, the Philippines, Latvia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus and the Russian Federation exercised their right of reply.
When the Commission reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 18 March, it will begin its substantive work and take up its agenda item 4 on the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and follow-up to the World Conference on Human Rights.
Statements
EDDA MUKABAGWIZA, Minister of Justice of Rwanda, recalled that the previous session of the Commission was held while her country was commemorating the tenth anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. It was a sign of satisfaction for Rwanda to note the importance attached to that event by the international community, and most particularly by the United Nations for having observed a day of reflection on the occasion. The decision by the General Assembly to commemorate the Rwandan genocide on 7 April had been welcomed by Rwandans and their friends as an indication of universal solidarity for the commemoration of the most abominable of crimes against humanity. The effort to ensure justice and impunity against the planners and executioners of genocide was still insufficient. States should demonstrate their adhesion to the principles and fundamental values of the United Nations by effectively collaborating with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and by prosecuting the perpetrators of the genocide.
The Government of Rwanda continued to seek solutions to the problems that impeded actions in addressing the respect, protection and promotion of human rights aimed at building the rule of law in the country. The legislative and judicial reforms initiated by the Constitution in June 2003 had already been launched in 2004. The new tribunals and judges had started their work with the aim to ensure effective, impartial and rapid justice, on the basis of accessibility of justice for all. Moreover, Rwanda's search for a negotiated settlement of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi demonstrated how Rwandan leaders were conscious that peace in the Great Lakes region was the only way forward for the development and the well-being of the people.
JOSÉ RAMOS HORTA, Senior Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Timor-Leste, said the task before the Commission was indeed great, complex and urgent. Governments and peoples were duty-bound to collectively summon moral courage and political will to end gross and systematic abuses of human rights, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Timor-Leste and Indonesia had a long way to go towards consolidating democracy and the rule of law. It was time for Timor-Leste and Indonesia to deal with the shared and turbulent past, whilst securing their democratic futures. If they were to deal with at least part of it in collaboration with each other, it would further demonstrate their political maturity as nations, and serve as a testament to their democratic gains.
Timor-Leste remained a peaceful, politically dynamic and stable nation, Mr. Ramos Horta said. The country had continued to make progress in economic and social development, strengthening law and order, and consolidating democracy. The people of Timor-Leste believed that these elements, together with the promotion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, provided the essential determinants of individual capability. Much still had to be done to provide the conditions necessary for people to be able to enjoy their rights to work, to quality education and to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Significant progress had been made in terms of the State developing each of its core initial human rights reports in accordance with a reformed structure.
With regard to the reform of the United Nations, Mr. Ramos Horta said there was a lack of understanding of the rationale for universal membership of the Commission. Timor-Leste preferred for the General Assembly to take on a greater role in the field of human rights. An expansion of the Commission might make it more representative, but not necessarily democratic and operational. There was also concern for the status of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; the indigenous people of the world bore the brunt of the worst forms of western invasions, colonization and evangelization, in many cases leading to their virtual decimation.
ADAM DANIEL ROTFELD, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, said the world had gone through fundamental changes in recent years, which affected international security, peace and stability. New threats and challenges had emerged, most of which involved the weakening and collapse of State institutions which were associated with the abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms stemming from the violation of rules of domestic and international law, bad governance, corruption and civil conflict. In the face of such challenges, the United Nations must remain at the forefront of multilateral efforts and serve as the guarantor of international legitimacy. The Organization had untapped potential to provide adequate responses; the most effective solutions to adapt the political and legal foundations and operational infrastructure of the United Nations to suit new international realities must be found.
The principles of sovereignty, legitimacy, accountability, subsidiarity, complementarity, solidarity and responsibility must be adjusted to represent circumstances, Mr. Rotfeld said. The establishment of a human rights council should be the long-term strategic objective of the Organization, in order to transform human rights into one of the three main pillars of the United Nations system. Moreover, the prospect of universalizing membership on the Commission was appealing, but issues such as the risk of duplicating the work of the General Assembly’s Third Committee, the subordination of the Commission to the Economic and Social Council, and the relatively greater efficiency of smaller bodies must also be addressed. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should move from a culture of reaction to one of prevention, and should receive budgetary, organizational and human resources needed to match the challenges it faced.
Reaffirming the importance of combating all manifestations of intolerance, xenophobia and discrimination, Mr. Rotfeld said the key to countering such scourges lay in mutual understanding and the promotion of tolerance. Additionally, recognizing the interdependence of human rights, development and democracy was of fundamental importance in every effort to advance human rights. The universal enjoyment of human rights could not be ensured in the absence of democracy, and democracy could not flourish without good governance. Determined to continue its involvement in the activities of the "community of democracies", Poland favoured deepening cooperation between democratic States, including within the framework of international organizations, in order to strengthen the promotion of human rights and implement good governance.
EDUARD KUKAN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, expressed the Slovak Government’s satisfaction that the case of human rights, democracy and rule of law was resolutely taking ground in States and societies in its region. Slovakia had progressed in building up its development assistance strategy with its first 5-year programme adopted in 2003. Many projects in the western Balkan and Central Asian countries had been focusing on strengthening democratic institutions and supporting educational and social infrastructure. The progress in the Middle East peace process was also worth mentioning. Slovakia welcomed the commitments taken by both parties in Sharm el-Sheikh and hoped that the process would continue unimpeded with positive effect.
Slovakia had expressed its readiness to cooperate with the United Nations treaty bodies as well as with the special procedures of the Commission. Slovakia was among the countries which had issued a standing invitation to the mandate holders of the special procedures. Slovakia’s dialogue with United Nations' partners had prompted the Government to implement new projects and activities focused on improving the human rights standards of its citizens, while adhering to the principle of non-discrimination.
Slovakia, Mr. Kukan noted, had also embarked on a number of programmes directed towards the most vulnerable groups in the population, in particular the Roma community. A number of tasks outlined in the strategic document entitled "Basic Theses of the Slovak Government's Policies for the Integration of Roman Communities", adopted in 2003, were implemented in the course of 2004 and 2005, he noted.
VIDAR HELGESEN, State Secretary in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Norway, said that making multilateralism more effective constituted a key theme for the global community this year; human rights served as a measure of a State’s willingness to support multilateralism in practice. Thus, the United Nations must take a close look at how best to organize its work in order to enhance its impact and relevance. Expressing support for the proposal to universalize membership of the Commission on Human Rights, he cautioned that the participation of non-governmental organizations must not be weakened. Norway also supported the recommendation to increase the regular budget funding for human rights efforts and welcomed the increased attention shown by the Security Council in recent years to situations in which human rights violations constituted a threat to peace and security. However, the Organization’s credibility in promoting human rights depended upon its ability to keep its own house in order. Sexual misconduct by United Nations field personnel was deeply dismaying; it was essential that all staff and associated personnel acted in accordance with the fundamental values, rules and regulations of the United Nations.
Mr. Helgesen noted that the international community had developed an impressive and comprehensive body of legal instruments, norms and commitments in the field of human rights; if all human rights norms were effectively implemented, serious violations of human rights would be very rare. The framework of legally binding obligations must be respected. The international community must also act on the close linkages between human rights and conflict, as gross human rights violations invariably served as advance warning, as well as a by-product, of conflict. While maintaining and reinforcing the responsibility of States for human rights obligations, the international community must also engage with civil society and other actors in order to promote human rights.
Finally, Mr. Helgesen noted that while preventing acts of terror remained a fundamental responsibility of all States, State security and the fight against terrorism must not become a pretext for deviating from the fundamental principles of the rule of law and fair trial guarantees. Human rights and fundamental freedoms must be respected; to fail to do so would undermine the values upon which societies were founded, and ultimately defeat efforts to counter terrorism. Other areas of priority included combating discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation, and supporting the special procedures of the Commission, as well as other human rights defenders.
CONOR LENIHAN, Minister of State in the Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland, said Ireland had long been a strong supporter of the role of the United Nations. One of the main themes of Ireland’s recent Presidency of the European Union was the need for effective multilateralism. Effective multilateralism started from the recognition that the fundamental framework for international relations was the United Nations Charter. The United Nations human rights system, and the Commission in particular, played an essential role in minimizing the potential for conflict, ensuring that the rights of people were respected, including during conflict situations, and that violations of those rights were properly investigated and punished.
The elements that made up the concept of human security – the promotion of human rights, the advancement of human safety, and the protection of human lives – were also among the guiding principles that should inform all in their work in the Commission. Ireland’s membership of the Human Security Network of States underpinned those principles. Human security began with human rights. To be effective in advancing the cause of human rights, one should also be effective in other areas – conflict prevention and crisis management, peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, economic reconstruction, and development cooperation. Already acknowledged was the fact that it was impossible to guarantee the full enjoyment of human rights without development, but it was increasingly being recognized that it was also impossible to achieve sustainable development without respect for human rights.
Good governance and the respect for the rule of law were essential to create conditions whereby everyone might enjoy the fullest range possible of human rights. Furthermore, strong democratic institutions were an important basis for poverty eradication. That concept had been explicitly recognized by the Commission, which had adopted resolutions linked to good governance and the enjoyment of human rights. The Millennium Declaration, which outlined the international community's resolve to create an environment conducive to development and the elimination of poverty, reinforced the notion.
ALI KHOSHROO, Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs of Iran, said the international community had made remarkable progress in shaping the global network of instruments and diverse mechanisms aimed at promoting and protecting human rights in a world of ever-changing world politics. Democracy, development and human rights were considered as being strongly interlinked and these issues were at the centre of the international agenda of human rights. Despite all efforts, the global movement to promote human rights continued to be confronted by chronic challenges and persistent obstacles. These challenges and impediments were so critical that they had the potential not only to further hinder progress in the implementation of the global agenda to reinforce human rights, but also to reverse the achievements painstakingly gained at the national and international levels. In particular, the tragic events of 11 September 2001 and the ensuing policies of certain countries concerning their security arrangements were considered to be responsible for further aggravating the situation at many levels.
The universality of human rights, the principle of indivisibility and the international legitimacy of human rights were all concepts that carried certain requirements and imperatives. These imperatives needed to be correctly and carefully balanced in the overall programming and assessment of the processes related to setting and implementing standards if the United Nations human rights treaty bodies and mechanisms were to retain their credibility and strength. Accountability for all in the realisation of human rights, pursuing objectivity and eliminating double standards in the process relating to standard-setting and implementation, and viewing respect for cultural diversity as a prerequisite within universality, were among the imperatives and challenges ahead for creating an environment in which the United Nations machinery on human rights could fulfil its mission.
Cooperation and dialogue in the spirit of genuine concern for human rights had always proved effective in solving human rights problems and removing discrepancies in all fields including the situation of human rights in all parts of the world. It was in this context that Iran, apart from the institutional cooperation with the United Nations mechanisms, had established a defined framework for dialogue with a number of interested countries to facilitate the exchange of views and best practices as well as developing common positions on various human rights problems. The Government of Iran stood ready to engage in dialogue with any Member State on any issue that could help to eliminate misunderstandings and improve progress in all areas.
WENDY CHAMBERLIN, Acting United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, said that although the international protection regime continued to evolve, the interwoven relationship between refugee and human rights law remained constant.
This links was evident in UNHCR's work to improve protection measures on behalf of internally displaced persons (IDPs), who had figured as a constant feature of the Commission’s debates. The primary responsibility for IDPs continued to rest with the authorities of their countries, but the international community, and the United Nations in particular, had a responsibility to ensure that this obligation was fulfilled, particularly when States were unwilling, or unable, to do so. For its part, UNHCR had revisited internal procedures and guidelines for its involvement in IDP situations, and had a "predisposition" to help IDPs, while fully respecting the United Nations’ collaborative approach.
Reviewing the agency's involvement in the protection of IDPs in Darfur, Sudan, Ms. Chamberlin stressed that protection began with presence. The strong presence of international staff in the field had enhanced protection and emboldened IDPs, who had openly and persistently raised protection problems themselves. Beyond ensuring an international presence, protection work included extensive monitoring to direct intervention and shape programmes. However, there could be no doubt that the international response to the human rights crisis in Darfur had so far fallen short. Several points had emerged as immediate, and inarguable, needs: an individual’s right to leave his or her country to seek asylum must be preserved at all times; given the present situation, the return of refugees from Chad could not be urged, nor the return of IDPs to their areas of origin; more international staff should be deployed to the region; the United Nations must remain engaged, although every effort should be expended to avoid a protracted situation; and responsibilities and activities for the protection of IDPs should not be determined by funding levels.
The imperative to protect IDPs had illustrated the larger challenge of maximizing the effectiveness of international protection efforts as a whole. UNHCR welcomed the increased participation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the field, which offered great potential for close cooperation and effectively building upon each other’s work. However, UNHCR was not a human rights monitoring agency. Its monitoring functions were confined to promoting observance of the rights of persons under its mandate. Second, with regard to statelessness, she noted that many individuals continued to be deprived of a nationality. The Commission should look more closely at the issue, and consider measures that could be taken to return, to human and legal society, those who lacked what no human being should ever be denied: a place to call home and a legal identity.
Right of Reply
TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey), speaking in a right of reply in response to the Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister’s statement, said it was once again a sheer manifestation of a selective memory. He had forgotten the gross human rights violations committed by the Greek Cypriots since 1963 when the legitimate order established under the 1959-1960 Agreements were destroyed and the Turkish Cypriots were subjected to a campaign of ethnic cleansing. It was for this reason that a United Nations peacekeeping force was dispatched to the island in 1964. It was paradoxical that the Minister politicized the Commission by making baseless accusations pertaining to issues which would have been resolved within the context of an overall settlement under the United Nations plan. The dilemma was that the Greek Cypriots were not ready for a solution based on political equality and sharing of power with the Turkish Cypriots. It was incumbent on the international community to rectify this unjust situation and it would only then be possible to reach a viable solution.
TASSOS KRIEKOUKIS (Greece), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the rights of the members of the Muslim minority in Thrace were fully protected in Greece’s democratic society in which the rule of law prevailed. Greece’s legislation was in line with European human rights standards, as well as with the principles of the European Union.
ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN.(Armenia), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement made by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, said the statement was disappointing concerning the situation in Nagorny Karabakh. Armenia had been, as in all previous occasions, vilified in every possible way. Such an approach was hardly a useful contribution to a meaningful debate. Had Azerbaijan stepped aside from that trodden path of one-sided accusations, they might have recognized the fundamental issue of security for the people of Nagorny Karabakh. Not some amorphous, ambiguous, abstract security, but hardcore physical security. They might have demonstrated their willingness to recognize and state the very root cause of the problem to distinguish it from its consequences.
JUNEVER MAHILUM-WEST (the Philippines), speaking in a right of reply in response to the reference made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference on the situation of the Muslim community in Southern Philippines, said the assertions in the statement, if not clarified, conveyed a misleading and incomplete impression of what was actually happening in that region. The Government of the Philippines was strongly committed to a comprehensive peace process that was aimed at bringing sustainable peace and development to the Muslim communities in the region. The area today was receiving a large share of assistance from the Government, which, in addressing the development of the area, remained steadfast to its commitment to uphold the safety of civilians, to protect the human rights of their people and to pursue all avenues to achieve the final objective of a just and lasting peace and full participation in development of the people of the region.
RAIMONDS JANSONS (Latvia), speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement of the Russian Federation, said that the Deputy Minister of the Russian Federation had spoken about Latvia in historical terms and did not recognize that Latvia had been occupied by Soviet Russia, as the consequence of the Molotov-Ribentrop pact. The Government of Latvia condemned the crimes and holocaust of Nazism and Stalinism, for which there could never be an excuse or statutory limitations. The Latvian delegation would not accept selective historical perspectives, which diverted the focus of the work of the Commission from the current human rights issues, including racist and anti-Semitic activities in Russia itself. The Deputy Minister had rather bluntly expressed his views on the lives of national minorities in Latvia. It was highly questionable whether Russia had the right authority to express an accurate view on minority rights in other countries.
AZAD CAFAROV (Azerbaijan), speaking in a right of reply, said the delegation had already clearly expressed its position with regard to the opinions voiced by Armenia with regard to Nagorny Karabakh. Armenia had committed crimes against humanity, such as ethnic cleansing, and thus had no moral right to portray itself as an advocate of human rights. Nagorny Karabakh was and had always been an integral and inalienable part of Azerbaijan. Armenia should take a serious look at its position and respect the provisions of international humanitarian law. The occupation by the Armenian armed forces was in violation of these laws, and this had been recognised by a United Nations resolution. All those guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing should be punished.
JAMES C. DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement by Turkey, said that the people of Cyprus had been asked to approve or reject the Secretary-General's Plan in two separate and simultaneous referenda. A clear majority of Greek Cypriots had not approved of the "Annan Plan", but this did not signal rejection of a solution to the Cyprus problem. The status quo was not acceptable. The rights of the people of Cyprus continued to be violated by Turkey, and United Nations resolutions and decisions by the European Court of Human Rights had been rendered obsolete. Turkey had an obligation to respect them. The Turkish delegate had also referred to the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. That isolation was self-imposed and aimed at the separation of the two communities. The Greek Cypriots had worked in good faith to promote sound proposals to facilitate the reunification of the island by encouraging Turkish Cypriot development, particularly in the sphere of economic activities and relations between the two communities. He also wished to draw attention to relevant Security Council resolutions, which condemned the set-up of the illegal separatist entity, and recognized only one State in the territory.
PAVEL CHERNIKOV (Russian Federation), speaking in a right of reply, said it was necessary to answer the statement by Latvia. The statements made by many delegations had indicated that there was consensus in the room during this high-level segment that no State was perfect, and that the ability of States to take criticism was paramount. Russia did not hide its problems. Russia had listened to many critical statements from Baltic colleagues and from the Organization of the Islamic Conference and it had never occurred to Russia to use its right of reply, as it would consider these comments and muse upon them. However, there was no evidence of such maturity from the Latvian delegation. The victory in the Second World War was achieved by peoples against aggressor States, and it led to the foundation of the United Nations and the Commission. If States were members of the United Nations, they had to share the values of the Charter. There was concern that today, 60 years after the defeat of Fascism, there were still prosecutions of anti-Fascist veterans in Latvia, as well as prosecutions of the Waffen SS.
TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey), speaking in a second right of reply in response to the statement made by the representative of Cyprus, said the United States' State Department report indicated that Turkish Cypriots had been harassed by the opponents of the "Annan Plan". He also denounced the economic isolation of Turkish Cypriots.
JAMES C. DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), responding to Turkey, said he wished to remind the delegate of the relevant Security Council resolutions already cited. He also reiterated that 76 per cent of Greek Cypriots had voted against the "Annan Plan". That vote had been carried out in a free and democratic manner, and nothing the Turkish delegate said could deny that fact. Regarding the economic isolation, it was self-imposed by the occupation regime itself. The objective was to politically upgrade the secessionist entity. Finally, he wished to state that the reunification of the island would remain the absolute goal of the Government.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: