COMMISSION STARTS GENERAL DEBATE ON VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD

Commission on Human Rights
MIDDAY

23 March 2005


Concludes General Debate on Violation of
Human Rights in Occupied Arab
Territories, Including Palestine


The Commission on Human Rights today started its general debate on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, including the question of the human rights in Cyprus.

National delegations made statements in which they outlined efforts by their Governments to promote and protect human rights. Some delegates alleged human rights violations in other States.

There were several statements alleging that this agenda item had become politicized and targeted only countries of the South. Libya, speaking on behalf of the League of Arab States, said it was concerned about developments of major importance linked to the increasing politicisation of the Commission's activities under agenda item 9, which were characterized by double standards and the primacy being given to particular visions with respect to human rights. The optimum and ideal approach to ensuring human rights, and to redressing violations wherever they might occur, was provided by reconciling dialogue and discussions within the mechanisms charged with the protection and promotion of human rights.

Speaking on the violation of human rights in any part of the world were Representatives of Japan, Egypt, Pakistan (speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Organization), India, Luxembourg (speaking on behalf of the European Union), Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, New Zealand, Lebanon, Cyprus, Greece, Syria, Turkey, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Nicaragua.

Exercising the right of reply under this agenda item were Mauritania, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Uganda, Cyprus, Zimbabwe and India.

Earlier, the Commission concluded its general debate on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine after hearing from the following non-governmental organizations: International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists; North-South XXI; International Save the Children Alliance; National Union of Jurists of Cuba; Simon Wiesenthal Center; Federation of Cuban Women; Habitat International Coalition; Women's International Zionist Organization; Medecins du monde international; Movimiento Cubano por la paz y la Soberanía de los Pueblos; and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.

Syria and Lebanon exercised their right of reply at the end of the general debate on that item.

The Chairperson of the Commission, Ambassador Makarim Wibisono of Indonesia, reopened agenda 1 entitled "Election of Officers" to allow the Commission to elect a new Vice Chairperson from Ukraine to replace the current Vice Chairperson Anatoliy Zlenko, who was unable to continue his functions. Volodymyr Vassylenko was elected.

When the Committee concluded its midday meeting at 3 p.m., it immediately started an afternoon meeting from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. during which it continued with its general debate on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, including the question of the human rights in Cyprus.

Documents on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Any Part of the World

Under its agenda item on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, the Commission has before it a report on the question of human rights in Cyprus (E/CN.4/2005/30) prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The report covers the period up to 31 December 2004 and provides an overview of human rights issues in Cyprus. It notes that despite some recent positive developments, the persisting de facto partition of the island constitutes a major obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights by all Cypriots throughout the island. The situation of human rights in Cyprus, the report continues, therefore would greatly benefit from the achievement of a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.

There is also the report of the Secretary-General on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies (E/CN.4/2005/31) which notes that during the period under review, reports of intimidation and reprisals against private individuals and groups who seek to cooperate with the United Nations and representatives of its human rights bodies have continued to be received. Of particular concern is the continued seriousness of such reprisals as victims suffer violations of the most fundamental human rights, including the right to mental and physical integrity, to liberty and security of person, and, at worst, the right to life. The gravity of reported acts of reprisal reinforces the need for all representatives of United Nations human rights bodies to continue to take urgent steps to help prevent the occurrence of such acts, the report states.

General Debate on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Any Part of the World

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya), speaking on behalf of the League of Arab States, said the League of Arab States was concerned about developments of major importance linked to the increasing politicisation of the Commission's activities under agenda item 9, which were characterized by double standards and the primacy being given to particular visions with respect to human rights. Instead, there should be unanimity in decision-making in all matters related to the work of the Commission. The optimum and ideal approach to ensuring human rights, and to redressing violations wherever they might occur, was provided by reconciling dialogue and discussions within the mechanisms charged with the protection and promotion of human rights. That dialogue should be rational and objective, and should take into account specificities of each country. The League of Arab States rejected all attempts to excuse and justify human rights violations.

The League of Arab States had noticed that countries seemed to be classified in two groups by some countries, she said. The first group was accused of being human rights violators, the other group was seen as defending them. Within the first category fell developing countries, while the guardians of human rights were the industrialized countries. Acknowledging that human rights violations did occur in developing countries, she stressed that this by no means meant that any country or group of countries was immune to human rights violations. Industrialized countries had committed appalling examples of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia in the past, as well as sex tourism and exploitation of children, and mistreatment of indigenous communities, migrants and asylum seekers and refugees had occurred in industrialized countries. The League of Arab States also remained deeply concerned by the fate of detainees and prisoners from Lebanon and Syria, held in Israeli prisons.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) noted that no value exceeded that of human rights and no person in the world should be deemed an exception to the universality of human rights. No Government should deny the notions of good governance, non-discrimination, the rule of law, and democracy. Japan believed in and had been promoting a positive, constructive approach to improving the situation of human rights in any part of the world. Countries that had shown sincere willingness and had demonstrated concrete steps towards improving their human rights situation deserved the positive acknowledgement of the Commission. When the situation of a country had sufficiently improved, that country should be allowed to rise out of the mire of repeated resolutions and graduate to a fresh relationship with the international community, so that it could feel a sense of achievement and become confident in moving on.

Japan believed that citizens who were suffering under some country's callousness should be heard and encouraged. In this light, Japan once again drew the attention of the Commission to the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Japan remained deeply concerned about the reports of systematic, widespread, and grave violations of human rights, including torture and forced labour in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In particular, Japan was concerned with the lack of progress with regard to the abduction issue. These abductions were grave violations of human dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms. It was unacceptable that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been responding unfaithfully to repeated requests for resolving this issue by the international community. Moreover, the Government of Japan strongly requested that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea resolve this issue by returning the abductees to Japan immediately and providing satisfactory explanations about the cases in good faith.

MAHY ABDEL LATIF (Egypt) said this was a very controversial agenda item, and the selective method targeted developing countries. There had been erosion of the Commission for that reason and others, and suspicion was cast on the noble objectives of the body. The approach which the Commission should adopt in this framework should necessarily be a balanced and constructive approach based on a positive dialogue and on assisting a country through technological and capacity-building programmes, so that it could grow. Based on that, the differing vision here was not related to the objective under which this item had been included in the agenda.

The item was being used for purely political aims and accounts, and this was far from the original intent. A blind eye had been turned to the grave violations of human rights of a number of countries, while the finger had been pointed at the developing countries. In order to achieve the noble objective of the Commission, hands should be put together so that all could work together with an open mind. The oppression of peoples and the controlling of their destinies needed to be rejected. The belief in tolerance and in accepting the other needed to continue to be inherited from one generation to the other. Those attempting to distil hatred into hearts and to open the door to hatred needed to be rejected, as should the values of other peoples in the form of intellectual terrorism. The use of the Commission for political lobbying should also be rejected, as should double standards and duplicity.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Organization (OIC), said despite unwavering support by OIC Member States to the global campaign against terrorism, many Governments and the international media continued the vilification of one religion – Islam. Islam was a religion of over 1.5 billion adherents around the globe representing one-fifth of humanity. Deliberate efforts were being made to create spurious linkage between Islam and terrorism. No other conflict or struggle that did not involve Muslims was portrayed in similar negative tomes and shades. Such slanderous campaigns were not restricted to Islamic countries. Even Muslim minorities were being subjected to campaigns of hate and criticism. The OIC was deeply perturbed at the frantic assault on Islam, its articles of faith, its tenets and followers. Any attempt to equate Islam and its adherents with terrorism was dangerous and was fraught with grave implications. The OIC was also deeply concerned that resolutions were sponsored under item 9 to target Islamic countries and those from the developing world, putting to question the credibility of such actions.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference was deeply concerned at the continued occupation of the Palestinian territories. Over the past forty-two months, that had caused countless deaths of innocent civilians including women and children. The OIC called for the full implementation of the resolution 425 and the withdrawal of Israel from all occupied Lebanese territories including Shebaa farms. The continued detention of Lebanese civilians in Israeli prisons also remained a source of concern for the OIC. OIC resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir condemned the continuing massive violations of human rights of the Kashmiri people, upholding their right to self-determination and called for a peaceful settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir issue in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions. The OIC remained concerned about the continued occupation by Armenia of Azerbaijani territories. The OIC expressed its firm support for the just cause of the Turkish Muslims people of Cyprus.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said selecting the right approach to achieve a shared objective of promoting and protecting human rights across the world was as an important an objective as it was intended to serve. Countries that violated the human rights of their own people must first be engaged by the international community in dialogue and persuasion, followed when necessary and requested, by offers of technical assistance and cooperation that help in national capacity building. The international community must ensure that the twin challenges of limited resources and unlimited expectations that confront developing countries, which constitute the vast majority of the United Nations membership, were recognized and addressed. The Commission had a particular responsibility to act in countries where the will of the people had been deliberately throttled.

India's experience in the promotion and protection of human rights was a good example of how the democratic organization of a pluralistic society ensured that human rights were always protected, he said. India's federal and secular policy had witnessed a continuous process of strengthening of democratic institutions. Moreover, India's approach towards economic and social grievances was to address them through dialogue, strengthen institutions, and intensify efforts at economic development. That was why the Commission must send out a message of zero tolerance to States which denied their own people basic democratic rights and freedoms, and which, more often than not, had little or no stake in the stability of the international system. Lastly, referring to terrorism, he added that this practice had to be fought internationally by the community of civilized nations in accordance with the rule of law. The Commission owed a special responsibility to recognize and address the rights of the victims of terrorism.

ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union hoped that the Commission would remain as one of the key United Nations bodies in charge of ensuring that human rights were guaranteed and respected. It should maintain the possibility of examining the situation of human rights in any country, as this was an element which was a key part of its mandate. It was opposed to the use of non-action motions, as this was contrary to the spirit of dialogue which should prevail in the Commission. The European Union would present important initiatives, both geographical and thematic, under the different points of the agenda, including resolutions on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and together with the United States, on Byelorussia. It would also express its concern with regards to the situation in Uzbekistan, and would co-sponsor resolutions on human rights in Israel.

The European Union was committed to fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and religious intolerance, including anti-Semitism. Work should be done for the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms for women. The death penalty was firmly opposed. Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment were totally and firmly forbidden in international law. The recruitment of children to participate in conflict was condemned. There was particular concern for the situation of children in Uganda, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Colombia, Myanmar, Nepal and Sri Lanka. The situation of human rights defenders was a priority for the European Union. The European Union-China dialogue on human rights was a particular focus for the European Union, and it was hoped progress would continue. There was concern for the absence of a dialogue on human rights with Iran, and it was hoped progress would be made, as there was concern for the number of human rights violations in that country. The violations of human rights in Chechnya remained one of the main subjects for concern in the field of human rights.

There was also concern regarding the recent attacks in Bangladesh, and for the suspension of democratic institutions and public freedoms and the deterioration of the situation of human rights in Nepal. The violations of human rights in Zimbabwe were also of concern, as was the situation of human rights in Saudi Arabia. It was hoped that there would be solution to the Cyprus issue in the context of the resolutions of the Security Council and in line with the principles of the European Union. No State was perfect with regard to human rights, and no State could therefore hide itself from the vigilance of the international community. There was a judicial and moral obligation to cooperate to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.

LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation) affirmed that all countries were under obligation to abide by the basic principles in the field of human rights, yet when the international community evaluated the scale of compliance of these principles, it should bear in mind whether it was dealing with countries that were well-off or with those that experienced objective difficulties. The 60th anniversary of the victory of the Second World War provided the possibility to reaffirm the commitment of the international community to the task of protecting basic human rights. Russia was adopting more and more decisive measures to fight the manifestations brought about by extremist groups. The international community should be concerned about the rise of the ultra-right, including neo-Nazis. What was also unacceptable was the disregard by the official authorities in Latvia and Estonia of the glorification of former SS members and attempts to condemn those who fought against Nazism. Moreover, the situation of statelessness created by the authorities of Latvia and Estonia as regards to a significant, Russian speaking part of their population, required a high degree of attention because it led to the violation of the entire range of rights.

National and religious tolerance, he added, were an absolute necessity. At times new measures to combat illegal migration and restrictions for granting asylum in developed countries led to a decrease in protecting the rights of migrants. Moreover, Russian was in favour of an uncompromised fight against terrorism, which had a human rights dimension. Russia believed that the level of human rights protection should not be lowered, namely, in the context of discussions on whether or not to sanction practices that might be qualified as torture. Russia also welcomed the trend to solve the humanitarian crisis situations through regional mechanisms. In particular, it supported the efforts of the African Union to solve the conflict in Darfur.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe) said this item of the agenda invited perhaps the hottest exchanges in this august chamber annually. There were disturbing trends which certain countries had cultivated for the sole purpose of demonising and seeking to chastise others for no other reason than the settling of scores of battles fought elsewhere. Because of these strategies, Zimbabwe had been in the eye of the storm. Some members would attempt to have the Commission pass a resolution on alleged human rights violations in Zimbabwe as they had tried in the past. However fancifully dressed that resolution could be, it remained an uncleansable pig that should be slaughtered, burned and cast away.

These same members also sought to demonise and chastise Zimbabwe in the matter of human rights; they had created special funds to pay those who assisted them in constructing falsehoods on Zimbabwe. Regarding some ideas on how the Commission should be reformed, that reform was foreseen in the Secretary-General's High-level Panel report. One interesting idea was the need for a code of conduct to be adhered to by any State seeking membership in the Commission. But it was clear that this sought to achieve aims other than human rights goals in the Commission. Zimbabwe had never laid claim to being a perfect country, it was a normal country at peace both within and beyond its borders. The Commission should not be a theatre to further the interests of rogue powers and racial supremacists. These States should not be helped in the Commission. The freedom of Zimbabwe's people would not be diminished whatever ugly label was attached against the name of the country.

PARK IN-KOOK (Republic of Korea) said in many parts of Africa, protracted conflicts threatened not only the right to freedom from arbitrary detention and torture but also even the fundamental right to life. A lack of resources and capacities for the protection of human rights posed another challenge in the region. Despite positive steps towards political, legal and social reform in recent years across the Middle East, ongoing conflicts and continued violence in the region cast a dark cloud. In Latin America and the Caribbean, while the region had the highest rate of ratification of international human rights treaties in the developing world, economic and social discrimination had been barriers to respect for human rights. In Asia, democratic systems of Government were being put in place in an increasing number of nations. However, dictatorships persisted in some countries, with continuing abuses of human rights. Moreover, there had also been some regressive developments in other parts of the world.

The most severe and massive violations of human rights were committed in areas of conflict. The failure to protect civilians in crises raised serious questions regarding the fundamental capacity of the international community to provide real solutions to contemporary challenges, which gave rise to those serious human rights violations. Democracy was an essential element in the promotion and protection of the whole spectrum of human rights for all. His country strongly upheld the universal values of freedom and human rights as the very cornerstone of its long-term foreign policy goals.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), recalling the statement made by the High Commissioner at the opening of the session – "No State has cause for complacency: no human rights record is perfect", said the statement captured the essence of the human rights situation all over the world. Developed countries, despite their successes, could not dismiss evidence regarding human rights violations in their own lands in a felicitous manner or accommodate them cosmetically. There was a need for a genuine engagement and an earnest endeavour to promote human rights and for visionaries who would inspire and induce compliance with voluntarily agreed human rights instruments and standards. Referring to the findings of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, he said country-specific situations received lopsided attention and emphasis and there was a tendency to rubbish the progress made so far in the field of human rights and to float proposals to supplant the Commission with new mechanisms.

When human rights were used as instruments of foreign policy or strategic interests, credibility suffered and so did the pursuit to promote human rights, he said. There should be an equal emphasis on the creation of an enabling environment in which human rights could be nurtured and fostered. The denial of human rights in Jammu and Kashmir was a challenge to the conscience of the international community. Pakistan was engaging India in a dialogue to find a just and lasting solution of the crisis in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. While Pakistan and India were engaged in the composite dialogue, reports from Indian-held Kashmir indicated that there was an escalation of human rights violations including killings, summary executions, extrajudicial killings, rape, torture, and disappearances. Pakistan called on India to take immediate and visible steps to end human rights violations, to complete the cycle of troops reduction, to free political prisoners and to remove restrictions on the travel of Kashmiri political leaders. In this regard, the international community and the Commission had a responsibility.

JILLIAN DEMPSTER (New Zealand) said that accession to human rights treaties alone could not prevent abuse, neglect or human rights violations against women and children. That required the will of Governments. Too often, there was a gap between commitment and implementation; Member States must continue to respect and to put into practice the standards that had been collectively agreed upon. Recently, she added, there had been much debate on the importance of strengthening the family. New Zealand held that Governments best supported families by observing the human rights of all their members, without discrimination, and by eliminating impunity for those who violated the rights of women and children.

It was the Commission's responsibility to address particularly worrying situation of human rights abuse wherever they occurred, she continued. For example the gravity of the crisis in the Sudan demanded that the situation be the focus of deliberations this year. Sexual violence against women and girls and abduction of children continued to be among the widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights in Darfur. The Commission must send a united and unambiguous signal to the Government of Sudan that that situation must end. New Zealand also continued to be concerned by particularly grave human rights situations in the wider Asia and the Pacific, and urged the Government of Iran to address human rights issues, which required further attention, including the use of the death penalty for minors. Iraq should revoke all legislative provisions that discriminated against women. The Governments of Afghanistan, Guatemala and El Salvador were commended for progress made in protecting women's rights.

GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon) said some countries looked at item nine with suspicion because of the repeated attempts to manipulate it and use it to settle accounts and to target specific countries unjustly. The question which should be asked was how does occupation affect basic human rights. Occupation was a flagrant violation of human rights. A resolution had been submitted to the Commission since 2000 with regard to the Lebanese prisoners languishing in Israeli prisons. The Lebanese brothers in the prisons had been suffering prisons conditions since for years. In addition, the occupation of the Lebanese territory by Israel had had devastating consequences in many aspects, among which were the land mines implanted by Israel.

The fate of those Lebanese citizens who went missing in the hands of Israel was not clear. The Government of Lebanon could not simply forget those missing without any information concerning their whereabouts. The Israeli authorities should indicate to the Lebanese authorities whether those persons were dead or still in secret prisons.

JAMES C. DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), said the question of human rights in Cyprus had been on the agenda of the Commission since 1975 where resolutions had called for the "full restoration of all human rights to the population of Cyprus, and in particular to the refugees". The High Commissioner placed focus on the need for the implementation of human rights and their universality and centrality in the world society. Cyprus fully shared that view. In 2004, the people of Cyprus were asked to approve or reject the Secretary-General's proposal for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem; the non-acceptance of the plan by 75.8 per cent of the Greek Cypriots was not a rejection of the solution of the Cyprus problem, but a rejection of the specific plan that was put before them. Cyprus shared and understood the disappointment of the international community for not arriving at a settlement, and was indeed the first to feel this disappointment, since an acceptable solution should serve the vital interests of all Cypriots. Cyprus still suffered from the illegal occupation of 37 per cent of its territory by more than 35,000 foreign troops, and daily violations of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of its people by the occupying power.

The reunification of the island and its people remained the absolute top priority of the Government of Cyprus, which was determined to work for a solution that would meet the expectations of both communities for a common future for all Cypriots within the European Union. The Government was only asking for the protection of human rights of all Cypriots in line with relevant European Court of Human Rights Judgments and the provision of international humanitarian law and norms, namely, the right of return, restitution of property, respect of the rights of the enclaved and ascertaining the fate of the missing persons. The tragic humanitarian problem of the missing persons still remained unresolved. The Government of Cyprus called on Turkey to cooperate constructively and proceed with effective investigations in order to determine the whereabouts and the fate of hundreds of Greek Cypriot civilians who had disappeared. Moreover, the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Greek Cypriot and Maronite enclaves have not improved sufficiently in order for these people to fully enjoy their human rights and freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the freedom of expression, as well as full and unimpeded functioning of primary and secondary school facilities. There was a legal, political and moral responsibility to abide by the binding Court's Judgments and mandatory United Nations resolutions. Cyprus called on Turkey to implement them.

TASSOS KRIEKOUKIS (Greece) said the restitution of respect for human rights on the island of Cyprus constituted a sine qua non for a just and viable solution to the question of Cyprus. His country's position on this long-standing political problem remained supportive of the need to reach a functional and mutually-acceptable solution, based on relevant Security Council resolutions, the Secretary-General's plan, and in conformity with European Union principles. Cyprus' accession to the European Union, and Turkey's European orientation, had created a new environment conducive to providing fresh impetus and new perspectives in the search for a solution. It was indisputable that the values upon which the European Union had been founded offered ample and safe ground for a lasting and operative settlement.

Numerous violations, in several aspects of human rights and humanitarian law, had continued uninterruptedly since the Turkish invasion of the island in 1974, he said. Among those figured, the issues of missing persons; refugees whose situation had been exacerbated by the influx of settlers from mainland; and Turkish troops illegally stationed in Cyprus. Those troops had recently been reinforced, and their weaponry further modernized, moves which were perceived as intransigence and the entrenchment of the status quo.

GHASSAN OBEID (Syria) said Syria considered that agenda item 9 was not balanced because of its politicisation and selectivity. Under that item, the developing countries were accused of human rights violations while they were denied the means to develop their societies. Many developed countries distributed notes of accusations on the developing countries while ignoring their own human rights violations, including occupation. With regard to Israel, human rights violations had continued in the occupied territories, as witnessed by the Special Rapporteur. Countries should be encouraged to have interactive dialogue on their human rights situations. Countries where prisoners of other countries were languishing should refrain from continuing their violations. In the case of Israel, the landmines it had planted in southern Lebanese had continued to affect the inhabitants because of Israel's refusal to provide documents identifying the landmines.

TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey) said the settlement of the Cyprus problem would have improved the situation of human rights in the island. However, the historic opportunity was missed when the Secretary-General's Plan was rejected by the Greek Cypriot side in the simultaneous referenda of May 2004. Referring to the report of the Secretary-General's, he said since the restrictions and embargo by the Greek Cypriots in various fields, such as the right to free trade and travel, were continuing, efforts to rectify this situation by many parties, including the European Union, were still impeded by the Greek Cypriot side. He said the report of the Secretary-General made reference that the outcome of the referenda had resulted in a stalemate and that neither of the parties had made a proposal to resolve the impasse which was rather puzzling since this remark should have been addressed exclusively to the Greek Cypriot side, which had overwhelmingly rejected the UNSG's plan. The report also argued that freedom of movement had also been facilitated by Greek Cypriot willingness to accept entry to the south by European Union nationals and Cyprus visa holders who entered the island through ports in the North. The term "willingness" was incorrect. It should be noted that the crossing of EU nationals from north to south did not result from the willingness of the Greek Cypriot side to facilitate such crossings, but it was imperative under the EU acquis. All the issues in the report, would have been resolved if the Secretary-General's plan had not been rejected, he added.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) denounced the subjective criteria that had been employed by the Commission on Human Rights, and the action of the European Union, which had attempted to put pressure on his country by introducing hostile resolutions at the Commission. The people of the country had firmly defended their chosen system. The Charter of the United Nations stipulated equality, justice and respect for other nations as the principles of international order, but these were ignored. The United States had not taken into account its own bad score in respect of human rights, in their attempts to impose its norms on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

NESTOR CRUZ TORUNO (Nicaragua) said Nicaragua attached great importance to the promotion and protection of human rights in its own country and elsewhere in the world. Nicaragua's experience in the democratic process had shown that only pluralistic political systems allowed the free participation of citizens in nation building. Nicaragua was concerned that the difficult situation in the world had adverse consequences in the promotion and protection of human rights, particularly in countries in transition and developing ones. However, human rights violations could not be justified in any situations. Any human rights violations were not tolerated. States should enable individuals by fostering their human rights.

Right of Reply

The Representative of Mauritania, speaking in exercise of the right of reply in reference to the statement made by Luxembourg on behalf of the European Union, said Mauritanian legislation did include a provision for capital punishment, however the practice had not been exercised since 1975.

The Representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speaking in exercise of the right of reply in reference to the statement of Japan, rejected the stereotyped allegations made by that delegation. If Japan was truly concerned about the human rights violations committed by others, why did it remain silent on its own unprecedented gross violations against others? Japan had abducted 24 million Koreans, massacred one million and imposed sexual slavery on hundreds of thousands of women and girls. Every family in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been affected. Moreover, why was Japan reluctant to talk to about the discriminatory measures now being taken against Koreans?

Japan had no right to talk about human rights violations of others, he said. The number of crimes committed against Japanese in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea could never compare to the crimes committed by Japan. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been faithful to the joint declaration in resolving the abduction case, but Japan had done nothing to fulfil it own responsibility. Its only action had been the recourse to hostility against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in pursuit of its political objectives. Unlike Germany, Japan had not been willing to settle its past crimes against humanity. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea wished to remind Japan that history could never be denied, and that there was no statutory limitation on the crimes against humanity that Japan had committed.

The Representative of Uganda, speaking in a right of reply in reference to the statement made by Luxembourg on behalf of the European Union, said the Ugandan Army did not recruit children into its armed forces. It was, however, known that the Lord’s Resistance armed group was abducting children to use them as soldiers. The European Union had in the past indicated that fact. The Ugandan Army did not recruit children at all.

The Representative of Cyprus, speaking in exercise of a right of reply in response to the statement made by Pakistan speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, drew attention to United Nations Security Council resolutions which condemned the illegal occupation of the occupied areas in Cyprus. The economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, he added, was self-imposed.

The Representative of Zimbabwe, speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the European Union, said the Union's statement was tantamount to direct interference in the parliamentary elections set to take place at the end of the month. Against the onslaught of hostility and clandestine activities, the Government of Zimbabwe had enacted laws to maintain law and order. The European Union's reaction was predictable as those laws had foiled its sordid goals. Those guilty of trying to disturb the stability had been apprehended and punished. Moreover, the European Union's naked lie about intimidation of the opposition had exposed by the campaign currently underway. Perhaps the European Union was hinting that its "agents provocateurs" were planning activities to disturb the tranquillity. Zimbabwe had fought for its democracy, which was alive and well. Repeating untruths at the Commission would not change that.

The Representative of India, speaking in a right of reply, rejected the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) concerning a region, which was part of India. India was composed of Muslims who enjoyed all rights as the rest of the population.

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

MAYA BEN HAIM, of International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, said the report of the Special Rapporteur was far from objective in assessing the impact of the sustained campaign of mortar attacks coupled with the suicide bomb attacks mounted from the Palestinian centres of population on Israel civilian targets with which the Israeli Defence Forces had had to contend. That hopelessly one-sided litany of accusations exceeding in tone and content the unbalanced and distorted presentation earlier reports, failed to grasp the essence of the problem to which the decision of the Israeli authorities to construct the security and separation fence responded.

BASSAM ALKANTAR, of North-South XXI, said the issue of the Lebanese, Palestinian and Arab detainees in Israeli prisons needed to be addressed. There was grave concern about the remaining Lebanese detainees in Israel, about Israel's continued concealment of the fate of scores of Lebanese missing persons, and about the bodies of deceased Lebanese nationals who were taken into detention and transferred by Israel to Israeli prisons during the occupation of Southern Lebanon. They were being held as bargaining pawns. There were also more than 7,500 Palestinian and Arab prisoners in Israeli prisons, including women and children. The Israeli Government should ensure that all prisoners were given prompt, regular and unrestricted access to family, lawyers and doctors and were not subjected to torture and/or other ill-treatment.

JANET SYMES, of International Save the Children Alliance, said four key issues constrained the fulfilment of children's rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, including closures, child detainees, protection and human rights monitoring. Closures and curfews violated children's rights by restricting their movement, and hence their rights to education and access to quality healthcare services. Furthermore, 750 Palestinian children had been arrested by the Israeli military in 2004, most accused of stone throwing. Many of those arrested had been subjected to degrading treatment. Israel should immediately halt its policy of child arrest and discontinue its unlawful treatment of Palestinian children in detention centers and prisons. Moreover, children's right to survival and development was being violated as the current situation put children at risk of being injured or losing their lives. Some 154 Palestinian children, and 11 Israeli children, had been killed in 2004. Finally, while there was broad recognition of the need for enhanced monitoring of children's rights in the occupied territories, little progress had been made in identifying clear steps.

IVONNE PEREZ GUTIERREZ, of National Union of Jurists of Cuba, said her organization could not underline enough the situation of the Palestinian people and their suffering. The genocidal Government of Israel continued to apply illegal practices against the Palestinian people. There had been many victims of what mounted to war crimes by Israel. The United States should speak unequivocally and without double standards against the crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinian people.

SHIMON SAMUELS, of Simon Wiesenthal Center, said item 8, in its one-sidedness and single-country bashing, was emblematic of the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's description of the Commission's credibility deficit and need for restructuring. The Commission had a responsibility to focus on a scourge that had been sidelined in this debate, which was terrorism and the violation of the human rights of its victims. By discrediting the death-mongers and emphasising the paramount respect for life and hope, the Commission was invited to empower the human rights of the victims of terrorism who should be the central subject of today's debate, a focus that might just help to redeem the integrity of the Commission.

CAROLINA AMADOR PEREZ,of Federation of Cuban Women, said due to Israeli actions in building the wall, hundreds of roads had been torn up, hundreds of thousands of people had been prevented from going to their schools and places of worship, and the means of existence of Palestinians was being destroyed. Women, in particular, suffered from high unemployment. More than 5,000 Palestinian homes had been destroyed by Israeli demolitions, and more than 2,000 boys and girls had undergone traumatic experiences of being arrested and mistreated in Israeli detention centres. Israel was armed to the teeth with a fascist mentality that outdid even that of Hitler's Nazism. The United States and Israel sought to eliminate the resistance of the Palestinian people. For its part, the United States had used the veto power 29 times against Security Council resolutions aimed at ending the extermination of an entire nation. However, the people of Cuba maintained that no war, no siege, no cruelty would staunch the Palestinians' struggle for their rights.

MURIELLE MIGNOT, of Habitat International Coalition, said Israel facilitated the violation of Palestinian individual and collective land rights by imposing its discriminatory domestic laws, confiscating the occupied people's property including land, water and other natural resources. Palestinian and Israeli organizations had made significant efforts to prevent the above-mentioned violations through contacts with military bodies or by approaching the Israeli High Court but in vain, and in spite of the International Court of Justice's opinion that the settlements and separation wall were in violation of international law. The international community and the members of the Commission bore a responsibility under the principle of international cooperation to remedy these violations, and failure to do so perpetuated hostility in the region, and destroyed faith in the entire system of international law and legitimacy among the wider public.

RAMA ENAV, of Women's International Zionist Organization, said that her organization's main objective was to care for children, especially those from deprived backgrounds, and to improve the status of women in every sphere. To respect and accept the "other" was the primary focus of this work. Conflict prevention was more important to that end than conflict resolution, for which purpose the organization had organized a Children's Peace Day at the European Council in Strasbourg. It brought together Christian, Muslim and Jewish children. Human rights education was the key to successful conflict prevention. Women in general believed in restraint of aggression, she added; 95 per cent of all crimes were committed by men. Women would mould the peace process, and the most significant work was in teaching children. Children should be educated toward understanding the points of view of others, and endeavouring to reach out.

GRACIELA ROBERT, of Médecins du monde international, said her organization had been present in the occupied territories since 1995 and had been carrying out programmes to improve the right to health of the Palestinian citizens. Since June 2002, the construction of the wall has worsened the health situation of the Palestinian people. Her organization had set up a programme with local partners to remedy this situation. The health system was in peril due to the wall which also broke down family links; it also had had a psychological impact. Moreover, the people guarding the wall had no medical knowledge. Regular access to hospitals had been suspended for virtually 200,000 Palestinians. The wall was also a violation of international human rights and humanitarian law. Medecin du Monde called for the ruling of the International Court of Justice to be implemented as a matter of urgency. The construction of the wall had disastrous effects on the physical and mental health of the population within.

BORIS CASTILLO BARROS, of Movimiento Cubano por la Paz y la Soberanía de los Pueblos, said the tenacity of the Palestinian people was admired as they had fought for independence with great dignity and skill and relentless resistance. There should be solidarity so that in the course of the negotiations, a true peace plan could be achieved. The Zionist Government of Israel sought to find shameful capitulation. The unity and capacity of the Palestinians would shatter those pretensions. Israel should comply with all resolutions passed by the international community.

MELINDA CHING SIMON, of Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, said there had been a dramatic and horrifying escalation of housing demolitions, destruction of property, and expropriation of land in the occupied Palestinian territories in the last year. In May 2004, Israeli military forces had demolished 298 buildings in Rafah, leaving more than 3,700 people homeless. Forty Palestinians had died as a result of that incursion, as crops, greenhouses and farm equipment had been destroyed and damaged. The Rafah incursions were only part of a series of operations in which homes and property had been destroyed as a collective punishment. Homes had also been demolished as part of clearing operations, and for having been built without a permit. These housing demolitions took place in the broader context of annexation of Palestinian land through a complex legal system, which sanctioned discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel, as well as against the residents of the occupied territories. The construction of the security fence was the latest of these developments, which allowed for settlement expansion and destruction of Palestinian land and forced displacement of Palestinians from their land.

Right of Reply

BASHAR JAAFARI (Syria), speaking in exercise of the right to reply, said Syria was surprised by the accusation lodged against his country by the United States which was politically motivated. It was clear that the United States had used its Security Council veto several times to block action which aimed to condemn Israel. Syria called on the United States, which was a sponsor of the 1991 Madrid declaration, to follow the principles of the Madrid Conference and to be a full-fledged partner for peace in the Middles East. All resolutions calling for international legitimacy should be applied. It was important to indicate that the Syrian presence in Lebanon was in line with United Nations resolutions as well as with previous United States' administrations. The Syrian Government had been redeploying from Lebanon since 2000 and at present there were only 9,000 Syrian soldiers present. The Secretary-General's Special Envoy, in his meeting with the President of Syria yesterday, said the meeting had been very fruitful.

GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon), speaking in a right of reply, said the interest of other countries for the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon was appreciated, but those in charge of independence and sovereignty were the people of Lebanon. The only invasion suffered by Lebanon had been that by Israel. As for the relationship with Syria, every Lebanese today and in the future wished to preserve the brotherly relations in the framework of the independence of both countries. The presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon was legitimate and temporary, and their withdrawal had begun. Words of excessive zeal would not be of assistance. All resolutions adopted on the Middle East should be implemented, as should the principles of the Madrid Conference in order to ensure a just and lasting peace.