COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS HEARS STATEMENTS BY HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS FROM COUNCIL OF EUROPE, OSCE, SUDAN AND RED CROSS

Commission on Human Rights
58th session
26 March 2002
Afternoon




Continues Debate on Question of Violation of Human Rights
in Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine


The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon heard statements by high-level officials from the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Sudan and the International Committee of the Red Cross who highlighted the need for the respect of international law in the fight against terrorism.

Pierre Henri Imbert, Director-General for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, underlined that anti-terrorist measures should not undermine democracy and human rights under the pretext of defending them. He said terrorists wanted to destroy democracy and fundamental human rights values and we must not allow them to succeed by helping them. However, respect for human rights should not be considered as an obstacle in the struggle against terrorism. He added that since the challenge of terrorism were immense, it was vital to adopt a comprehensive approach to human rights.

Gerard Stoudmann, Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), said that the negative effects of corruption and organized crime protracted displacement and terrorism. He said that terrorism represented the negation of fundamental human rights and clearly called for appropriated action in defence of the values that all shared. The specific legislative or policy measures taken by some countries needed to balance between addressing the security concerns on one hand, and the respect for international standards and legal commitments, on the other hand.

Ali Ahmed Karti, State Minister at the Ministry for Justice of Sudan, stressed that fighting terrorism should not in any way affect the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals. He said his country was particularly concerned about the unjust campaign following the 11 September events against Islam and the Arabs. An internationally acceptable definition for terrorism was needed to differentiate and put a clear demarcation between terrorism and the legitimate rights of peoples to struggle for self-defence and to combat foreign occupation.


Jakob Kellenberger, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said that there were no "just" or "unjust" wars in terms of international humanitarian law. He said that several bodies of law, including national and international rules of criminal law, were relevant in the struggle against terrorism. As for international humanitarian law, it was that body of rules that was applicable whenever the fight against terrorism amounted to armed conflicts.

Also this afternoon, the Commission opened its agenda items 9 and 11 on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, and civil and political rights respectively.

Kamal Hossain, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, said that the international community should commit itself resolutely and with a sense of solidarity with the people of Afghanistan to support them in meeting the challenges of national reconstruction that faced them.

Manfred Nowak, Independent Expert on the international legal framework for the protection of persons from enforced disappearances, said there were several gaps and ambiguities in the present legal framework which clearly underscored the urgent need for a binding universal instrument in order to prevent the widespread practice of enforced disappearances which was one of the most serious human rights violations.

Elizabeth Odio Benito, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on a draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said that among all mental, moral and physical violations, torture was one of the oldest and most widespread, destroying the tortured persons, their families and communities.

The Commission also continued with its debate on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine. Statements were made by the representatives of Palestine, Israel, and Syria in response to the statement this morning by the Special Rapporteur on the situation in occupied Palestine, John Dugard. Mr. Dugard also took the floor briefly, as did the representative of Cuba.

The representatives of Israel, Palestine, India, Pakistan, China, Switzerland, and Syria exercised their right of reply.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Ambassador Drzysztof Jakubowski of Poland, said that in response to the new directives from the Secretary-General which no longer allowed the Commission to extend its meetings after 6 p.m., the extended Bureau of the Commission had taken a number of emergency measures. In addition to appealing to the Secretary-General to minimize the impact of the new directives, the Commission would be reducing speaking time limits across the board by 30 per cent; visiting dignitaries would be recommended to shorten their speeches; during voting, the Commission would move to the Assembly Hall where there was an electronic voting system; chairperson's statements would no longer be read out but would be distributed; and the election of members of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights would take place in a meeting parallel to the plenary.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 27 March, it will continue its debate on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine.


Statements

PIERRE HENRI IMBERT, Director-General for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, said that it was tempting to view the fight against terrorism as a primary objective to which all human rights considerations were subordinated. Such a view would be mistaken and even dangerous however. Anti-terrorist measures must not undermine democracy and human rights under the pretext of defending them. Terrorists wanted to destroy democracy and fundamental human rights values and we must not allow them to succeed by helping them. Respect for human rights should not be considered as an obstacle in the struggle against terrorism, but as an integral part of the latter.

Mr. Imbert said that since 11 September, the Council of Europe had adopted a three-point strategy to fight terrorism. The first point concerned strengthening international legal cooperation. The second point sought to ensure that steps taken by States respected human rights standards. The third point addressed the different factors and social conditions that drove individuals to radical positions that could take the extreme form of blind violence. These profound causes should lead us to invest in democracy and human rights. Together with other organizations, the Council of Europe actively participated in a multicultural and multi-religious dialogue among different countries and regions of the world. The challenges of terrorism were immense. This was why it was vital to adopt a comprehensive approach to human rights.

Mr. Imbert said that the Council of Europe was of the view that economic and social rights should be put on an equal footing with civil and political rights. Trafficking in human beings had reached unprecedented levels in Europe. The Council of Europe would continue to fight against racism in Europe. Member States had demonstrated their commitment in this area by recently adopting the anti-discrimination protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. There was no doubt that international consensus against the death penalty was gaining ground and that every country that took human rights seriously should at least put a moratorium on executions.

GERARD STOUDMANN, Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), said the right to democracy had been dynamically illustrated during the last decade in the OSCE region, where democratic borders had expanded to include the whole of Europe. Today most OSCE States enjoyed democratic structures. On the other hand, the right to democracy itself was being put at risk for a number of reasons, not only in the OSCE region but elsewhere in the world, and respect for human rights was far from having reached the credibility threshold everywhere in the world. Contempt for these fundamental values of civilization was unfortunately present through terrorism. Moreover, some forms of human right violations had resurfaced, such as slavery and human trafficking.

The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) had been established twelve years ago as an independent institution within the OSCE to promote sustainable democratic systems in the OSCE region, thus recognizing that freely elected governments were essential for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Over time ODIHR had developed a unique methodology providing an in-depth insight into all elements of an electoral process. An election observation was not just a one-day event but implied a deployment of experts before, during and after a given election, starting with an analysis of the legislative framework for elections and the broader human rights and political context, and ending with a comprehensive report with recommendations that served as the basis for technical assistance and political follow-up.

In the experience of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), tensions in society often derived from the weakness or lack of mechanisms for dialogue and participation which would give civil society greater consultative and oversight roles. History had taught the world that any exclusion or marginalization of large sectors of the population, be it on ethnic, religious or any other grounds, created a potential source of conflict and ended up threatening democratic stability. Another threat to democracy was poverty and the frustration of people when they did not have access to sufficient income and living standards. Democratic principles were not appreciated by the majority of the population if it could not concretely benefit from them. Mr. Stoudmann also pointed out the negative effects of corruption and organized crime, protracted displacement, and terrorism. Concerning terrorism, it represented the negation of fundamental human rights and clearly called for appropriated action in defence of the values that all shared. Many countries had taken specific legislative or policy measures, or modified their institutional systems in response to this new situation. Such measures needed to balance between addressing the security concerns on one hand, and respect for international standards and legal commitments, such as the Geneva Conventions, on the other hand. This was a question of human dignity and common sense as well.

ALI AHMED KARTI, State Minister at the Ministry for Justice of Sudan, said that the appalling terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September had undoubtedly changed the course of history and international relations. The Government of Sudan would like to extend once again its commiseration to the United States Government and people for the awful loss of thousands of innocent lives. The Government while abhorring those attacks would also like to express its unequivocal condemnation of all forms of terror.

Fighting terrorism was the responsibility of all nations; to that end, the ministers of foreign affairs and heads of the delegations of east and central African States at an initiative from Sudan had considered the problem of terrorism at their meeting that took place in New York during the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly. Again, upon a Sudanese initiative, the ministerial council of the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD), which took place in Khartoum in December last year, had studied the issue of terrorism and adopted measures to combat it in the region. The Arab justice ministers, in their meeting that was held in Khartoum in March 2002, had emphasized the importance of the Arab convention against terrorism and its applicability for combatting that phenomenon.

Fighting terrorism should not in any way affect the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals. Accusations of being terrorists should neither be directed to a specific race nor should any religion be labelled as advocating violence or terrorism. Sudan was particularly concerned about the unjust campaign following the 11 September events against Islam and the Arabs. A terrorist was a terrorist whoever he might be and wherever he might come from. An internationally acceptable definition for terrorism was needed to differentiate and put a clear demarcation between terrorism on the one hand, and the legitimate rights of peoples to struggle for self-defence and combatting foreign occupation on the other.

The situation in the Palestinian and Arab occupied territories represented a matter of high concern to the Sudan. The level of violence mounted by the Israeli occupying forces had reached unacceptable proportions. The Palestinian and other Arab people in occupied territories were subject to flagrant and systematic violations of their human rights by Israel. Assassinations and liquidation of Palestinians were rampant, the policy of collective punishment by the Israeli forces continued unabated, destruction of property and infrastructure had become the normal way of action by the Israelis against the Palestinians. It was imperative, however, to look at the intifada of the Palestinian people in its proper perspective, it was a genuine struggle for self-defence against foreign occupation.

The peace prospects in Sudan were more real now than ever before, thanks to the positive engagement of the United States Administration and other western friendly countries for which Sudan was very appreciative. The United States and the United Kingdom had both appointed special envoys to realize peace in the country, and other European countries were all pushing towards bringing about peace and stability in the country. The Government of Sudan, which was eager and keen to reach a durable solution to the problems of the country, would cooperate with the genuine international and regional efforts to bring about peace in the country.

JAKOB KELLENBERGER, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said engaging in an open and critical review of the state of implementation of international humanitarian law was something both necessary and justified. In countless situations of armed conflict around the world, men, women and children daily faced extreme hardship and violence. The extent to which international humanitarian law was being respected or not had a direct bearing on their plight. For centuries, States were the only subjects of international law, to the exclusion of organizations, or individuals, whose interest could only be protected by mediation of their respective countries. The notion that individuals had certain inalienable rights simply by virtue of being human was therefore a novel and remarkable step in the development of international law. In human rights law and refugee law terms, the belief that humanity was a value in itself found expression in treaties protecting individuals from arbitrariness, abuse and persecution by governments. In humanitarian law terms, it found expression in treaties providing that all persons in enemy hands during armed conflict also had specific rights. While different in circumstances of application, all three bodies of law shared and continued to have the same aim - to protect the life, health and dignity of individuals from arbitrary exercise of power over them.

One must be careful to not let the events of 11 September overshadow the seriousness of many - often forgotten or neglected - conflict-zones around the world. Losing sight of them, neglecting the violations that occurred in them, one ran the serious risk of weakening the body of international humanitarian law. It would be misleading to think that recent or present-day international crimes surpassed the evils that humans had historically inflicted on humans. Many had asked if international law was an adequate tool for dealing with the post-September reality. Mr. Kellenberger believed that international law, if correctly applied, was one of the strongest tools that the community of nations had at its disposal in the effort to reestablish international order and stability.

Mr. Kellenberger said international humanitarian law aimed to alleviate the suffering of individuals affected by war regardless of the underlying causes - and therefore regardless of any justification - for the armed conflict. There were no "just" or "unjust" wars in terms of international humanitarian law because civilians, to name just one category of persons protected by its rules, had the right to be spared murder, torture, rape, no matter which side they happened to belong to. Several bodies of law, including national and international rules of criminal law, were relevant in the struggle against terrorism. As for international humanitarian law, it was that body of rules that was applicable whenever the fight against terrorism amounted to or included armed conflicts. There was no question that its norms were adequate to deal with security risks in war because its provisions were designed specifically for the exceptional situation of armed conflict.

Presentation of Reports

Civil and Political Rights

MANFRED NOWAK, Independent Expert on the international legal framework for the protection of persons from enforced disappearances, said after an in-depth analysis of the present international legal framework relating to humanitarian law, criminal law and human rights law, the main task of his mandate had been to identify those gaps and ambiguities in the present legal framework which needed to be addressed and clarified by a future binding instrument. There were several gaps and ambiguities in the present legal framework which clearly underscored the urgent need for a binding universal instrument in order to prevent the widespread practice of enforced disappearances, one of the most serious human rights violations which was directed at the core of the dignity of both the disappeared person and his or her family.

Mr. Nowak said the most important gap was the lack of a binding obligation to make sure that enforced disappearances were a crime under domestic law with appropriate penalties, and that the principle of universal jurisdiction applied to this crime. It was vital that article 7 of the Rome Statute recognized enforced disappearances as a crime against humanity, however, perpetrators of these crimes would only in very exceptional circumstances be held accountable before the International Criminal Court. Effective domestic criminal justice must, therefore, be regarded as the most important mechanism in order to deter and prevent disappearances.

Another gap concerned the definition of disappearances which constituted a multiple human rights violation of a much more serious nature than just arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty, the Independent Expert said. The definition of enforced disappearances must go beyond the traditional human rights concept of referring exclusively to State agents. The definition must also encompass non-State actors. It was of utmost importance that a future binding instrument also explicitly recognized family members as victims of enforced disappearances and provided them with independent remedies. The most important remedy was the recognition of an explicit right of family members to know the truth about the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones, a right which presently was only explicitly recognized in international humanitarian law in cases of international armed conflict.

Mr. Nowak said there were three different options for such a binding instrument: a separate human rights treaty, an optional protocol to the Convention against Torture, or an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. All these options seemed to have certain advantages and disadvantages. The Human Rights Committee might be in the best position to undertake the additional task of monitoring States' compliance with their obligations to prevent disappearances, to investigate cases of disappearances and to bring the perpetrators to justice, and to provide effective remedies and reparation to the victims of disappearances.

The report of the Independent Expert, E/CN.4/2002/71, was not immediately available.

ELIZABETH ODIO BENITO, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on a draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said that among all mental, moral and physical violations, torture was one of the oldest and most widespread, destroying the tortured persons, their families and communities. Aware of this, the international community adopted the Convention against Torture to prohibit that practice. In force since 1987, the Convention had not been enough to eradicate torture however.

In both democratic and authoritarian countries and in the name of national security, torture continued to be a scourge. Mindful of this situation, the Commission decided 10 years ago to set up a Working Group to be charged with the task of drawing up a draft optional protocol to the Convention. The Protocol would establish a prevention mechanism of visits to places of detention. On the basis of the Commission's resolution, the Working Group had discussed the various aspects of a mechanism of visits. The final text of the draft protocol took into account all elements considered by participants over the past 10 years.

The report of the Working Group, E/CN.4/2002/79, was not immediately available.


The Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in any Part of the World

Under this agenda item, there is a report (E/CN.4/2002/43) on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan by Kamal Hossain, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan. The report reflects the impact on the human rights situation in Afghanistan of the dramatic developments that have taken place since the sixth report of November 2001. The report recommends, inter alia, that the highest priority in the programme for restoration of human rights must be to replace the rule of the gun by the rule of law; that pressing human rights issues include the need to address the deep-rooted discriminatory attitudes and practices that serve to marginalize women and minorities; that effective action would need to be taken to curb lawlessness, arbitrary military or police action and abuses that may undermine the protection of at-risk civilians including internally displaced persons; that specific steps need to be taken to assess existing capacity and that the transitional process needs to address the challenges presented by "warlords" and the negative legacies of the past when the future constitutional dispensation comes up for consideration.

KAMAL HOSSAIN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, reminded the Commission about his anxiety last year that the Afghan people had become totally forgotten by the international community and Afghanistan having become an abandoned nation. Since then there had been a total change - the attention of the world had become focused on Afghanistan. It was important that the international action against terrorism be viewed as a campaign to uphold the international rule of law. Forces engaged in that campaign must be seen as complying with international humanitarian law, this more so as increasing numbers of prisoners were expected to be taken in the coming days. It was important to ensure that captured fighters continued to be treated in accordance with the applicable Geneva Convention and any question regarding their status be determined by a competent tribunal as envisaged by that Convention.

The Bonn Agreement, signed on 5 December 2001, acknowledged the right of the people of Afghanistan to freely determine their political future, with its basic objective being "the establishment of a broad-based, gender-sensitive, multi-ethnic and fully representative government". The 23- year-old conflict had left the Afghan economy devastated. The overwhelming majority of Afghans struggled to survive in miserable conditions. They were among the poorest and hungriest in the world. Mass unemployment, widespread lack of purchasing power and lack of infrastructure and institutions undeniably made Afghanistan one of the most difficult places to live on earth. The urgent need to respond to their plight was characterized by an extremely complicated and volatile operating and planning environment.

The need for recruiting and developing a national police force was highlighted by Mr. Hossain, as was the key change of restoring the rights of Afghan women. Women had been the target of systematic discrimination denying them access to employment, education and health services. The Afghan people had been exposed for over two decades to the arbitrary use of force, recurrent massacres accompanying changes of control over territory, arbitrary detention, cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, and arbitrary and drastic restrictions of freedom of speech, movement and association. The highest priority in the programme for restoration of human rights would be to replace the rule of the gun by the rule of law. Strategic and sustainable improvement of human rights was seen as a prerequisite for durable peace in Afghanistan and for creating conditions conducive for the return of millions of Afghan refugees, a process which had just begun. The international community must commit itself resolutely and with a sense of solidarity with the people of Afghanistan to support them in meeting the challenges of national reconstruction which faced
them. It must mobilize the resources needed and in particular provide the critical support requested by way of expansion of the International Security Assistance Force, without which the transition could be put at risk.


Statements on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, including Palestine

NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine) recalled that the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, had been an item on the agenda of the Commission for over 30 years because of the continued occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel during all those years. The Palestinian territory was exposed not only to the Israeli aggression but also to usurpation and annexation, contrary to the nature of other forms of occupation or any conventional colonial form which took place in a particular country for a limited period of time.

The history of Israel since its creation had been based on the disobedience of international law; the rejection of the principles of the United Nations; the violation of human rights; and the perpetration of all forms of crimes qualified by international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 together with its First Additional Protocol as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Mr. Ramlawi said that since 28 September 2000 to this day, the Israeli army forces had used all kinds and means of warfare, F-16 fighter bombers, military helicopters, artillery, tanks, surface-to-surface missiles and naval battleships to shell Palestinian towns and villages. They had been demolishing houses and had turned the families who used to live in them into homeless persons. They had also destroyed civil institutions such as schools, hospitals, police posts, and industrial firms, among other things. So far, 1,200 Palestinians had been killed by the Israeli armed arsenals, in addition to 90 assassinated, 25,000 wounded, and 1,900 arrested; and the total number of Palestinians currently detained in Israeli jails had reached 4,000. Palestinians were deprived of any army or weapons, contrary to the Israeli Nuclear State.

YAAKOV LEVY (Israel) said that the equation by the Special Rapporteur between occupation and terrorism was not only objectionable, it was also dangerous. This shocking thesis seemed to argue that the main explanation for terrorist attacks was not the terrorists who decided to blow up scores of innocent civilians but rather Israel's presence in the territories in the face of decades of Arab hostility and refusal to negotiate. It also ignored the fact that the Palestinian terrorism had been at its most prevalent precisely at those times when Israel had demonstrated its most far-reaching willingness at the negotiating table. This had been the case throughout the years of negotiations, but had never been more evident than in the case of the current wave of Palestinian violence which was instigated not as a response to Israeli policies, but rather to try to camouflage the Palestinian refusal to respond to the most generous Israeli peace offer to date. Moreover, the Rapporteur's assertion that it was occupation that was the real cause of Palestinian terrorism also ignored the historical fact that the adoption of terrorism as the prime Palestinian strategy predated Israel's entry into the territories in 1967.

Mr. Levy said that perhaps most striking of all, in terms of the Report's treatment of the issue of terrorism, was the absence of any reference at all to the Palestinian Authority's direct and active role in instigating, planning and participating in violence. This double standard was also evident in the language and tone adopted by the Report. While Israel's security measures, taken in response to Palestinian violence, were vilified in the strongest language, attacks by Palestinian militarized groups were staggeringly described as displaying new determination, daring and success.

The Rapporteur devoted some considerable attention to the restriction of freedom of movement, yet made no reference whatsoever to the repeated terrorist attacks, Mr. Levy said. He also failed to mention the numerous instances throughout this conflict of the abuse by Palestinian terrorists of protective symbols and accepted principles relating to the relief of the wounded. One would have expected that the tragic reality in which terrorists placed themselves in ambulances, disguising themselves as paramedics, would be at least mentioned in the Special Rapporteur's Report. Another striking indication of bias was that whereas the Report drew attention to regrettable incidents of deaths and injuries of Palestinian children, describing the effects of the present conflict on them, it failed to mention any similar injuries to which the children of Israel were exposed on a daily basis. It made no mention of the tragic impact of terrorism on Israeli children, who were savagely murdered by suicide terrorists. Furthermore, the Report lacked any presentation of the role played by the calculated use of Palestinian children in perpetrating violence.

TOUFIQ SALLOUM (Syria) reminded the Commission that Israel's belligerent policy did not start with its attacks on the Arab countries in 1967, it was preceded by an overpowering attack on Egypt in 1956. The attacks on Egypt had been preceded, followed and concomitant with the various attacks on the Syrian Golan. The Syrian Golan, occupied by Israel, represented an area of 1,000 square kilometres and its soil was one of the richest in water resources in Syria. When the Golan Heights were invaded by Israel, there were about 250 villages and farms and 160,000 Syrian inhabitants. In the capital of the Golan, the Israeli forces purposefully destroyed four churches, four mosques and a large hospital as well as a number of schools during their withdrawal. Nowadays, in the occupied Golan, there were only five remaining villages inhabited by 25,000 Syrians. Why? The reason was that the occupying Israeli forces had destroyed all the other villages and farms as well as expelled the Syrian population and built more than 40 civil and military settlements. There were also Israeli restrictions on the Syrians under occupation to communicate with their relatives who had been chased out of their houses and lands when Israel occupied the Golan.

Mr. Salloum said the Israeli settlements were rendering the life of Syrian inhabitants intolerable. Furthermore, Israeli policies tended to impose the Hebrew language, culture and history on the Syrian Arab inhabitants of the Golan, while not allowing them to use their Arabic language and imposing on them school books that distorted the Arab history and culture. The Commission was urged to impose on Israel its acceptance of a committee that would investigate the truth so it may present a true report on the different human rights violations committed by Israel, and the actions of the settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories and the Golan, which had reached the point of collective massacres. It was time for the United States to stop overlooking Israeli policies and to take maximum action as an honest and non-biased mediator to allow for a fair and complete peace in the region.

JOHN DUGARD, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel, said that as opposed to Israel's accusation of bias, his only concern was human rights violations in the region. Israel was a State that was committed to the rule of law, and he believed that it should be expected of such a State to respond to the observations and merits of his report.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that the main cause of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its current aggravation that had reached extremely dangerous levels over the last weeks and months was the illegal occupation of the Arab and Palestinian territories. The second intifada had been the spontaneous and unavoidable reaction of a people who were rebelling against a perpetuated occupation through force and terror. The situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories was desolate.

Mr. Fernandez Palacios said the continuation of the expanding settlements policies, the expropriation of Palestinian land, the construction of secondary roads for the exclusive use of settlers, the forceful dislodgment and the destruction of Palestinian dwellings were a deliberate attempt to modify by force and in benefit of the occupying power the existing status quo. These practices had been accompanied by other punitive and arbitrary measures such as the creation of contention zones and control points, extra-judicial killings, arbitrary detentions, acts of torture and violations of the freedom of movement, religion and beliefs by the occupying power. A just, lasting and global peace could not be achieved in the Middle East until the Palestinian people exercised their legitimate right to establish an independent State with East Jerusalem as its capital. Nor could it be achieved while the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Arab Golan, were not returned.

Rights of Reply

A Representative of Israel, exercising his right of reply at the beginning of the meeting, said the listing of suffering of one side should not distract from the main cause of the current wave of violence and terrorism. It was not occupation, as certain delegations would like Israel to believe. Rather it was the conscious decision of the Palestinian Authority not to pursue the very policy that Ms. Ashrawi espoused. Israel had suffered continuous violent attacks. It had been compelled to act in self-defence and would continue to defend herself and her citizens against that kind of unprecedented wave of terror and violence. Israelis too, were entitled to the right to life.

A Representative of Palestine, also speaking in right of reply at the beginning of the meeting, said that the Israeli representative had said that Israel was suffering from the worst form of attacks and that Israelis were defending themselves. The representative asked where the Israeli army was defending itself. The Israelis were occupying Palestinian land, killing, demolishing houses, and destroying ambulances. The Palestinians were the ones who were defending themselves and their own land. If Israel wanted to live in peace it must withdraw to the pre-1967 borders.

A Representative of India, exercising his right of reply at the end of the meeting, said in response to the Pakistani Foreign Minister's speech this morning that Pakistan had in fact created and promoted the Taliban and associated terrorist networks through its intelligence and security services. Pakistan must be recognized as the epicentre of terrorism on a global stage. Terrorist links persisted between the Pakistan Government and terrorist organizations, even after the events of 11 September. The root cause of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir was in fact the result of the Pakistani promotion of terrorists. Pakistan's calls for dialogue were hollow. This morning's attempt to exploit the unfortunate situation in Gujarat was intolerable, particularly as the tragedy had been unequivocally condemned by all sectors of society and Government in India.

A Representative of Pakistan, speaking in right of reply, said that India pretended to be the largest democracy. Quoting a newspaper report, he gave an account of incidents that took place in India, including the incidents related to the killing of Muslim believers. The Government was pursuing the interests of the Hindu party. He utterly rejected the accusation directed against his country.

A Representative of China, speaking in right of reply, said that Tibet was an integral part of Chinese territory since ancient times and this was recognized by international covenants. In his statement this morning, the Swiss foreign Minister had tried to instigate the independence of Tibet and went against the principles of neutrality of the Swiss government.

A representative of Israel, speaking in a second right to reply, assured the Special Rapporteur that Israel was concerned with human rights, in Israel and in the region as a whole. However, according to the Special Rapporteur it seemed the region was comprised of Israel alone. In many of the States of the region, there was absolutely no semblance of human rights, no free expression or free press. In Syria a parliamentarian had recently been jailed for five years because of his political opinion. By focusing on one country alone, the Special Rapporteur had compounded his singling out even further. Thus, had his mandate been focusing on the whole region, including the Palestinian Authority, Israel would have responded to his remarks.

A Representative of Switzerland, speaking in a right of reply, said that the policy of his country on Tibet did not change. It believed in dialogue and it considered that the problem in the region could be settled peacefully through dialogue. As the Swiss Minister affirmed this morning, it was essential to guarantee the freedom of religion for Tibetans.

A Representative of Syria, speaking in right of reply, said that Israel refused the return of Palestinians on the grounds that this would upset the ethnic purity of Israel. If that was not racism, what was. Israeli leaders and the vast majority of Israelis were in favour of the transfer of Palestinians. This would amount to ethnic cleansing.

A representative of India, speaking in a second right of reply, said that Pakistan's ambassador had been selectively reading a text. India had its own quotes, in fact from today's International Herald Tribune, which clearly showed that Pakistan had been ruled by dictatorships for several decades and that the government still had clear links with militant groups. Pakistan's military government had used the events of 11 September to ingratiate itself with the west and maintain its stronghold in the region.

A Representative of Pakistan, speaking in a second right of reply, said that India had a 700,000 strong-army in Kashmir and requested India to liberate the land it occupied.

A Representative of Palestine, speaking in a second right of reply, said that he did not intend to comment on the statement by Israel.





* *** *