Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS STARTS GENERAL DEBATE ON THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISMS
18 April 2005
Share
Commission on Human Rights
AFTERNOON
18 April 2005
Concludes Discussion on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon began its general discussion on the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms after concluding its debate on the promotion and protection of human rights. Speakers said priority issues for enhancing the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms included strengthening the special procedures of the Commission, improving and further streamlining the work of the human rights treaty bodies, and emphasizing the role that regional and sub-regional organizations could play for the protection and promotion of human rights worldwide.
The special procedures of the Commission were vital to the advancement of human rights internationally, stressed Canada, speaking on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and Norway. They were on the front line of protection and promotion of human rights, and should be assisted to carry out their country missions, request information, and ensure appropriate follow-up to their recommendations. During this period of reform, the special procedures should show leaders to look critically and constructively at their own working methods in order to identify practical steps to enhance their effectiveness and encourage better cooperation from States.
Cautioning that, with nearly 40 special procedures now in existence, the Commission must resist the temptation to react reflexively to each perceived human rights problem by establishing a new special procedure, the United States said the reckless proliferation of special procedures cheapened this valuable currency, and muffled many important concerns and issues highlighted by them. Meanwhile, Cuba highlighted the imbalance in geographical representation of the special procedures, which was always to the detriment of developing countries, and was compounded by the political manipulation of these mechanisms by industrialized countries.
For its part, Pakistan drew attention to the treaty body system, stressing that reporting by States parties constituted the most important means of assessing the implementation of obligations under various instruments. However, experience showed that there were several constraints to that process, and the human rights treaty bodies should craft a more coordinated approach to their activities and standardize their varied reporting requirements.
Paraguay, speaking on behalf of MERCOSUR and associated States, said that the establishment and strengthening of regional and sub-regional mechanisms that fostered respect for human rights constituted a substantial step forward that could be taken by States to contribute to the international system for the protection of human rights. Such regional and sub-regional organizations also strengthened national protection and promotion of human rights.
Within the general debate on the promotion and protection of human rights, Representatives of non-governmental organizations addressing the Commission stressed issues related to the importance of the newly-adopted World Programme for Human Rights Education; the need for an international moratorium on the death penalty; the need to ensure respect for human rights while fighting terrorism; and the need to ensure better protection for human rights defenders.
The Representatives of Egypt, Estonia (on behalf of the Baltic and Nordic States), China, Ukraine, Dominican Republic, Kenya, Liechtenstein, and Venezuela also addressed the Commission within its consideration of the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms this afternoon.
The Representatives of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Inter-Parliamentary Union and United Nations Development Programme also addressed the Commission on the above issue.
Addressing the Commission this afternoon on the promotion and protection of human rights were Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penality; International Young Catholic Students; Asian Legal Resource Centre; World Union for Progressive Judaism; Permanent Assembly for Human Rights; Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action; General Arab Women Federation; Agir ensemble pour les droits de l'homme; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development; Collectif des organisations des jeunes solidaires du Congo-Kinshasa; MINBYUN - Lawyers for a Democratic Society (in a joint statement with People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy); and Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos.
Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations addressed the Commission on the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms: Friends World Committee for Consultation - QUAKERS (in a joint statement with several NGOs1); International Commission of Jurists (in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues and Human Rights Watch); Association for World Education (in a joint statement with Association of World Citizens and International Humanist and Ethical Union); Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (in a joint statement with several NGOs2); International Federation of University Women (in a joint statement with several NGOs3); World Union for Progressive Judaism; International Service for Human Rights; Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos; South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre; Association for the Prevention of Torture; Centrist Democratic International; and Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations.
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply this afternoon were the representatives of Colombia and Algeria.
The Commission on Human Rights will reconvene at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 19 April to continue, and conclude, its general debate under all remaining agenda items. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Cambodia, and the Independent Experts on Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia will present their reports. The Commission will then start taking action on draft resolutions.
General Debate on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
JOTAKA AEDDY, of National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penality, said international laws and standards were becoming increasingly important in legal analyses and debates involving the death penalty in the United States. It was hoped that the world would soon see the end of the death penalty as a form of legal punishment, in particular of people suffering from mental illness in the United States. The continued use of the death penalty was a clear violation of human rights and should end. The Commission should reaffirm its calls for the immediate abolition of the death penalty; pay special attention to the application of the death penalty to those who suffered from mental disabilities; and strongly urge Member States to implement the recommendations of the Secretary-General in his report on capital punishment.
SYLVIA ADRIANASOLO, of International Young Catholic Students, said that information and education were inseparable activities, and that the implementation of activities for awareness raising were important to educate the general populace about its vital human rights, especially as it was the violation of those human rights that gave rise to most of the conflicts that faced the world today. Her organization affirmed that activities to promote human rights education and information were essential to make people understand their human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to understand them more fully. In the framework of the World Programme for Human Rights Education, much remained to be done. The Commission should ask the High Commissioner for Human Rights to take the framework into account, and should stress that all States should introduce human rights into their school curricula. At the United Nations, there should be cooperation with the media and State institutions to develop activities for human rights education and information, and the United Nations should also work to develop education packages that corresponded more to social realities than theory.
MICHAEL ANTHONY, of Asian Legal Resource Centre, said on 12 March 2004, Somachai Neelaphaijit disappeared after he was pulled from his car in Bangkok, allegedly by five policemen. Somachai was abducted because he was defending clients who had suffered from extremely brutal torture at the hands of the police in the south of Thailand, and then spoke out about these cases. He came to Bangkok to press their case before senior authorities. Since his disappearance, his wife has sought answers. Despite the wishes of the public prosecutor, she became the co-plaintiff in a criminal case against the five accused men. She also inspired the relatives of hundreds of others who had disappeared in the south of Thailand recently. The Centre urged the Government of Thailand to fully resolve the disappearance of the defender, and hold accountable the perpetrators.
DAVID LITTMAN, of World Union for Progressive Judaism, said the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society have been promoting the basic human right that families had the right to know about the whereabouts of their loved ones. The Government of Iran should observe international human rights norms set out in international instruments and should end their long silence regarding the twelve missing Jews, secretly incarcerated for more than a decade. The freeing of these missing prisoners, held incommunicado without trial, would be a welcome sign.
ALICIA GERSHANIK, of Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, said impunity fostered human rights violations such as forced disappearances, torture, discrimination and genocide. The renouncement of criminal sanctions against violators of these human rights implied the use of injustice for those who should be accountable to justice. The Permanent Assembly strongly condemned all acts of terrorism, but expressed alarm over the worldwide campaign against terrorism, in the name of which the above types of human rights violations occurred, and for which the perpetrators enjoyed impunity. The Commission must defend the fundamental principles of human rights, and must ensure that measures taken by States did not violate them. The Permanent Assembly condemned the criminalization of social protest, and called for sanctions against human rights defenders to be cancelled.
LES MALEZER, of Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, thanked the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders for her report and noted that the Representative identified States in South America where human rights defenders had been targeted for their work on indigenous and land rights. Further to the information provided in that report was the dismantling of the organizations and the leadership of the Aboriginal Peoples in Australia over recent years. In 1998, the Government had changed the native title laws in Australia, so that it could reappoint or dismiss the Aboriginal organizations responsible for defending indigenous titles to land. Consequently, two of the bodies were de-commissioned and the remaining organizations were constrained in their budgets and intimidated from acting as advocates on indigenous rights. He called upon the Representative to investigate the policies and practices of the Government of Australia and their impact upon defenders of indigenous and land rights.
ANNEKE VAN DE BOEG, of General Arab Women Federation, said the Commission should urgently look into the human rights situation in present-day Iraq. The reports of grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law since the invasion and occupation of the country had shocked the conscience of people worldwide, and yet the Commission had been almost silent on the human rights situation there following the military attacks. The Commission should take the necessary steps to ensure the protection of the Iraqi people and re-establish the position of the Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iraq with a mandate to investigate and report on all human rights and humanitarian law violations.
JUAN CARLOS CANO, of Agir ensemble pour les droits de l'homme, said he wished to condemn attacks of all types committed against the Colombian civilian population, particularly those in which State agents were involved. In particular, the violence unleashed against the population of San Jose in February and March was to be condemned, as it had happened in connection with the demobilization of a paramilitary group in the region of Uraba. He also wished to denounce the continued impunity extended to the main perpetrator of the massacres that had occurred from 1995 to 1996, General Rito Alejo del Rio. Moreover, the Government of President Uribe was responsible for acts of violence, including harassment, detention, attacks on, and the murders of social leaders and trade unionists across the country. Of particular concern was the "Orion" operation carried out in Medellin, in which paramilitary forces had acted in complicity with the police to kill numerous youth. Pits containing the bodies of these youth had been discovered after statements were made to the national human rights body. Despite these investigations, the perpetrators had not yet been identified and prosecuted. The Commission should urge the Government to exhaust the possibilities to investigate these crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice.
RUKSHAN FERNANDO, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, regretted that not much had been done by Asian Governments to operationalize the Human Rights Defender’s Declaration at the national level. Defenders in many countries were still unable to enjoy the rights and protection enshrined in the Declaration and in other human rights instruments. Asian Governments were increasingly restricting the work of defenders through domestic legislation. States were also enacting slow, cumbersome, bureaucratic and expensive procedures for the acquisition of legal status for non-governmental organizations and had broadened unnecessary procedures on access to funding. The Asian Forum was alarmed by the level of impunity for perpetrators responsible for the assassination, disappearance, intimidation, threats and obstructions on defenders. In Thailand, the case of the prominent human rights lawyer, Somchai Neelaphaijit, who disappeared in March 2004, remained unsolved, as well as the case of the murder of the Indonesian defender Munir in September 2004.
FERNANDEZ MURHOLA, of Collectif des organisations des jeunes solidaires du Congo-Kinshasa, said there were daily concerns for human rights defenders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since the end of the sixtieth session of the Commission, there had been dramatic events which had shaken the human rights defenders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Commission should adopt a resolution on the promotion and protection of human rights defenders as well as the implementation mechanisms of that resolution. It should also ask the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to invite the Special Representative on human rights defenders to the country as well as the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
GIYOUN KIM, of MINBYUN - Lawyers for a Democratic Society, in a joint statement with People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, said that post-September 11 counter-terrorism measures had seriously worsened the human rights situation in the Republic of Korea. A new national security bill had just been introduced, and there was strong civil society opposition to it, due to the manner in which it extended the power of national institutions, which had previously been responsible for torturing political suspects under the national security law. This would represent a substantial consolidation of the power of the national intelligence agency on a permanent basis. Government agencies had clearly committed human rights abuses. The Republic of Korea should rescind the President’s order, and reconsider its national security legislation. The Commission should request its special procedures to pay special attention to the impact of counter-terrorism measures on the enjoyment of human rights in Asian countries, particularly in the Republic of Korea.
LUIS ACEBAL, of Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, said Spain had ratified the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1985. Thus, it had recognized the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals and groups of individuals claiming that their rights enshrined in the Covenant had been violated by the Spanish State. However, the State party, due to a decision by the Spanish Supreme Court, which had said that the decisions did not entail obligations, had not implemented the decisions of the Committee. The decisions of the European Human Rights Court had met with the same fate. The new Spanish Government had orally promised to implement the decisions of the Human Rights Committee.
Right of Reply
CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia), speaking in a right of reply, said regarding statements made by several non-governmental organizations, the detentions in Colombia were undertaken by the Prosecution Service, with the support of the police, and were monitored in terms of legality. Regarding the veracity of witnesses' testimonies, intelligence gathering and investigations had found that in some cases these statements were found to be untrue. There was constant conversation and interaction between the Presidential Programme for Human Rights and non-governmental organizations. The national Government was committed to this task. It was irresponsible to relate the deaths of trade union members with repression efforts by the Government. The Government was working to prevent incidents of violence, and protection was offered to members of trade unions. Human rights defenders were not victims of the paramilitaries under the authorization of the army; such a statement ignored the complex reality of the illegal groups involved in combats outside the law of the State. Crimes against humanity were not political crimes in Colombia.
General Debate on the Effective Functioning of Human Rights Mechanisms
MOHAMED LOUTFY (Egypt) said that the process of disseminating principles of human rights could not be undertaken by the State alone. Instead, a collective effort by the Government, civil society and national human rights institutions must be developed. These efforts had culminated in Egypt in 2003 with the establishment of the National Council on Human Rights, which was independent in its activities and funding, in conformity with the Paris Principles. The same legislation had also provided for its mandate to include the protection and promotion of human rights. A national plan of action for human rights had also been established, and the Council had been authorized to submit proposals for its implementation, and to receive complaints of violations of human rights. The Council would also make recommendations on national compliance with international human rights instruments, and would work with other national human rights institutions. It would participate at the international level, and would work to disseminate human rights culture and raise awareness at the national level.
The Commission had started its work in 2004, he added, under the leadership of former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and 26 other prominent personalities with significant experience in human rights. It had recently issued its first report, which had provided a factual analysis of the status of human rights in Egypt. The Government had also established other mechanisms for the promotion of human rights in the country, including through bringing five ministries together to form a committee that would submit proposals on improvement of the national human rights situation, and take action on the complaints received by the Council on Human Rights. The Parliament had also established a committee on human rights to prepare new human rights legislation. Overall, there was a full system of political, judicial and legislative committees to work with civil society for the benefit of human rights. The more than 17,000 non-governmental organizations operating in the country had an important role to play in promoting human rights as well.
TONIS NIRK (Estonia), also speaking on behalf of the Baltic and Nordic States, said irrespective of their precise form and functions, national human rights institutions, established in accordance with the Paris Principles, were crucial national level actors in promoting and protecting human rights. In those countries where such institutions operated, they were at the core of the implementation of human rights. The Commission on Human Rights was the principal governmental human rights body of the United Nations. All actors working in the field of human rights could participate actively and constructively in the Commission’s work. National human rights institutions should have the opportunity to make their contributions as well. Ways should be found to facilitate their input in the activities of the Commission so that the Commission could take advantage of the work carried out by national human rights institutions, which were in compliance with the Paris Principles. The national human rights institutions should be allowed to address the Commission under all the relevant agenda items instead of just under one.
In order to render the implementation of the human rights treaties efficient and transparent, the Baltic and Nordic States considered the work of the treaty monitoring bodies absolutely vital. The number of the States parties of the treaties was constantly rising, as well as the burden and requirements on the treaty bodies. In that respect, States should assist the treaty bodies by submitting their comprehensive country reports on time. The Baltic and Nordic States recognized with appreciation the efforts of the treaty bodies themselves as well as of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. There was a need to increase the effectiveness of the monitoring bodies and to streamline the reporting process. The Baltic and Nordic States supported the introduction of an expanded core document common to all treaty bodies with more selective specific reports to each of them.
HU BIN (China) said in the 60 years since the founding of the United Nations, its various human rights mechanisms had undergone graduate development and improvements, and had made major contributions to the promotion and protection of human rights. On the other hand, it was also true that today these mechanisms were still faced with many serious challenges. The Commission was one of the most important pillars of the human rights system of the United Nations, and in recent years the crisis of its credibility and the issue of its reform had become the hottest topics. The crux of the reform was to move away from the politicization of the Commission and to come back to the principle of international cooperation as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
The Chinese Government endorsed the principle of the universality of human rights, but at the same time believed that the focus of the United Nations Inter-Agency Country Team should be to provide assistance to the country in question. By way of periodic dialogue with States parties, the treaty bodies of human rights instruments contributed to the efforts by States parties to implement treaty obligations. However, as time went by, such a system had found itself beset with an ever-increasing number of bodies and low efficiency, which had caused heavy burdens on the States parties, the treaty bodies, and the United Nations in general. In the reform process, it was hoped that the view points of all States parties would be fully respected so as to make sure that a more simplified procedure and reduced burden would come out of the reform as many countries had intended. It was also hoped that during the current session a basic consensus would be reached on how to promote the reform process of the special mechanisms.
FRANCISCO BARREIROS (Paraguay), speaking on behalf of MERCOSUR and associated States, said that the establishment and strengthening of regional and sub-regional mechanisms that fostered respect for human rights constituted a substantial step forward that could be taken by States to contribute to the international system for the protection of human rights. Such regional and sub-regional organizations also strengthened national protection and promotion of human rights. MERCOSUR had repeatedly pointed towards representative democracy anchored in the rule of law as the guarantee for the full flourishing of all human rights - political and civil, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. The strengthening and establishment of regional and sub-regional instruments constituted ways and means to effectively foster discussions of human rights and to ensure their exercise.
The experience of MERCOSUR was enlightening, he said. The integration process had originally been based on economic and commercial principles, but after the 1996 San Luis conference, it had incorporated political and social dimensions as well. That political cooperation and dialogue had given attention to more social and human agendas, and in 1997, MERCOSUR had establish a political forum, which had been charged with coordinating and following-up meetings of ministers of education, justice, culture and the interior, as well as other authorities for social development. It was also to coordinate meetings on specialized themes such as illicit drugs, consular and judicial questions and women, among others. Moreover, he added, one of the most important aspects of MERCOSUR’s work on human rights had been the establishment of a mechanism for high-level meetings between national human rights authorities and foreign ministries. Such moves attested to the fact that MERCOSUR was a dynamic and proactive process committed to dialogue and political coordination for the protection and promotion of human rights.
VOLODYMYR VASSYLENKO (Ukraine) said Ukraine welcomed the Secretary-General’s report “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights”, considering it to be a good starting point in enabling the Commission to deal effectively with the challenges faced by the world today. Ukraine strongly supported the Secretary-General’s lead in bringing those issues to the forefront, especially the need to agree on measures that would expedite the progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals. The report was also a good catalyst generating discussions that would lead to a necessary overhaul of the United Nations' system. However, those deliberations should not be limited merely to concrete recommendations made. For instance, one could foresee now that with the eventual establishment of a Human Rights Council – as a United Nations statutory body – the human rights system might be strengthened. Apparently, its creation would reflect an increasing importance of the human rights issues within the United Nations and could raise the discussion of human rights to a higher level. Still the mandate and membership of the proposed body and its relation with the other United Nations' institutions needed further and very careful consideration.
Ukraine fully supported the idea of a further integration of the human rights issues throughout the United Nations system, particularly their discussion in the Security Council debates. Therefore, Ukraine welcomed appropriate recommendations, including those aimed at more active and frequent involvement of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Security Council deliberations. It was implicitly recognized that human rights violations posed major threats to peace and security throughout the world. Thus, it was crucial to underline the importance of the preventive actions taken to protect human rights and to secure that large-scale violations of those rights were adequately addressed and acted upon by the international community. Ukraine was open to dialogue and looked forward to every suggestion on possible options for the reform, reinvigorating the entire United Nations machinery of human rights.
RHADYS ABREU DE POLANCO (Dominican Republic), speaking on the recommendations made at the World Conference on Human Rights and the Plan of Action, said priority should be given to national measures for human rights and their development. In accordance with the United Nations Charter and other instruments on these rights, the Dominican Republic understood that human rights and freedoms were the natural inheritance of all human beings, and it was the responsibility of all Governments to promote and protect these rights, in particular, with national human rights institutions. The Plan of Action required that these either be put in place or strengthened, noting that each State had the right to choose the specific framework best adapted for its needs. An inter-institutional national human rights institution had been installed in that country, on the understanding that the prime responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights in a society and to achieve human rights objectives was essential.
The human rights commitments by the Dominican Republic had been considered in terms of its responsibilities to various international conventions, which had been incorporated into the State's legal system. The inter-institutional Commission included representatives of civil society and had the duty to work together with many other bodies and organizations, as well as to present reports to appropriate fora.
PAUL MEYER (Canada), speaking on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and Norway, agreed that the era of declarations had now given way to the era of implementation. The remarkable achievement of producing a framework of human rights laws, standards, and mechanisms must now be matched with an equal emphasis and commitment for implementation. At the heart of human rights figured the human rights mechanisms - the special procedures, treaty bodies and national human rights institutions. In addition to their role as independent bodies promoting the awareness of and respect for human rights within States, as well as being a forum for complaints of unlawful discrimination, national institutions had an important role to play at the international level, including through assisting in the development of human rights principles, good governance and human rights capacity-building in their respective regions.
The special procedures of the Commission were also vital to the advancement of human rights internationally, he said. They were on the front line in the protection and promotion of human rights, and should be strengthened on the basis of the recommendations contained in the 2000 consensus report of the Inter-sessional Open-Ended Working Group on enhancing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights. Special procedures should be assisted to carry out country missions, request information, and ensure appropriate follow-up to their recommendations. They should show leadership in looking critically and constructively at their own working methods to identify practical steps to enhance their effectiveness and encourage better cooperation from States. Moreover, civil society had worked closely with the special procedures; their voice should be heard during the dialogue on strengthening the special procedures as well.
PHILLIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya) said that as a State party to the main international human rights treaties, Kenya had endeavoured to match its international legal obligations with practical strategies and action plans in order to implement human rights at the national level guided by the principles of human dignity, non-discrimination, justice and equality for all. The Constitution review process had resulted in a draft Constitution, which had a strengthened bill of rights reflecting Kenya’s international human rights obligations as contained in the international human rights treaties. As a developing country, Kenya’s reporting obligations had proved to be an onerous task due to the limited financial and human resources to collect, collate and compile data on each of the international human rights instruments Kenya was a party to. However, Kenya would continue to seek the assistance of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in that regard and would also recommend that a more effective and efficient reporting system be devised.
Kenya welcomed the report of the Secretary-General on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights and the report on enhancing the participation of national human rights institutions in the work of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies. In that regard, in 2003, the Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights was established as an independent national institution. Kenya was a State party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. It had recently ratified the Protocol to the African Charter establishing the African Court on Human and People’s Rights and was in the process of ratifying the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa. Kenya welcomed the Secretary-General’s report on the state of regional arrangements for the promotion of human rights and the recommendations on ways and means to strengthen cooperation between United Nations and regional arrangements in the field of human rights.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), said treaty bodies formed the core of the United Nations' human rights system. Reporting by States parties was the most important means of assessing the implementation of obligations under various instruments and the level of such implementation. Experience suggested that there were several constraints in the process. The Secretary-General had proposed that human rights treaty bodies craft a more coordinated approach to their activities and standardize their varied reporting requirements. The fundamental concept of a core document could be useful in eliminating overlap and duplication. However, the objective was to assist countries in the implementation of their treaty obligations and not to burden them with requirements that could divert attention to responding instead of the actual work on the ground, which was critical for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The special procedures were one of the Commission’s major achievements, but there continued to be a proliferation of special mechanisms, some with overlapping mandates. The increasing number of mandates strained States and the secretariat, with financial and administrative difficulties. The human rights mechanisms should be made effective by addressing the problem, including by objectively assessing if the proliferation of mandates was serving the cause of human rights. There was also a need for greater dialogue with States preferably through a regional setting, for reporting methods to be made more precise, objective and balanced, and for Special Rapporteurs to have a good knowledge of the issues and countries of their mandate.
LINO PIEDRA (United States) said the Government of the United States strongly supported the work of the special procedures, which had an important role to play in furthering the goals of the Commission, and of the United Nations, in the area of human rights. The individual mandate holders were also commended for their dedication to accomplishing their difficult, and often thankless, tasks. However, due to the limited resources available to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the already extensive burden placed on the Office in providing support to existing special procedures, it was necessary to examine the growing tendency to address human rights problems with an automatic decision to establish a new special mechanism. Often the decision was made without a well-considered examination of what a realistic mandate would be, of the availability of resources to provide support, and of the extent to which the mandate was duplicative of existing special procedures. The reckless proliferation of special procedures cheapened this valuable currency, and muffled many important concerns and issues highlighted by them.
The integrity of the special procedures must be maintained through a deliberate and careful examination of the necessity and purpose of each mechanism, and of the results of their work, he said. With nearly 40 special procedures now in existence, the Commission must resist the temptation to react reflexively to each perceived human rights problem by establishing a new special procedure. The tendency of some mandate holders to politicize their work was also a source of concern. There was a need to improve the capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, including with regard to its relationship with the special procedures, and careful attention should be given to the selection and training of staff in order to ensure a commensurate level of capacity and professionalism. Overall, the United States supported a greater focus on quality, rather than quantity, in the special procedures.
MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA CASEIRO (Cuba) said the universality of human rights could only be recognized and applied through respect for the diversity of political, economic, philosophical and legal systems, and for the difference of existing historic, cultural and religious heritages; that diversity should be taken into account and should be present in each of the United Nations' bodies related to the promotion and protection of human rights. For several years now, successive resolutions adopted by the Commission had requested the establishment of a geographic balance in the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, but instead of being corrected, it was increased. In the special procedures system of the Commission, the imbalance in the geographical representation was also present, always to the detriment of developing countries that was compounded with the political manipulation those mechanisms were subjected to by industrialized countries, and the lack of objectivity, selectivity and biased approaches, which in many cases permeated its work. Another particularly worrisome problem was the imbalance in the appropriation of resources and the Office’s support for the various mechanisms of the Commission for the discharge of their mandates.
Cuba attached special significance to the effective work of the treaty bodies, he said. Although they had not been completely free from politicization and selectively, those treaty bodies had been, until very recently, the least affected mechanism by those harmful practices. However, treaty bodies had been facing problems, including the growing delays in the submission of State reports. Cuba and other countries had proposed several alternatives aimed at trying to solve that situation, those included a suggestion to have periodic reports submitted on treaty bodies every four or five years.
ANDREA HOCH (Liechtenstein) said great importance was attached to the treaty bodies as a tool for enhancing the implementation and application of international human rights standards. The dialogue of States parties to human rights treaties with expert bodies monitoring the implementation was one of the most useful tools in the area of human rights in the work of the United Nations and one of the outstanding achievements of the system in this area. It was very important that the discussions on the possible establishment of a Human Rights Council did not overshadow the necessity of work being done in other areas such as treaty body reform.
A holistic approach should be taken on reform measures in the area human rights. Any institutional change should not lose sight of the current acquis and its positive elements in particular. The work of treaty bodies, which should be further improved, was one of these elements, and it should remain an indispensable part of any future United Nations' system and kept in mind when discussing proposals such as the peer review mechanism suggested by the Secretary-General as part of institutional reform.
CHRISTOPHER LAMB, of International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, underscored the Federation’s commitment to promoting the importance of national and local involvement in the pursuit of objectives shared by human rights' communities and the national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. During the high-level segment, the Federation’s Secretary-General had pointed out the value of an agreement between the Federation and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which would facilitate joint activity between national societies and national institutions. Drafting of that agreement had reached its final stage one year after the initial agreement between former-High Commissioner Mary Robinson and the Federation’s President in March 2002. It was to be hoped that the initiative would be launched in 2005. Discussions with the Office of the High Commissioner, and with the staff of the National Institutions Unit, must be resumed.
LAURENCE ROZEC, of Inter-Parliamentary Union, said the activities and decisions of parliaments, in whatever field, had a direct and indirect impact on people in the manner in which they exercised their human rights and fundamental freedoms. In order for laws to be effective, the Union encouraged parliaments to put in place a body charged with dealing with human rights. As the inquiry carried out by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 1993 had shown, more and more parliaments had created human rights bodies within their institutions. The mandate and functioning of parliamentary commissions on human rights varied from country to country, and thus their impact on human rights also varied as such. A seminar had been held on that issue by the Union in 2004 in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in which members of parliamentary human rights commissions participated. The seminar was an opportunity to consider cooperation with regional human rights instruments.
ODILE SORGHO-MOULINIER, of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said human rights became meaningful only when they were deeply rooted in the local culture and enforced by local mechanisms. Supporting national human rights institutions had been one of UNDP’s priorities in a number of countries, most often countries with challenging political environments. This support could be clustered under two phases: the pre-establishment phase, when the creation of national human rights institutions was supported; and the consolidation phase, which primarily focused on organizational development by way of supporting the drafting of comprehensive strategic plans, legislative review functions and streamlining issues relating to administration and management. There had been a need to learn from experience and to work out a comprehensive and consistent approach to UNDP’s future engagement with national human rights institutions, and therefore partnerships had been initiated. The joint UNDP-OHCHR global Human Rights Strengthening Program was presently studying all the proposals put forward, and would shortly convene a roundtable discussion aimed at consolidating a possible Practical Guidance Note for UNDP in this crucial area.
RAQUEL POITEVIEN CABRAL (Venezuela) said Venezuela supported the statement delivered on behalf of MERCOSUR, and the strengthening of national institutions on the human rights agenda. National institutions should be allowed to participate in the debates on all the Commission’s agenda items. Since 2001, the Ibero-American Federation of Ombudsmen had issued an annual report that sought to provide input to proposed policies related to human rights in the region. At the present time, Venezuela had the presidency of the Federation. Venezuela also felt that the work of the human rights treaty bodies should be streamlined, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be strengthened. These initiatives should be backed up through the implementation of geographical rules on the selection of staff, as well as of principles of gender equity.
RACHEL BRETT, of Friends World Committee for Consultation - QUAKERS, in a joint statement with several NGOs1, said States, which were members of the Commission, had a particular responsibility to strengthen human rights standards, for which cooperation with the special procedures was vital. The group welcomed the recent steps taken by some of the special procedures and encouraged others to follow their example to establish mechanisms for follow-up to country missions, develop criteria to determine what constituted a full and satisfactory reply from Governments, and to highlight general recommendations on the protection of human rights in their public reports, among other things. She urged the Commission to make better use of the analysis and recommendations of the special procedures in its work, which would help to de-politicize its examination of both thematic issues and country situations, and to pay particular attention to those States that failed to cooperate with its mechanisms.
IAN SEIDERMAN, of International Commission of Jurists, in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues and Human Rights Watch, said there was deep concern that a proposal of general amnesty in Algeria could permanently deprive victims or their families of their right to truth, justice, reparation and could legalize impunity for crimes against humanity and serious human rights violations and abuses committed. Official statements indicated that the law would grant amnesty from prosecution to any member of an armed group, State-armed militia or the security forces for crimes, including serious human rights violations and abuses committed in the course of the brutal internal conflict. This general amnesty would leave the legacy of the past unresolved and could permanently undermine future prospects for full human rights protection. The Algerian Government should uphold the rights of all victims of serious human rights violations and abuses to truth, justice, and reparation.
DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, in a joint statement with Association of World Citizens and International Humanist and Ethical Union, said the present issue being discussed was at the cornerstone of the work being done on human rights. To the degree that the United Nations could be an effective recourse for those whose human rights were violated, the present six-week session would be meaningful. Throughout the world, many had given up hope that the United Nations could make any real difference in their lives or safeguard their rights. Yet, in working together, Governments, non-governmental organizations and the Secretariat could translate the ideals of the Universal Declaration into effective mechanisms. The results would be crucial to the survival of the Commission, and the resolution to be adopted on the Sudan would be the real litmus test. In practice, States were bound only by the limitations they set for themselves; these limitations must be clear and well understood by most people, and protected by non-governmental organizations which should be able to work without fear. This was why human rights education was of such importance, and why national legislation must be brought into conformity with the Universal Declaration.
SUZI SNYDER, of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, in a joint statement with several NGOs2, said much progress had been achieved in raising awareness about human rights' problems the world over and of the peoples’ struggles for their rights and liberation. The United Nations through its Commission and the subsidiary bodies had developed international standards and mechanisms to respond to the many challenges. The erosion of credibility did not lie in the structure and architecture of the institution, but rather in the absence of the will of the parties concerned to work together to seek means for genuine promotion and protection of human rights, and to provide the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with the necessary resources to be able to do its work. The proposal to shrink a reasonable geographical representation of the Commission to a small council composed of selected member governments was a matter of concern.
CONCHITA PONCINI, of International Federation of University Women, in a joint statement with several NGOs3, said in the review and appraisal of the system-wide implementation of the Economic and Social Council’s agreed conclusions, 1997-2002, it had been concluded that gender mainstreaming efforts were still not a systematic part of all policies and programmes including human rights activities. Without proper training for all human rights staff, in gender analysis and mainstreaming and the inclusion of staff with gender expertise on all teams, it would be difficult to fully realize the goals of gender mainstreaming. Training was especially needed to identify the root causes of gender discrimination from a comprehensive and holistic analysis of the multiple roles and the inter-sectionality of gender, race, culture and religion and the denial of women’s participation in decision-making machineries where their lives in society were affected.
DAVID LITTMAN, of World Union for Progressive Judaism, said the 1999 Geneva Spiritual Appeal, confirmed by representatives of all faiths, included a pledge not to refer to any religious or spiritual imperative to justify any form of violence. Over the past three years, the Organization of the Islamic Conference had been asked to insert two key paragraphs into the controversial resolution on defamation of religions, to the effect that the Commission would strongly deplore all references to God in order to justify any forms of violence, hatred and the use of any religious motive to kill civilians, men women and children; and that it would condemn all those who blasphemed and defamed religion by claiming to kill in the name of God. The responsibility for turning down this appeal for the third consecutive year must lie with the sponsors. That refusal could be considered either as signifying general fear, or a clear message about Jihad ideology. The treaty bodies and the United Nations' human rights machinery should examine the resolution on defamation.
MELISSA FERNANDEZ-TROUSSIER, of International Service for Human Rights, said independent national institutions could be a source of in-depth and objective local knowledge concerning substantive human rights issues of direct benefit to the Commission and its subsidiary bodies. The information those institutions provided could assist the Commission to ensure that the human rights for all were upheld and that States were held accountable for any violations of those rights. Currently before the Commission, national institutions were permitted to speak for seven minutes under item 18. That had been a good opportunity for those institutions to express their views and reports to the Commission on their activities. But there had been significant problems; many institutions had used that opportunity to promote their activities and programmes. The opportunity to speak had been extended to several national institutions that were not accredited by the International Coordinating Committee and had not complied with the minimum standards set out by the Paris Principles. Extending the opportunity for national institutions to address the Commission should be accompanied by an end to the tolerance of non-complaint institutions.
LUIS ACEBAL, of Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, said the reform proposal of the Secretary-General should be supported, as the establishment of a Human Rights Council, made up only of members who could demonstrate the highest possible standards of commitment to human rights, would put an end to the scourge of politicization; however, other States would have to cooperate. It would have to be endowed with the appropriate tools to ensure that its recommendations were implemented. A link would have to be made between it and the special mechanisms of the Commission, as their work had been most effective for the promotion and protection of human rights. The requirement to demonstrate a strict respect for human rights could lead some States to rethink their approach to terrorism.
RINEETA NAIK, of South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, said that the declining standards of the National Human Rights Commission of India continued to be a source of concern, particularly with regard to the appointments process. The Government’s unwillingness to reconsider the appointment of a former police official to the National Commission demonstrated the contempt with which it treated the institution. The situation was further compounded by the institution’s inability to put its foot down and demand better treatment. The appointment of this former police official had been challenged in court, and the Supreme Court had delivered a split verdict on the issue. The case was now to be heard by a larger bench. It was inconceivable that, from the entire range of available human rights lawyers, activists and academics, the Government could only find a person who had no human rights experience worth speaking of.
MATT POLLARD, of Association for the Prevention of Torture, said the Association was continuing its work to improve the capacities of national human rights institutions in order to prevent torture and other ill-treatment, though a global project with the Office of the High Commissioner. National institutions should advocate for the ratification and application of international and regional treaties and other instruments prohibiting torture. More specifically, they could examine whether those instruments and regional norms, especially the criminalization and prohibition of torture and ill treatment, were fully incorporated into domestic legislation and respected in practice. They should cooperate with international and regional human rights bodies by submitting information cases or reports to relevant mechanisms such as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and the Committee against Torture.
JULIO A. HERNANDEZ, of Centrist Democratic International, said the Cuban Government was a signatory to several international legal accords that addressed human rights and fundamental freedoms for its citizens. It had signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other agreements, which it violated systematically. It was appropriate to request that the Commission and other entities that monitored the situation of human rights demand that the Government of Cuba respect those in prisons according to those international agreements that it had signed, independent of the valid demands for their liberation through a general amnesty for all political prisoners.
ALEXANDER GOLDBERG, of Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, said the people of the Darfur region of the Sudan had suffered an appalling level of violence in the past two years; over one million people had been displaced from their homes, hundreds of villages had been burned and destroyed, and the civilian population had been the target of direct attacks, including widespread killings and rape. The International Commission of Inquiry had described these actions as likely to amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, and others had described it as genocide. There was no doubt that the gravity of the crimes, and the gross abuse of human rights, was on an alarming scale. These events, and the slow international response to them, were of concern. The Jewish people had experienced the effects of the world standing by while abominable atrocities took place. The gross abuse of human rights, widespread war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide that had occurred in the past fifteen years in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and now in Darfur demonstrated that the lessons of the past had not yet been learned. Action should not only come after atrocities occurred; preventive measures and early warning mechanisms must be enhanced to avert the slide downhill into larger-scale abuse.
Right of Reply
MOHAMMED BESSEDIK (Algeria), in a right of reply, said a non-governmental organization was attacking the legitimate right of the Algerian people to fight against the colonial repression. The statement made was harmful to his country, which had been making efforts in the area of human rights by having adopted legislation, and allowing the participation of civil society in human rights discussions. From the historical point of view, and the point of view of the victims, the statement was unacceptable.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/05/43 of 12 April 2005, the statement by the Representative of Honduras on page 6 should read as follows:
J. BENJAMIN ZAPATA (Honduras) said the delegation of Honduras believed that a reform of the Commission was necessary through an exhaustive and analytical manner. However, Honduras had certain reservations on the proposed creation of the Human Rights Council. Further constructive discussion should be pursued before such an institute was created. The membership of the present Commission should be maintained, but Member States should be limited to be elected to two periods of three years each so that there was an effective rotation that gave the opportunity to all countries to be members. Honduras did not share the idea of universal membership.
Honduras believed that as part of the reforms of the Commission on Human Rights, it should be placed directly under the General Assembly. At the same time, the relationship between the Security Council and the Commission should be strengthened, and duplication of efforts should be avoided. The Commission should become a permanent organ that meets whenever was appropriate during the year. The principal problem of the present Commission was its politicization by some States. Honduras supported the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, particularly its increased role in providing technical assistance to those States that sought such cooperation.
* *** *
1Joint statement on behalf of: Friends World Committee for Consultation - QUAKERS; Amnesty International; Franciscans International; Baha'i International Community; International Federation of ACAT (Action By Christians for the Abolition of Torture); Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples and Lutheran World Federation.
2Joint statement on behalf of: Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; General Arab Women Federation; International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples; International Council of Jewish Women and International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements.
3Joint statement on behalf of: International Federation of University Women; Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women's Association; International Alliance of Women; International Council of Jewish Women; International Council of Women; Femmes Africa Solidarite; Women's International Zionist Organization; Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices affecting the Health of Women and Children and Women's Federation for World Peace International.
For use of information only; not an official record
AFTERNOON
18 April 2005
Concludes Discussion on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon began its general discussion on the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms after concluding its debate on the promotion and protection of human rights. Speakers said priority issues for enhancing the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms included strengthening the special procedures of the Commission, improving and further streamlining the work of the human rights treaty bodies, and emphasizing the role that regional and sub-regional organizations could play for the protection and promotion of human rights worldwide.
The special procedures of the Commission were vital to the advancement of human rights internationally, stressed Canada, speaking on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and Norway. They were on the front line of protection and promotion of human rights, and should be assisted to carry out their country missions, request information, and ensure appropriate follow-up to their recommendations. During this period of reform, the special procedures should show leaders to look critically and constructively at their own working methods in order to identify practical steps to enhance their effectiveness and encourage better cooperation from States.
Cautioning that, with nearly 40 special procedures now in existence, the Commission must resist the temptation to react reflexively to each perceived human rights problem by establishing a new special procedure, the United States said the reckless proliferation of special procedures cheapened this valuable currency, and muffled many important concerns and issues highlighted by them. Meanwhile, Cuba highlighted the imbalance in geographical representation of the special procedures, which was always to the detriment of developing countries, and was compounded by the political manipulation of these mechanisms by industrialized countries.
For its part, Pakistan drew attention to the treaty body system, stressing that reporting by States parties constituted the most important means of assessing the implementation of obligations under various instruments. However, experience showed that there were several constraints to that process, and the human rights treaty bodies should craft a more coordinated approach to their activities and standardize their varied reporting requirements.
Paraguay, speaking on behalf of MERCOSUR and associated States, said that the establishment and strengthening of regional and sub-regional mechanisms that fostered respect for human rights constituted a substantial step forward that could be taken by States to contribute to the international system for the protection of human rights. Such regional and sub-regional organizations also strengthened national protection and promotion of human rights.
Within the general debate on the promotion and protection of human rights, Representatives of non-governmental organizations addressing the Commission stressed issues related to the importance of the newly-adopted World Programme for Human Rights Education; the need for an international moratorium on the death penalty; the need to ensure respect for human rights while fighting terrorism; and the need to ensure better protection for human rights defenders.
The Representatives of Egypt, Estonia (on behalf of the Baltic and Nordic States), China, Ukraine, Dominican Republic, Kenya, Liechtenstein, and Venezuela also addressed the Commission within its consideration of the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms this afternoon.
The Representatives of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Inter-Parliamentary Union and United Nations Development Programme also addressed the Commission on the above issue.
Addressing the Commission this afternoon on the promotion and protection of human rights were Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penality; International Young Catholic Students; Asian Legal Resource Centre; World Union for Progressive Judaism; Permanent Assembly for Human Rights; Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action; General Arab Women Federation; Agir ensemble pour les droits de l'homme; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development; Collectif des organisations des jeunes solidaires du Congo-Kinshasa; MINBYUN - Lawyers for a Democratic Society (in a joint statement with People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy); and Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos.
Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations addressed the Commission on the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms: Friends World Committee for Consultation - QUAKERS (in a joint statement with several NGOs1); International Commission of Jurists (in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues and Human Rights Watch); Association for World Education (in a joint statement with Association of World Citizens and International Humanist and Ethical Union); Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (in a joint statement with several NGOs2); International Federation of University Women (in a joint statement with several NGOs3); World Union for Progressive Judaism; International Service for Human Rights; Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos; South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre; Association for the Prevention of Torture; Centrist Democratic International; and Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations.
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply this afternoon were the representatives of Colombia and Algeria.
The Commission on Human Rights will reconvene at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 19 April to continue, and conclude, its general debate under all remaining agenda items. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Cambodia, and the Independent Experts on Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia will present their reports. The Commission will then start taking action on draft resolutions.
General Debate on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
JOTAKA AEDDY, of National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penality, said international laws and standards were becoming increasingly important in legal analyses and debates involving the death penalty in the United States. It was hoped that the world would soon see the end of the death penalty as a form of legal punishment, in particular of people suffering from mental illness in the United States. The continued use of the death penalty was a clear violation of human rights and should end. The Commission should reaffirm its calls for the immediate abolition of the death penalty; pay special attention to the application of the death penalty to those who suffered from mental disabilities; and strongly urge Member States to implement the recommendations of the Secretary-General in his report on capital punishment.
SYLVIA ADRIANASOLO, of International Young Catholic Students, said that information and education were inseparable activities, and that the implementation of activities for awareness raising were important to educate the general populace about its vital human rights, especially as it was the violation of those human rights that gave rise to most of the conflicts that faced the world today. Her organization affirmed that activities to promote human rights education and information were essential to make people understand their human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to understand them more fully. In the framework of the World Programme for Human Rights Education, much remained to be done. The Commission should ask the High Commissioner for Human Rights to take the framework into account, and should stress that all States should introduce human rights into their school curricula. At the United Nations, there should be cooperation with the media and State institutions to develop activities for human rights education and information, and the United Nations should also work to develop education packages that corresponded more to social realities than theory.
MICHAEL ANTHONY, of Asian Legal Resource Centre, said on 12 March 2004, Somachai Neelaphaijit disappeared after he was pulled from his car in Bangkok, allegedly by five policemen. Somachai was abducted because he was defending clients who had suffered from extremely brutal torture at the hands of the police in the south of Thailand, and then spoke out about these cases. He came to Bangkok to press their case before senior authorities. Since his disappearance, his wife has sought answers. Despite the wishes of the public prosecutor, she became the co-plaintiff in a criminal case against the five accused men. She also inspired the relatives of hundreds of others who had disappeared in the south of Thailand recently. The Centre urged the Government of Thailand to fully resolve the disappearance of the defender, and hold accountable the perpetrators.
DAVID LITTMAN, of World Union for Progressive Judaism, said the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society have been promoting the basic human right that families had the right to know about the whereabouts of their loved ones. The Government of Iran should observe international human rights norms set out in international instruments and should end their long silence regarding the twelve missing Jews, secretly incarcerated for more than a decade. The freeing of these missing prisoners, held incommunicado without trial, would be a welcome sign.
ALICIA GERSHANIK, of Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, said impunity fostered human rights violations such as forced disappearances, torture, discrimination and genocide. The renouncement of criminal sanctions against violators of these human rights implied the use of injustice for those who should be accountable to justice. The Permanent Assembly strongly condemned all acts of terrorism, but expressed alarm over the worldwide campaign against terrorism, in the name of which the above types of human rights violations occurred, and for which the perpetrators enjoyed impunity. The Commission must defend the fundamental principles of human rights, and must ensure that measures taken by States did not violate them. The Permanent Assembly condemned the criminalization of social protest, and called for sanctions against human rights defenders to be cancelled.
LES MALEZER, of Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, thanked the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders for her report and noted that the Representative identified States in South America where human rights defenders had been targeted for their work on indigenous and land rights. Further to the information provided in that report was the dismantling of the organizations and the leadership of the Aboriginal Peoples in Australia over recent years. In 1998, the Government had changed the native title laws in Australia, so that it could reappoint or dismiss the Aboriginal organizations responsible for defending indigenous titles to land. Consequently, two of the bodies were de-commissioned and the remaining organizations were constrained in their budgets and intimidated from acting as advocates on indigenous rights. He called upon the Representative to investigate the policies and practices of the Government of Australia and their impact upon defenders of indigenous and land rights.
ANNEKE VAN DE BOEG, of General Arab Women Federation, said the Commission should urgently look into the human rights situation in present-day Iraq. The reports of grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law since the invasion and occupation of the country had shocked the conscience of people worldwide, and yet the Commission had been almost silent on the human rights situation there following the military attacks. The Commission should take the necessary steps to ensure the protection of the Iraqi people and re-establish the position of the Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iraq with a mandate to investigate and report on all human rights and humanitarian law violations.
JUAN CARLOS CANO, of Agir ensemble pour les droits de l'homme, said he wished to condemn attacks of all types committed against the Colombian civilian population, particularly those in which State agents were involved. In particular, the violence unleashed against the population of San Jose in February and March was to be condemned, as it had happened in connection with the demobilization of a paramilitary group in the region of Uraba. He also wished to denounce the continued impunity extended to the main perpetrator of the massacres that had occurred from 1995 to 1996, General Rito Alejo del Rio. Moreover, the Government of President Uribe was responsible for acts of violence, including harassment, detention, attacks on, and the murders of social leaders and trade unionists across the country. Of particular concern was the "Orion" operation carried out in Medellin, in which paramilitary forces had acted in complicity with the police to kill numerous youth. Pits containing the bodies of these youth had been discovered after statements were made to the national human rights body. Despite these investigations, the perpetrators had not yet been identified and prosecuted. The Commission should urge the Government to exhaust the possibilities to investigate these crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice.
RUKSHAN FERNANDO, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, regretted that not much had been done by Asian Governments to operationalize the Human Rights Defender’s Declaration at the national level. Defenders in many countries were still unable to enjoy the rights and protection enshrined in the Declaration and in other human rights instruments. Asian Governments were increasingly restricting the work of defenders through domestic legislation. States were also enacting slow, cumbersome, bureaucratic and expensive procedures for the acquisition of legal status for non-governmental organizations and had broadened unnecessary procedures on access to funding. The Asian Forum was alarmed by the level of impunity for perpetrators responsible for the assassination, disappearance, intimidation, threats and obstructions on defenders. In Thailand, the case of the prominent human rights lawyer, Somchai Neelaphaijit, who disappeared in March 2004, remained unsolved, as well as the case of the murder of the Indonesian defender Munir in September 2004.
FERNANDEZ MURHOLA, of Collectif des organisations des jeunes solidaires du Congo-Kinshasa, said there were daily concerns for human rights defenders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since the end of the sixtieth session of the Commission, there had been dramatic events which had shaken the human rights defenders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Commission should adopt a resolution on the promotion and protection of human rights defenders as well as the implementation mechanisms of that resolution. It should also ask the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to invite the Special Representative on human rights defenders to the country as well as the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
GIYOUN KIM, of MINBYUN - Lawyers for a Democratic Society, in a joint statement with People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, said that post-September 11 counter-terrorism measures had seriously worsened the human rights situation in the Republic of Korea. A new national security bill had just been introduced, and there was strong civil society opposition to it, due to the manner in which it extended the power of national institutions, which had previously been responsible for torturing political suspects under the national security law. This would represent a substantial consolidation of the power of the national intelligence agency on a permanent basis. Government agencies had clearly committed human rights abuses. The Republic of Korea should rescind the President’s order, and reconsider its national security legislation. The Commission should request its special procedures to pay special attention to the impact of counter-terrorism measures on the enjoyment of human rights in Asian countries, particularly in the Republic of Korea.
LUIS ACEBAL, of Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, said Spain had ratified the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1985. Thus, it had recognized the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals and groups of individuals claiming that their rights enshrined in the Covenant had been violated by the Spanish State. However, the State party, due to a decision by the Spanish Supreme Court, which had said that the decisions did not entail obligations, had not implemented the decisions of the Committee. The decisions of the European Human Rights Court had met with the same fate. The new Spanish Government had orally promised to implement the decisions of the Human Rights Committee.
Right of Reply
CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia), speaking in a right of reply, said regarding statements made by several non-governmental organizations, the detentions in Colombia were undertaken by the Prosecution Service, with the support of the police, and were monitored in terms of legality. Regarding the veracity of witnesses' testimonies, intelligence gathering and investigations had found that in some cases these statements were found to be untrue. There was constant conversation and interaction between the Presidential Programme for Human Rights and non-governmental organizations. The national Government was committed to this task. It was irresponsible to relate the deaths of trade union members with repression efforts by the Government. The Government was working to prevent incidents of violence, and protection was offered to members of trade unions. Human rights defenders were not victims of the paramilitaries under the authorization of the army; such a statement ignored the complex reality of the illegal groups involved in combats outside the law of the State. Crimes against humanity were not political crimes in Colombia.
General Debate on the Effective Functioning of Human Rights Mechanisms
MOHAMED LOUTFY (Egypt) said that the process of disseminating principles of human rights could not be undertaken by the State alone. Instead, a collective effort by the Government, civil society and national human rights institutions must be developed. These efforts had culminated in Egypt in 2003 with the establishment of the National Council on Human Rights, which was independent in its activities and funding, in conformity with the Paris Principles. The same legislation had also provided for its mandate to include the protection and promotion of human rights. A national plan of action for human rights had also been established, and the Council had been authorized to submit proposals for its implementation, and to receive complaints of violations of human rights. The Council would also make recommendations on national compliance with international human rights instruments, and would work with other national human rights institutions. It would participate at the international level, and would work to disseminate human rights culture and raise awareness at the national level.
The Commission had started its work in 2004, he added, under the leadership of former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and 26 other prominent personalities with significant experience in human rights. It had recently issued its first report, which had provided a factual analysis of the status of human rights in Egypt. The Government had also established other mechanisms for the promotion of human rights in the country, including through bringing five ministries together to form a committee that would submit proposals on improvement of the national human rights situation, and take action on the complaints received by the Council on Human Rights. The Parliament had also established a committee on human rights to prepare new human rights legislation. Overall, there was a full system of political, judicial and legislative committees to work with civil society for the benefit of human rights. The more than 17,000 non-governmental organizations operating in the country had an important role to play in promoting human rights as well.
TONIS NIRK (Estonia), also speaking on behalf of the Baltic and Nordic States, said irrespective of their precise form and functions, national human rights institutions, established in accordance with the Paris Principles, were crucial national level actors in promoting and protecting human rights. In those countries where such institutions operated, they were at the core of the implementation of human rights. The Commission on Human Rights was the principal governmental human rights body of the United Nations. All actors working in the field of human rights could participate actively and constructively in the Commission’s work. National human rights institutions should have the opportunity to make their contributions as well. Ways should be found to facilitate their input in the activities of the Commission so that the Commission could take advantage of the work carried out by national human rights institutions, which were in compliance with the Paris Principles. The national human rights institutions should be allowed to address the Commission under all the relevant agenda items instead of just under one.
In order to render the implementation of the human rights treaties efficient and transparent, the Baltic and Nordic States considered the work of the treaty monitoring bodies absolutely vital. The number of the States parties of the treaties was constantly rising, as well as the burden and requirements on the treaty bodies. In that respect, States should assist the treaty bodies by submitting their comprehensive country reports on time. The Baltic and Nordic States recognized with appreciation the efforts of the treaty bodies themselves as well as of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. There was a need to increase the effectiveness of the monitoring bodies and to streamline the reporting process. The Baltic and Nordic States supported the introduction of an expanded core document common to all treaty bodies with more selective specific reports to each of them.
HU BIN (China) said in the 60 years since the founding of the United Nations, its various human rights mechanisms had undergone graduate development and improvements, and had made major contributions to the promotion and protection of human rights. On the other hand, it was also true that today these mechanisms were still faced with many serious challenges. The Commission was one of the most important pillars of the human rights system of the United Nations, and in recent years the crisis of its credibility and the issue of its reform had become the hottest topics. The crux of the reform was to move away from the politicization of the Commission and to come back to the principle of international cooperation as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
The Chinese Government endorsed the principle of the universality of human rights, but at the same time believed that the focus of the United Nations Inter-Agency Country Team should be to provide assistance to the country in question. By way of periodic dialogue with States parties, the treaty bodies of human rights instruments contributed to the efforts by States parties to implement treaty obligations. However, as time went by, such a system had found itself beset with an ever-increasing number of bodies and low efficiency, which had caused heavy burdens on the States parties, the treaty bodies, and the United Nations in general. In the reform process, it was hoped that the view points of all States parties would be fully respected so as to make sure that a more simplified procedure and reduced burden would come out of the reform as many countries had intended. It was also hoped that during the current session a basic consensus would be reached on how to promote the reform process of the special mechanisms.
FRANCISCO BARREIROS (Paraguay), speaking on behalf of MERCOSUR and associated States, said that the establishment and strengthening of regional and sub-regional mechanisms that fostered respect for human rights constituted a substantial step forward that could be taken by States to contribute to the international system for the protection of human rights. Such regional and sub-regional organizations also strengthened national protection and promotion of human rights. MERCOSUR had repeatedly pointed towards representative democracy anchored in the rule of law as the guarantee for the full flourishing of all human rights - political and civil, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. The strengthening and establishment of regional and sub-regional instruments constituted ways and means to effectively foster discussions of human rights and to ensure their exercise.
The experience of MERCOSUR was enlightening, he said. The integration process had originally been based on economic and commercial principles, but after the 1996 San Luis conference, it had incorporated political and social dimensions as well. That political cooperation and dialogue had given attention to more social and human agendas, and in 1997, MERCOSUR had establish a political forum, which had been charged with coordinating and following-up meetings of ministers of education, justice, culture and the interior, as well as other authorities for social development. It was also to coordinate meetings on specialized themes such as illicit drugs, consular and judicial questions and women, among others. Moreover, he added, one of the most important aspects of MERCOSUR’s work on human rights had been the establishment of a mechanism for high-level meetings between national human rights authorities and foreign ministries. Such moves attested to the fact that MERCOSUR was a dynamic and proactive process committed to dialogue and political coordination for the protection and promotion of human rights.
VOLODYMYR VASSYLENKO (Ukraine) said Ukraine welcomed the Secretary-General’s report “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights”, considering it to be a good starting point in enabling the Commission to deal effectively with the challenges faced by the world today. Ukraine strongly supported the Secretary-General’s lead in bringing those issues to the forefront, especially the need to agree on measures that would expedite the progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals. The report was also a good catalyst generating discussions that would lead to a necessary overhaul of the United Nations' system. However, those deliberations should not be limited merely to concrete recommendations made. For instance, one could foresee now that with the eventual establishment of a Human Rights Council – as a United Nations statutory body – the human rights system might be strengthened. Apparently, its creation would reflect an increasing importance of the human rights issues within the United Nations and could raise the discussion of human rights to a higher level. Still the mandate and membership of the proposed body and its relation with the other United Nations' institutions needed further and very careful consideration.
Ukraine fully supported the idea of a further integration of the human rights issues throughout the United Nations system, particularly their discussion in the Security Council debates. Therefore, Ukraine welcomed appropriate recommendations, including those aimed at more active and frequent involvement of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Security Council deliberations. It was implicitly recognized that human rights violations posed major threats to peace and security throughout the world. Thus, it was crucial to underline the importance of the preventive actions taken to protect human rights and to secure that large-scale violations of those rights were adequately addressed and acted upon by the international community. Ukraine was open to dialogue and looked forward to every suggestion on possible options for the reform, reinvigorating the entire United Nations machinery of human rights.
RHADYS ABREU DE POLANCO (Dominican Republic), speaking on the recommendations made at the World Conference on Human Rights and the Plan of Action, said priority should be given to national measures for human rights and their development. In accordance with the United Nations Charter and other instruments on these rights, the Dominican Republic understood that human rights and freedoms were the natural inheritance of all human beings, and it was the responsibility of all Governments to promote and protect these rights, in particular, with national human rights institutions. The Plan of Action required that these either be put in place or strengthened, noting that each State had the right to choose the specific framework best adapted for its needs. An inter-institutional national human rights institution had been installed in that country, on the understanding that the prime responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights in a society and to achieve human rights objectives was essential.
The human rights commitments by the Dominican Republic had been considered in terms of its responsibilities to various international conventions, which had been incorporated into the State's legal system. The inter-institutional Commission included representatives of civil society and had the duty to work together with many other bodies and organizations, as well as to present reports to appropriate fora.
PAUL MEYER (Canada), speaking on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and Norway, agreed that the era of declarations had now given way to the era of implementation. The remarkable achievement of producing a framework of human rights laws, standards, and mechanisms must now be matched with an equal emphasis and commitment for implementation. At the heart of human rights figured the human rights mechanisms - the special procedures, treaty bodies and national human rights institutions. In addition to their role as independent bodies promoting the awareness of and respect for human rights within States, as well as being a forum for complaints of unlawful discrimination, national institutions had an important role to play at the international level, including through assisting in the development of human rights principles, good governance and human rights capacity-building in their respective regions.
The special procedures of the Commission were also vital to the advancement of human rights internationally, he said. They were on the front line in the protection and promotion of human rights, and should be strengthened on the basis of the recommendations contained in the 2000 consensus report of the Inter-sessional Open-Ended Working Group on enhancing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights. Special procedures should be assisted to carry out country missions, request information, and ensure appropriate follow-up to their recommendations. They should show leadership in looking critically and constructively at their own working methods to identify practical steps to enhance their effectiveness and encourage better cooperation from States. Moreover, civil society had worked closely with the special procedures; their voice should be heard during the dialogue on strengthening the special procedures as well.
PHILLIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya) said that as a State party to the main international human rights treaties, Kenya had endeavoured to match its international legal obligations with practical strategies and action plans in order to implement human rights at the national level guided by the principles of human dignity, non-discrimination, justice and equality for all. The Constitution review process had resulted in a draft Constitution, which had a strengthened bill of rights reflecting Kenya’s international human rights obligations as contained in the international human rights treaties. As a developing country, Kenya’s reporting obligations had proved to be an onerous task due to the limited financial and human resources to collect, collate and compile data on each of the international human rights instruments Kenya was a party to. However, Kenya would continue to seek the assistance of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in that regard and would also recommend that a more effective and efficient reporting system be devised.
Kenya welcomed the report of the Secretary-General on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights and the report on enhancing the participation of national human rights institutions in the work of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies. In that regard, in 2003, the Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights was established as an independent national institution. Kenya was a State party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. It had recently ratified the Protocol to the African Charter establishing the African Court on Human and People’s Rights and was in the process of ratifying the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa. Kenya welcomed the Secretary-General’s report on the state of regional arrangements for the promotion of human rights and the recommendations on ways and means to strengthen cooperation between United Nations and regional arrangements in the field of human rights.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), said treaty bodies formed the core of the United Nations' human rights system. Reporting by States parties was the most important means of assessing the implementation of obligations under various instruments and the level of such implementation. Experience suggested that there were several constraints in the process. The Secretary-General had proposed that human rights treaty bodies craft a more coordinated approach to their activities and standardize their varied reporting requirements. The fundamental concept of a core document could be useful in eliminating overlap and duplication. However, the objective was to assist countries in the implementation of their treaty obligations and not to burden them with requirements that could divert attention to responding instead of the actual work on the ground, which was critical for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The special procedures were one of the Commission’s major achievements, but there continued to be a proliferation of special mechanisms, some with overlapping mandates. The increasing number of mandates strained States and the secretariat, with financial and administrative difficulties. The human rights mechanisms should be made effective by addressing the problem, including by objectively assessing if the proliferation of mandates was serving the cause of human rights. There was also a need for greater dialogue with States preferably through a regional setting, for reporting methods to be made more precise, objective and balanced, and for Special Rapporteurs to have a good knowledge of the issues and countries of their mandate.
LINO PIEDRA (United States) said the Government of the United States strongly supported the work of the special procedures, which had an important role to play in furthering the goals of the Commission, and of the United Nations, in the area of human rights. The individual mandate holders were also commended for their dedication to accomplishing their difficult, and often thankless, tasks. However, due to the limited resources available to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the already extensive burden placed on the Office in providing support to existing special procedures, it was necessary to examine the growing tendency to address human rights problems with an automatic decision to establish a new special mechanism. Often the decision was made without a well-considered examination of what a realistic mandate would be, of the availability of resources to provide support, and of the extent to which the mandate was duplicative of existing special procedures. The reckless proliferation of special procedures cheapened this valuable currency, and muffled many important concerns and issues highlighted by them.
The integrity of the special procedures must be maintained through a deliberate and careful examination of the necessity and purpose of each mechanism, and of the results of their work, he said. With nearly 40 special procedures now in existence, the Commission must resist the temptation to react reflexively to each perceived human rights problem by establishing a new special procedure. The tendency of some mandate holders to politicize their work was also a source of concern. There was a need to improve the capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, including with regard to its relationship with the special procedures, and careful attention should be given to the selection and training of staff in order to ensure a commensurate level of capacity and professionalism. Overall, the United States supported a greater focus on quality, rather than quantity, in the special procedures.
MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA CASEIRO (Cuba) said the universality of human rights could only be recognized and applied through respect for the diversity of political, economic, philosophical and legal systems, and for the difference of existing historic, cultural and religious heritages; that diversity should be taken into account and should be present in each of the United Nations' bodies related to the promotion and protection of human rights. For several years now, successive resolutions adopted by the Commission had requested the establishment of a geographic balance in the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, but instead of being corrected, it was increased. In the special procedures system of the Commission, the imbalance in the geographical representation was also present, always to the detriment of developing countries that was compounded with the political manipulation those mechanisms were subjected to by industrialized countries, and the lack of objectivity, selectivity and biased approaches, which in many cases permeated its work. Another particularly worrisome problem was the imbalance in the appropriation of resources and the Office’s support for the various mechanisms of the Commission for the discharge of their mandates.
Cuba attached special significance to the effective work of the treaty bodies, he said. Although they had not been completely free from politicization and selectively, those treaty bodies had been, until very recently, the least affected mechanism by those harmful practices. However, treaty bodies had been facing problems, including the growing delays in the submission of State reports. Cuba and other countries had proposed several alternatives aimed at trying to solve that situation, those included a suggestion to have periodic reports submitted on treaty bodies every four or five years.
ANDREA HOCH (Liechtenstein) said great importance was attached to the treaty bodies as a tool for enhancing the implementation and application of international human rights standards. The dialogue of States parties to human rights treaties with expert bodies monitoring the implementation was one of the most useful tools in the area of human rights in the work of the United Nations and one of the outstanding achievements of the system in this area. It was very important that the discussions on the possible establishment of a Human Rights Council did not overshadow the necessity of work being done in other areas such as treaty body reform.
A holistic approach should be taken on reform measures in the area human rights. Any institutional change should not lose sight of the current acquis and its positive elements in particular. The work of treaty bodies, which should be further improved, was one of these elements, and it should remain an indispensable part of any future United Nations' system and kept in mind when discussing proposals such as the peer review mechanism suggested by the Secretary-General as part of institutional reform.
CHRISTOPHER LAMB, of International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, underscored the Federation’s commitment to promoting the importance of national and local involvement in the pursuit of objectives shared by human rights' communities and the national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. During the high-level segment, the Federation’s Secretary-General had pointed out the value of an agreement between the Federation and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which would facilitate joint activity between national societies and national institutions. Drafting of that agreement had reached its final stage one year after the initial agreement between former-High Commissioner Mary Robinson and the Federation’s President in March 2002. It was to be hoped that the initiative would be launched in 2005. Discussions with the Office of the High Commissioner, and with the staff of the National Institutions Unit, must be resumed.
LAURENCE ROZEC, of Inter-Parliamentary Union, said the activities and decisions of parliaments, in whatever field, had a direct and indirect impact on people in the manner in which they exercised their human rights and fundamental freedoms. In order for laws to be effective, the Union encouraged parliaments to put in place a body charged with dealing with human rights. As the inquiry carried out by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 1993 had shown, more and more parliaments had created human rights bodies within their institutions. The mandate and functioning of parliamentary commissions on human rights varied from country to country, and thus their impact on human rights also varied as such. A seminar had been held on that issue by the Union in 2004 in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in which members of parliamentary human rights commissions participated. The seminar was an opportunity to consider cooperation with regional human rights instruments.
ODILE SORGHO-MOULINIER, of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said human rights became meaningful only when they were deeply rooted in the local culture and enforced by local mechanisms. Supporting national human rights institutions had been one of UNDP’s priorities in a number of countries, most often countries with challenging political environments. This support could be clustered under two phases: the pre-establishment phase, when the creation of national human rights institutions was supported; and the consolidation phase, which primarily focused on organizational development by way of supporting the drafting of comprehensive strategic plans, legislative review functions and streamlining issues relating to administration and management. There had been a need to learn from experience and to work out a comprehensive and consistent approach to UNDP’s future engagement with national human rights institutions, and therefore partnerships had been initiated. The joint UNDP-OHCHR global Human Rights Strengthening Program was presently studying all the proposals put forward, and would shortly convene a roundtable discussion aimed at consolidating a possible Practical Guidance Note for UNDP in this crucial area.
RAQUEL POITEVIEN CABRAL (Venezuela) said Venezuela supported the statement delivered on behalf of MERCOSUR, and the strengthening of national institutions on the human rights agenda. National institutions should be allowed to participate in the debates on all the Commission’s agenda items. Since 2001, the Ibero-American Federation of Ombudsmen had issued an annual report that sought to provide input to proposed policies related to human rights in the region. At the present time, Venezuela had the presidency of the Federation. Venezuela also felt that the work of the human rights treaty bodies should be streamlined, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be strengthened. These initiatives should be backed up through the implementation of geographical rules on the selection of staff, as well as of principles of gender equity.
RACHEL BRETT, of Friends World Committee for Consultation - QUAKERS, in a joint statement with several NGOs1, said States, which were members of the Commission, had a particular responsibility to strengthen human rights standards, for which cooperation with the special procedures was vital. The group welcomed the recent steps taken by some of the special procedures and encouraged others to follow their example to establish mechanisms for follow-up to country missions, develop criteria to determine what constituted a full and satisfactory reply from Governments, and to highlight general recommendations on the protection of human rights in their public reports, among other things. She urged the Commission to make better use of the analysis and recommendations of the special procedures in its work, which would help to de-politicize its examination of both thematic issues and country situations, and to pay particular attention to those States that failed to cooperate with its mechanisms.
IAN SEIDERMAN, of International Commission of Jurists, in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues and Human Rights Watch, said there was deep concern that a proposal of general amnesty in Algeria could permanently deprive victims or their families of their right to truth, justice, reparation and could legalize impunity for crimes against humanity and serious human rights violations and abuses committed. Official statements indicated that the law would grant amnesty from prosecution to any member of an armed group, State-armed militia or the security forces for crimes, including serious human rights violations and abuses committed in the course of the brutal internal conflict. This general amnesty would leave the legacy of the past unresolved and could permanently undermine future prospects for full human rights protection. The Algerian Government should uphold the rights of all victims of serious human rights violations and abuses to truth, justice, and reparation.
DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, in a joint statement with Association of World Citizens and International Humanist and Ethical Union, said the present issue being discussed was at the cornerstone of the work being done on human rights. To the degree that the United Nations could be an effective recourse for those whose human rights were violated, the present six-week session would be meaningful. Throughout the world, many had given up hope that the United Nations could make any real difference in their lives or safeguard their rights. Yet, in working together, Governments, non-governmental organizations and the Secretariat could translate the ideals of the Universal Declaration into effective mechanisms. The results would be crucial to the survival of the Commission, and the resolution to be adopted on the Sudan would be the real litmus test. In practice, States were bound only by the limitations they set for themselves; these limitations must be clear and well understood by most people, and protected by non-governmental organizations which should be able to work without fear. This was why human rights education was of such importance, and why national legislation must be brought into conformity with the Universal Declaration.
SUZI SNYDER, of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, in a joint statement with several NGOs2, said much progress had been achieved in raising awareness about human rights' problems the world over and of the peoples’ struggles for their rights and liberation. The United Nations through its Commission and the subsidiary bodies had developed international standards and mechanisms to respond to the many challenges. The erosion of credibility did not lie in the structure and architecture of the institution, but rather in the absence of the will of the parties concerned to work together to seek means for genuine promotion and protection of human rights, and to provide the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with the necessary resources to be able to do its work. The proposal to shrink a reasonable geographical representation of the Commission to a small council composed of selected member governments was a matter of concern.
CONCHITA PONCINI, of International Federation of University Women, in a joint statement with several NGOs3, said in the review and appraisal of the system-wide implementation of the Economic and Social Council’s agreed conclusions, 1997-2002, it had been concluded that gender mainstreaming efforts were still not a systematic part of all policies and programmes including human rights activities. Without proper training for all human rights staff, in gender analysis and mainstreaming and the inclusion of staff with gender expertise on all teams, it would be difficult to fully realize the goals of gender mainstreaming. Training was especially needed to identify the root causes of gender discrimination from a comprehensive and holistic analysis of the multiple roles and the inter-sectionality of gender, race, culture and religion and the denial of women’s participation in decision-making machineries where their lives in society were affected.
DAVID LITTMAN, of World Union for Progressive Judaism, said the 1999 Geneva Spiritual Appeal, confirmed by representatives of all faiths, included a pledge not to refer to any religious or spiritual imperative to justify any form of violence. Over the past three years, the Organization of the Islamic Conference had been asked to insert two key paragraphs into the controversial resolution on defamation of religions, to the effect that the Commission would strongly deplore all references to God in order to justify any forms of violence, hatred and the use of any religious motive to kill civilians, men women and children; and that it would condemn all those who blasphemed and defamed religion by claiming to kill in the name of God. The responsibility for turning down this appeal for the third consecutive year must lie with the sponsors. That refusal could be considered either as signifying general fear, or a clear message about Jihad ideology. The treaty bodies and the United Nations' human rights machinery should examine the resolution on defamation.
MELISSA FERNANDEZ-TROUSSIER, of International Service for Human Rights, said independent national institutions could be a source of in-depth and objective local knowledge concerning substantive human rights issues of direct benefit to the Commission and its subsidiary bodies. The information those institutions provided could assist the Commission to ensure that the human rights for all were upheld and that States were held accountable for any violations of those rights. Currently before the Commission, national institutions were permitted to speak for seven minutes under item 18. That had been a good opportunity for those institutions to express their views and reports to the Commission on their activities. But there had been significant problems; many institutions had used that opportunity to promote their activities and programmes. The opportunity to speak had been extended to several national institutions that were not accredited by the International Coordinating Committee and had not complied with the minimum standards set out by the Paris Principles. Extending the opportunity for national institutions to address the Commission should be accompanied by an end to the tolerance of non-complaint institutions.
LUIS ACEBAL, of Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, said the reform proposal of the Secretary-General should be supported, as the establishment of a Human Rights Council, made up only of members who could demonstrate the highest possible standards of commitment to human rights, would put an end to the scourge of politicization; however, other States would have to cooperate. It would have to be endowed with the appropriate tools to ensure that its recommendations were implemented. A link would have to be made between it and the special mechanisms of the Commission, as their work had been most effective for the promotion and protection of human rights. The requirement to demonstrate a strict respect for human rights could lead some States to rethink their approach to terrorism.
RINEETA NAIK, of South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, said that the declining standards of the National Human Rights Commission of India continued to be a source of concern, particularly with regard to the appointments process. The Government’s unwillingness to reconsider the appointment of a former police official to the National Commission demonstrated the contempt with which it treated the institution. The situation was further compounded by the institution’s inability to put its foot down and demand better treatment. The appointment of this former police official had been challenged in court, and the Supreme Court had delivered a split verdict on the issue. The case was now to be heard by a larger bench. It was inconceivable that, from the entire range of available human rights lawyers, activists and academics, the Government could only find a person who had no human rights experience worth speaking of.
MATT POLLARD, of Association for the Prevention of Torture, said the Association was continuing its work to improve the capacities of national human rights institutions in order to prevent torture and other ill-treatment, though a global project with the Office of the High Commissioner. National institutions should advocate for the ratification and application of international and regional treaties and other instruments prohibiting torture. More specifically, they could examine whether those instruments and regional norms, especially the criminalization and prohibition of torture and ill treatment, were fully incorporated into domestic legislation and respected in practice. They should cooperate with international and regional human rights bodies by submitting information cases or reports to relevant mechanisms such as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and the Committee against Torture.
JULIO A. HERNANDEZ, of Centrist Democratic International, said the Cuban Government was a signatory to several international legal accords that addressed human rights and fundamental freedoms for its citizens. It had signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other agreements, which it violated systematically. It was appropriate to request that the Commission and other entities that monitored the situation of human rights demand that the Government of Cuba respect those in prisons according to those international agreements that it had signed, independent of the valid demands for their liberation through a general amnesty for all political prisoners.
ALEXANDER GOLDBERG, of Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, said the people of the Darfur region of the Sudan had suffered an appalling level of violence in the past two years; over one million people had been displaced from their homes, hundreds of villages had been burned and destroyed, and the civilian population had been the target of direct attacks, including widespread killings and rape. The International Commission of Inquiry had described these actions as likely to amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, and others had described it as genocide. There was no doubt that the gravity of the crimes, and the gross abuse of human rights, was on an alarming scale. These events, and the slow international response to them, were of concern. The Jewish people had experienced the effects of the world standing by while abominable atrocities took place. The gross abuse of human rights, widespread war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide that had occurred in the past fifteen years in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and now in Darfur demonstrated that the lessons of the past had not yet been learned. Action should not only come after atrocities occurred; preventive measures and early warning mechanisms must be enhanced to avert the slide downhill into larger-scale abuse.
Right of Reply
MOHAMMED BESSEDIK (Algeria), in a right of reply, said a non-governmental organization was attacking the legitimate right of the Algerian people to fight against the colonial repression. The statement made was harmful to his country, which had been making efforts in the area of human rights by having adopted legislation, and allowing the participation of civil society in human rights discussions. From the historical point of view, and the point of view of the victims, the statement was unacceptable.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/05/43 of 12 April 2005, the statement by the Representative of Honduras on page 6 should read as follows:
J. BENJAMIN ZAPATA (Honduras) said the delegation of Honduras believed that a reform of the Commission was necessary through an exhaustive and analytical manner. However, Honduras had certain reservations on the proposed creation of the Human Rights Council. Further constructive discussion should be pursued before such an institute was created. The membership of the present Commission should be maintained, but Member States should be limited to be elected to two periods of three years each so that there was an effective rotation that gave the opportunity to all countries to be members. Honduras did not share the idea of universal membership.
Honduras believed that as part of the reforms of the Commission on Human Rights, it should be placed directly under the General Assembly. At the same time, the relationship between the Security Council and the Commission should be strengthened, and duplication of efforts should be avoided. The Commission should become a permanent organ that meets whenever was appropriate during the year. The principal problem of the present Commission was its politicization by some States. Honduras supported the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, particularly its increased role in providing technical assistance to those States that sought such cooperation.
* *** *
1Joint statement on behalf of: Friends World Committee for Consultation - QUAKERS; Amnesty International; Franciscans International; Baha'i International Community; International Federation of ACAT (Action By Christians for the Abolition of Torture); Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples and Lutheran World Federation.
2Joint statement on behalf of: Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; General Arab Women Federation; International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples; International Council of Jewish Women and International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements.
3Joint statement on behalf of: International Federation of University Women; Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women's Association; International Alliance of Women; International Council of Jewish Women; International Council of Women; Femmes Africa Solidarite; Women's International Zionist Organization; Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices affecting the Health of Women and Children and Women's Federation for World Peace International.
For use of information only; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: