COUNCIL HEARS FROM EXPERTS ON RIGHT TO FOOD, TOXIC AND DANGEROUS WASTES, ADEQUATE HOUSING AND EXTREME POVERTY

Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON

11 June 2007

Concludes Interactive Dialogue on Independence of Judges and Lawyers and on Racism and Racial Discrimination

The Human Rights Council this afternoon discussed the reports of the Special Rapporteurs on the right to food, toxic and dangerous products and wastes, adequate housing and human rights and extreme poverty.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded the interactive dialogue on the reports presented in the morning by the Special Rapporteurs on the independence of judges and lawyers, and on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

Jean Ziegler, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said that despite numerous international promises to eradicate hunger, there had been little progress in reducing the number of victims around the world who suffered hunger - in fact, the number had increased every year since 1996. Human beings had the right to live in dignity, free from hunger. The right to food was a human right; yet food crises across Africa continued to take a heavy toll. The Council had to create a new international law instrument to assist the African famine refugees. An international standard on the right to temporary “refugee-ship” in cases of famine should also be formulated and implemented.

Okechukwu Ibeanu, the Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, said that economic growth and demand for energy and consumer products had led to unprecedented levels of industrial production, thereby increasing the problem of toxic wastes that had to be disposed of. Therefore, there was an increased pressure to export waste to poor and remote areas. There was an important link between armed conflicts and the spread of toxic and dangerous products and wastes. There had been many studies on the impact of war on the environment; however the subsequent consequences of this impact on human rights were often ignored.

Miloon Kothari, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, said in his work, he had favoured a constructive approach to promoting the right to adequate housing. The need for the elaboration of an operational framework for the realisation of the right to adequate housing, including indicators and methods of monitoring, had become ever more pertinent with the emergence of the Millennium Development Goals. The purpose of these operational guidelines was to assist States and the international community to develop policies and legislations to address evictions at the domestic level and to provide practical steps towards ensuring the protection of the right to adequate housing.

Arjun Sengupta, the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, said that his report highlighted the importance of taking a human rights approach to the problem of extreme poverty. Poverty was now recognized as not just economic or income deprivation, but also social, cultural and political deprivation. Human development poverty involved lack of access to basic facilities; social exclusion involved lack of ability to lead a dignified social existence in relation to others in society. A key issue was the matter of whether extreme poverty was caused by human rights violations or whether it was itself a violation.

Speaking as concerned countries on the reports on the right to food, toxic and dangerous products and wastes, adequate housing and extreme poverty were Ukraine, Australia and Spain. Within the context of the interactive dialogue, representatives of Brazil, Cambodia, Pakistan and Sudan took the floor.

At the end of the interactive debate on racism and racial discrimination, and on the independence of judges and lawyers, the two Special Rapporteurs made closing remarks.

Doudou Diene, the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, said that the Representative of Russia seemed to deny the fact that racist and xenophobic violence were a massive phenomenon in Russia. Government figures talked about up to 20,000 such incidents. On the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion, a balance between them should be sought.

Leandro Despouy, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, thanked the two countries he had visited for the constructive spirit in which they had listened to his recommendations. The criticism of the situation in Iraq was legitimate, and capital punishment was one of the alarming repercussions of these courts. Iraq had to move forward, and not go back to the past.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue on racism and on the independence of judges and lawyers were Nigeria, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Chile, Algeria and the African Union. Also speaking was a Representative of the National Human Rights Commission of India. Among the non-governmental organizations taking the floor were Nord-Sud XXI, Amnesty International, World Peace Council, Asian Legal Resource Centre, International Federation for Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists, General Arab Women Federation, United Nations Watch and Indian Council of South America.

Speaking in right of reply were Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iraq, Japan, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The Council is scheduled to meet at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 12 June, when it will conclude the interactive debate on the reports of the Special Rapporteurs on the right to food, toxic and dangerous products and waste, adequate housing and extreme poverty and move on to the consideration of the reports on human rights and international solidarity, Belarus, Cuba, Cambodia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It will meet non-stop on Tuesday from 9 am. to 6 p.m.

Continuation of Interactive Dialogue on Reports on Racism and Independence of Judiciary

MARTIN UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria) said the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia was appreciated. Like all his previous reports, Doudou Diene had once more brought to the fore the dangers of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia for political ends, which were a dangerous legitimization of racist political platforms. Nigeria welcomed the detailed region-by-region analysis of the phenomenon. The multi-ethnic nature of most African States had supported partisan politics. The phenomenon was not only restricted to Africa or to developing countries, however. Even at the risk of overstressing this point, the electorate tended to vote along ethnic lines in order to support their aims.

Nigeria had taken a wide range of measures which were enshrined in its Convention to improve harmony between all groups, and encouraging harmony between all political groups. The recommendations of the Special Rapporteur to increase religious and inter-religious harmony were commended and should be implemented as these were noble objectives.

BADRIDDIN OBIDOV (Uzbekistan), said the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers had touched in his report on issues linked to trials and criminal and civil processes in general. His sources were highly politicized. A delegation from Uzbekistan in 2006 had supplied information on the situation concerning extradition, and the so-called facts, obtained from politically biased sources, were not factual at all. The Special Rapporteur should refrain from this biased approach.

Reforms were under way in the judicial system of Uzbekistan. A decree on habeas corpus and concerning individuals accused of offences had been issued. Uzbekistan had carried out a lot of work and training in awareness raising, on the Criminal and Civil code, the role of the prosecutor’s office, and the introducing of habeas corpus together with a raft of associated measures. Round tables and conferences on incorporation of habeas corpus in national legislation, in cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, civil society and others, had been undertaken.

OMER BERZINJI (Iraq) said that Iraq wanted to comment on the statement by Mexico, expressing its concern about the death penalty in Iraq, and the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. Although Iraq wanted to abolish the death penalty soon, the current situation did not allow it. The present Government was not responsible for the penal code, which was a legacy from the former regime. Thousands of people had been murdered in the past and thrown in mass graves. People had also been judged and condemned to death by fictional courts. The High Tribunal in Iraq was independent. The Parliament had approved the implementation of the Supreme Criminal Court. The current situation of the Iraqi people should be taken into account. Iraq wanted to abolish the death penalty as soon as the difficult situation the country was facing today was overcome.

EDUARDO CHIHUALIAF (Chile) said, with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, it was a vital report for those countries that were in a process of transition and which sought justice. There could be no democracy without the sound administration of justice, as this was essential in order for the population to trust the administration.

With regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, the roots of racism were very old, and it was today – as the Special Rapporteur had shown – cloaked in various manners. There were attempts to legitimize political racism. Racism and racial discrimination could undermine democracy – no society could properly bloom and flower when certain sectors were excluded. The Special Rapporteur was commended for his efforts with regard to Latin America, and his reference to Chile had been gratefully received.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) particularly welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism, as the issues covered in the report were of particular importance for Algeria and the African Group. Algeria agreed with the comments made by Djibouti this morning, that dogmatism had led to an artificial distinction between the concepts of racism and Islamophobia – and even between those two concepts and anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism was actually a scourge that affected all Semitic peoples, both Arabs and Jews. It would be better to focus on a general notion of racism. It was not Islamophobic to criticize a Muslim Government for doing things it should not be doing, nor anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli Government when it did such things. Whatever the terms used, racism always boiled down to the same thing: invoking stereotypes and clichés to induce hatred and violence. He hoped the Special Rapporteur would not separate out different types of racism, but see them as a whole phenomenon.

USMAN SARKI (African Union) said that the African Union welcomed the report by Doudou Diene, the Special Rapporteur on racism and racial discrimination. Of particular concern were the many forms of racism and xenophobia and their legitimization through political platforms nowadays. The Commission of the African Union had placed great importance on the subject, and had asked the Human Rights Council and the international community to work towards the eradication of those forms of racism. The report of Mr. Diene had raised several questions, for example, whether the above-mentioned forms of racism should be accepted within the framework of political plurality.

ARUNA SHARMA, of the National Human Rights Commission of India, said, with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, that while talking of those issues there was also a need to flag the role of national human rights institutions as part of domestic remedies. Their apolitical role gave them a distinct position. The Indian Human Rights Institution had a special place, and its recommendation was considered as final.

On racism, the Ambassador of India had clarified the issue that the caste system in India did not technically come under the term of racism. However, it could be used as a form of discrimination. The National Human Rights Institution had a focal point which dealt with issues related to caste. It was very unfortunate that the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons could not come to present her report, and this issue should be considered further.

CURTIS DOEBBLER, of Nord-Sud XXI, said, further to report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, who had listed the shortcomings of the judicial system in Iraq, since March 2003 it was estimated that dozens of people had been executed after unfair trials. The abuse by the United States and its collaborators had been extensive. A legal brief had been written pointing out the unfairness of the legal process in Iraq, yet the United States and its collaborators continued in this, a war crime and a crime against humanity under the Geneva Conventions. If the Human Rights Council was serious about combating impunity, it need look no further than Iraq. It should urge the prosecution of individuals involved in supporting these unfair trials, and the Special Rapporteur should follow up on that in his reports.

SHIREEN MUKADAM, of Amnesty International, said that the report on the independence of judges and lawyers raised several critical issues, including how the Human Rights Council should respond to the development of a parallel system of administration of justice, which ignored universally applicable standards and avoided the application of international human rights law, and what the Council should do to increase its efforts to support the work carried out by various actors involved in the administration of justice. In conclusion, Amnesty International wanted to know what the Special Rapporteur on racism would recommend States do in order to counteract the negative trend of a rejection of diversity and multiculturalism, leading to xenophobia and racism.

NASIR AZIZ KHAN, of World Peace Council, said the past experience of more than six decades of the sub-continent’s politics since the independence of India had established that democracy remained the most effective vehicle to promote and safeguard people’s rights. However, an independent judiciary was more than essential to ensure that democracy was not derailed by authoritarian establishments and whimsical dictators. There was no independent judiciary in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, and all judiciary appointments there were subservient to the will and whims of the military establishment.

KISHALI PINTO-JAYAWARDENA, of Asian Legal Resource Centre, was concerned about the situation of the judiciary in Sri Lanka. The politicization of the Office of the Chief Justice had a direct impact on human rights violations as a result of the conflict. Arbitrary transfer of magistrates in high-profile cases of extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances had raised serious doubts about impartiality. Efforts to expose and punish crimes of the State were not met with judicial support. Was the Special Rapporteur concerned about the Sinharasa case, ruling that Sri Lanka’s accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, which allowed the right of individual communications before the UN Human Rights Committee, had been unconstitutional? What measures would he propose to ensure independence of the Sri Lankan Supreme Court? Unconstitutional appointments had been made to senior judiciary positions. The Judicial contempt powers continued to chill freedom of expression of the media, lawyers and citizens.

SIMIA AHMADI, of International Federation for Human Rights, said that the Federation had submitted a petition to Special Rapporteur Leandro Despouy, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, claiming that the case filed in 2004 on behalf of Iraqi citizens who had been tortured had been dismissed by the German Federal Prosecutor for political rather than legal reasons. The criminal case requested an investigation into war crimes allegedly carried out by high-ranking American civilian and military officials. The charges included violations of the German code "war crimes against persons". The code granted German courts universal jurisdiction for those crimes. States had the crucial duty to ensure that prosecutors could carry out their professional functions impartially and objectively. The United States and Germany had both violated that principle.

ELIAS KHOURY, of Union of Arab Jurists, said, with regard to the report on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur’s efforts to strengthen the judiciary around the world were to be applauded, and the Council should take the necessary measures to achieve justice and the independence of the judiciary all across the world. Corruption and threats to the independence of the judiciary were a primary threat to the rule of law. Trials in Iraq were illegitimate – a form of revenge against the previous regime – and had resulted in illegal executions, including of the previous justly elected President. The acts of the occupying powers were grave breaches of international law. It was urgent that the international community, in particular the Council, apply pressure on the occupation authorities and Iraqi Authorities to stop these illegal trials and establish an international tribunal to prosecute with impartiality and independence all of the serious crimes committed in Iraq, especially those committed after the invasion in 2003.

NICHOLAS HOWEN, of International Commission of Jurists, said the International Commission had repeatedly expressed concerns over the unjustifiable declaration of states of emergency. The International Commission asked for clarification of the purpose and content of the proposed declaration to clarify rights and duties during a state of emergency. In particular, it should clarify those rights that were non-derogable. In addition, the Commission would like to hear the Special Rapporteur comment on Zimbabwe, where the legal profession faced harassment and intimidation. The International Commission of Jurists was also concerned about the situation in Sri Lanka, where unilateral appointments to senior judicial bodies threatened to undermine the rule of law. Finally, the Special Rapporteur’s views on the situation in Pakistan, concerning the use of force against lawyers and civil society actors, and on intimidation in Fiji, would be appreciated.

JULIETTE SAYAGH, of General Arab Women Federation, supported the proposal of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy, to establish an international and independent court of justice mandated to try those who had committed all the crimes in Iraq before and after 2003. Concerning the situation in Iraq, the Special Rapporteur had exposed the serious defects in the country’s judicial system, due to the continuous intervention of the occupying authority. Contrary to the Geneva Conventions, the court had been created by the occupation authority, under which new laws had been promulgated to judge the former Iraqi leaders. The Council was urged to take the necessary steps to exert pressure on the occupying powers and the Iraqi authorities to stop the functions of that illegal court.

CAROLINE GROSS, of United Nations Watch, said the report on racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia cited Iran for three anti-Semitic acts. Just last week, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon had condemned the Iranian leader for his latest statement inciting the destruction of the "Zionist regime". What steps could be taken to enforce the Convention on Genocide’s article on the obligation to prevent? Iran’s policy and practice of racial discrimination violated not only international human rights law, it also contravened the basic principles of Iran’s own Constitution, including its guarantees of human dignity and equality. The Special Rapporteur should explain what steps he could take to further protect Iran’s minorities from their Government’s policies of racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, said indigenous people had suffered racism since their first contact with outsiders: governments and institutions had been created without their participation; land and resources had been taken without their consent; and the genocide of many indigenous peoples was a historical fact. Some States sought to deny rights to indigenous peoples. Did that mean that indigenous peoples rights would be denied forever? The Indian Council asked the Special Rapporteur on Racism why the mandates were conducted in a way that denied political involvement of indigenous people. In particular, the United States had not addressed recent issues of indigenous rights, and the Indian Council wondered whether they would. Would indigenous peoples' rights ever be properly acknowledged?

Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

DOUDOU DIENE, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, said that his first answers would relate to the Special Procedures and the declaration of the Representative of Russia, who had felt that his report lacked objectivity and gave more importance of the point of view of civil society. The Representative of Russia seemed to deny the fact that racist and xenophobic violence were a massive phenomenon in Russia. The figures talked about 10,000 to 20,000 acts of racist violence. Those figures could not be denied, as they had come from the Russian Government itself. Non-governmental organizations talked about some 50,000 such incidents. Apparently the concept of objectivity that was being called for would require the Special Rapporteur to hide the profound reality that he had seen. More seriously, it was a mistake to deny the link between racism and national identity. Was the Russian Federation saying that, when a country had decided about its national identity, it would remain the same for all eternity, and that all the historical processes that it had undergone, in which many different peoples had come together, had no impact at all on its national identity? That required in-depth consideration.

Along the same lines, the Special Rapporteur welcomed the declarations from Representatives of South America. However, he wanted to touch on the question they raised about the concept of "Latin America". The Special Rapporteur had worked for 25 years for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and knew that no geographical concepts could ever be neutral. Looking at the physical violence against the Indians, one knew that giving the region the title of "Latin America" meant that the share of the Indian people was lacking, as well as the part of African people who came to the country. The Special Rapporteur therefore proposed that the concept be reviewed, and the region should be called South America.

As for the European Union question, which related to the Danish cartoon incident, a balance had to be struck between the fundamental defence of the freedom of expression and the defence of freedom of religion, also avoiding the instrumentalization of the freedom of religion by extreme right wing parties that used xenophobic, racist slogans. The Special Rapporteur said that it was vital that that issue be reconsidered in order to see how that complementarity could be ensured. In the general report later on, the Special Rapporteur would give more answers.

Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers

LEANDRO DESPOUY, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, responding to the issues raised during the interactive dialogue, said he wished to thank the two countries he had visited for the constructive spirit in which they had listened to his recommendations. The Democratic Republic of Congo had listened positively, but the international community should be present in that country, which still required its help. With regard to the status of the Fiji islands, there had been an interruption in the rule of law there, and the Special Rapporteur hoped the international community would help to ensure that the political situation, as well as that of judges, lawyers and the President of the Supreme Court would be regularized.

The Special Rapporteur had not yet received an invitation to visit Sri Lanka, although it had listened carefully to the remarks of non-governmental organizations and other bodies during earlier meetings, and had noted the need to deepen the dialogue. With regard to the situation in Iraq, and what could be done to make sure that tribunals did not steer away from international standards, there had been proposals made in earlier reports. The international community had a lot of experience in mixed tribunals, such as in East Timor and Sierra Leone, and thus the contribution of the international community in that regard could be significant. The criticism of the situation in Iraq was legitimate, and capital punishment was one of the alarming repercussions of those courts. Iraq had to move forward, and not go back to the past.

The right to truth could be included in the fight against impunity, and some progress had been made in the international context in that regard, Mr. Despouy said. It was absolutely necessary that the Special Procedures drew information from the Universal Periodic Review. The elaboration of a code of conduct required more time. There was a need for consensus, or problems would arise in the area of application. This was a broad mandate, and the erosion of human rights and of the administration of justice in particular in states of emergency needed further analysis.

Reports of Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food

The Council has before it the annual report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler (A/HRC/4/30 and Add.1), in which the Special Rappoteur expresses outrage that global levels of hunger continue to rise. The number of people suffering from hunger has increased to 854 million people, and has been rising every year since 1996. Virtually no progress has been made in reducing hunger, despite the commitments made by Governments in 1996 at the first World Food Summit and again at the Millennium Summit in 2000. The Special Rapporteur commends a number of positive developments by Governments in combating hunger. However, he also calls the Council's attention to situations of serious concern related to the right to food, especially in the Darfur region of Sudan, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the Horn of Africa countries and in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Special Rapporteur also focuses on the silent tragedy of children suffering and dying from hunger and malnutrition, with 6 million children dying from hunger-related disease annually. Without adequate food and nutrition during their first five years, children suffer from physical stunting and limited intellectual development. Without respect for their right to food, children become involved in forced labour to help feed themselves and their families. Thousands of children make decisions to enlist in armed groups as a result of hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity, yet this is rarely discussed. Children’s right to food must be the priority in efforts to combat hunger and guarantee peace. The Special Rapporteur also calls particular attention to Africa’s “refugees from hunger” and the criminalization of their forced migration. The Special Rapporteur believes that legal protection must be extended to these refugees from hunger, as only then will Governments take seriously their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the right to food of all human beings around the world. The report ends with a series of recommendations for Governments regarding the realization of the right to food.

Addendum 1 to the report contains, on a country-by-country basis, summaries of communications, including urgent appeals, allegation letters, government replies and follow-up, relating to the Special Rapporteur’s mandate for the period 16 December 2005 to 1 December 2006. During the period under review, the Special Rapporteur sent a total of 46 communications concerning the right to food to 22 Member States as well as 7 communications to other actors including international and regional financial institutions, national development agencies and transnational corporations. Approximately half of the communications deal with cases related to allegations of violations of the obligation to respect the right to food on the part of State agents, such as, for example, forced land evictions that affected peoples’ access to food. The other half relate to allegations that relevant authorities failed to protect or fulfil the right to food. Where necessary, the Special Rapporteur also provides further substantive comments to Governments’ replies.

Introduction of Reports of Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food

JEAN ZIEGLER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said that, despite numerous international promises to eradicate hunger, there had been little progress in reducing the number of victims around the world who suffered from hunger. In fact, their number had increased every year since 1996. Hunger and famine were not inevitable. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the world produced enough food to feed every child, woman and man. All human beings had the right to live in dignity, free from hunger. The right to food was a human right; yet food crises across Africa continued to take a heavy toll. European Union dumping of food was also causing a dire situation in Africa, and was the direct cause of malnutrition.

The effects of conflict in Sudan and in the Horn of Africa were having severe impacts on the right to food and the livelihoods of thousands of people. Despite positive developments in certain countries, the enjoyment of the right to food remained precarious in many others. In his report this year, the Special Rapporteur had focused on the silent tragedy of children suffering and dying from hunger and malnutrition. Protecting and respecting the right to food of children should be a key priority of all efforts to combat hunger and malnutrition, in order for them to fulfil their potential and to promote development and guarantee peace. He also focused on the plight of thousands of people who were forced to flee their own countries because they could not feed their families, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa where chronic food insecurity was so pervasive.

Fighting hunger should also include addressing the root causes of migration and armed conflict, including realizing the right to food in those countries where people had little option but to flee their own countries or where children were forced to enlist in armed groups in order to procure food for themselves and their families. The increase of the number of child soldiers was directly due to the denial of their right to food, in particular for adolescents and children over 10. The human tragedy of refoulement showed the extent of the situation, and this even although many thousands of Africans died in their crossing to Europe. The European policy, which was categorized by military surveillance of the situation, had been internationally criticized. Europe was waging war on refugees from African famines. The Council had to create a new international law instrument to assist the African famine refugees, the Special Rapporteur urged. An economic refugee was a refugee for commodities’ sake, for comfort’s sake, but the famine refugee was living in a situation of urgency and necessity. An international standard on the right to temporary refugee-ship in cases of famine should be formulated and implemented.

Reports of Special Rapporteur on Illicit Movement and Dumping of Toxic and Dangerous Products and Wastes

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, Okechukwu Ibeanu (A/HRC/5/5 and Add.1), which focuses on the impact of armed conflict on exposure to toxic and dangerous products and wastes. Although war has always had an adverse effect on the environment, the voluntary or incidental release of toxic and dangerous products in contemporary armed conflicts has an important adverse effect on the enjoyment of human rights. The report not only examines the direct impact of armed conflict, but also its consequences on control of the movement and storage of toxic and dangerous products and wastes. The report also sets out the legal framework applicable to this issue and identifies the potential duty bearers. The Special Rapporteur ends his report with a series of recommendations which aim to prevent or at least to mitigate the adverse effects of exposure to toxic and dangerous products as a result of armed conflict.

An addendum contains the Special Rapporteur's preliminary note on his mission to Ukraine. He concludes that at all levels of Government and civil society in Ukraine recognize the urgent problem posed by the accumulation of toxic and dangerous products and wastes. Some of the main environmental challenges result from the presence of significant quantities of toxic and dangerous products and wastes as a consequence of the large industrial sector developed in a previous era and whose facilities were largely abandoned in the 1990s. Another important environmental problem is that of obsolete pesticides stored in several thousand privately owned sites, a large number of which do not offer adequate safeguards. The Special Rapporteur also looked into communications received of illicit importation of toxic wastes into Ukraine. Although holding that in many such cases the ultimate responsibility lies with the corporations involved, the Special Rapporteur recommends in particular cases that the authorities take action to remove such wastes to avoid potential pollution of rivers. The Special Rapporteur also believes that, in cases of alleged illicit dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes, the sanitary authorities should monitor the health of the local population in a stringent manner.

Presentation of Report of Special Rapporteur on Toxic and Dangerous Products and Wastes

OKECHUKWU IBEANU, Special Rapporteur on adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, said that the Commission on Human Rights adopted at its fifty first session the resolution concerning the “adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights”. Since then a number of mechanisms and bodies had been put in place at the international and regional levels to regulate the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and products. In particular, several environmental agreements had among their overall objectives to reduce the negative effects that the movement of these dangerous products might have on human health and the natural environment. Economic growth and demand for energy and consumer products had led to unprecedented levels of industrial production, thereby increasing the problem of toxic wastes that had to be disposed of. In the industrialized countries, the classic disposal options were being subjected to restrictions. Therefore, there was an increased pressure to export waste to poor and remote areas. In this report, the attention had been drawn to the important link between armed conflicts and the spread of toxic and dangerous products and wastes. Incidental or voluntary large-scale dispersions of toxic and dangerous products had severely impacted the enjoyment of human rights of the population of conflict-affected regions.

Armed conflicts had always had an adverse effect on the environment; however, the potentially harmful consequences had greatly increased with modern warfare, Mr. Ibeanu said. Indeed, in contemporary conflicts battles were fought within cities, close to industrial centres. In recent times, oil was one product, which had been released in great quantities during armed conflicts, as oils stocks were often the objects of attacks. Industrial facilities, namely petrochemical facilities and power plants, were often targeted in armed conflicts. War debris could also be an important source of discharge of toxic or dangerous products into the environment. Armed conflicts had indirect consequences on the environment and human rights, as they could also facilitate trafficking in dangerous products and wastes and their illicit dumping, which in turn, could through the contamination of soil and water, lead to denial of the enjoyment of basic human rights. Furthermore, because of the absence of the rule of law in conflict situations, the local population would often suffer from a lack of access to information on the dangers, which they may face from toxic and dangerous products and wastes.

There had been many studies on the impact of war on the environment; however the subsequent consequences of this impact on human rights were often ignored, the Special Rapporteur said. The report suggested a series of practical recommendations, such as parties to the conflict facilitating immediate access of clean-up crews and broadcasting of health warnings to the local population. With regard to the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Ukraine, a report would be presented at the upcoming session. The main environmental challenges faced by Ukraine resulted from the accumulation of toxic and dangerous products and wastes, which were a consequence notably of the large industrial sector developed in a previous era. Ukraine had a well-developed legal framework to deal with the particular issue of the impact of toxic and dangerous products and wastes. It existed, at all levels of Government and throughout the civil society, an acknowledgement of the urgent problem posed by the accumulation of toxic and dangerous products and wastes.

Reports of Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Miloon Kothari (A/HRC/4/18 and Add.1-3), which seeks to provide practical and operational tools to promote, monitor and implement the human right to adequate housing. There is currently a good basis for endorsing a list of indicators for monitoring the right to adequate housing. The Special Rapporteur urges Governments to test and adapt these to establish national benchmarks consistent with their human rights obligations, and to participate actively in piloting and validating them with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Human Settlements Programme. The Special Rapporteur integrated a gender perspective into every aspect of his mandate, including the elaboration of a questionnaire on women and housing that has become a useful tool for monitoring the realization of women’s right to housing and land. The Special Rapporteur requests the Council to ensure wide dissemination of the basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement, annexed to the report, and urges States to incorporate them into national laws and policies. In addition, the report discusses the importance of the human right to land, and proposes strategies to strengthen the legal framework to promote and implement that right, an issue the Special Rapporteur believes is of particular significance for implementing the right to adequate housing.

A first addendum to the report sets out, on a country-by-country basis, summaries of communications sent to States, government replies, observations and follow-up relating to the Special Rapporteur’s mandate for the period of 1 December 2005 to 1 December 2006. A large number of the communications in the period under review are related to cases of forced evictions.

A second addendum contains the report of the Special Rapporteur's mission to Australia. While noting some good practices to address some of the problems related to the implementation of the right to adequate housing, the Special Rapporteur has come to believe that there is a serious national housing crisis in Australia, affecting many sections of the population, with a critical and direct impact on the most vulnerable groups. Australia lacks a clear consistent, long-term and holistic housing strategy. The Special Rapporteur concludes that Australia has failed to implement the human right to adequate housing, and encourages the Government to make housing a national priority. Among his recommendations is the need to establish a national housing ministry.

A third addendum is the preliminary note of the Special Rapporteur on his mission to Spain. The Special Rapporteur says Spain is facing a serious housing crisis owing to affordability problems, increases in interest rates, a low percentage of public housing, one of the smallest rental housing shares in Europe, housing speculation, and discriminatory factors with regard to access to housing, including the gentrification of cities and the resulting segregation, evictions and “mobbing” (physical and psychological violence used to force people out of their home for speculative purposes). Although the situation of housing affects all sectors of the population, some have been more adversely affected, including women, vulnerable groups and people with low incomes, homeless, migrants and Roma communities. Among his recommendations, the Special Rapporteur calls for Spain to urgently address the situation of the insufficiency of housing and social services for those groups.

Presentation of Report of Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing

MILOON KOTHARI, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, said in his work on the right to adequate housing, he had favoured a constructive approach to promoting this right. To this end, he had tried throughout his work to propose practical tools and solutions to help States and civil societies to implement the right. These tools had been progressively developed, and were based on wide consultations with States and all concerned parties. In his work, he had often noticed the lack of tools to measure the implementation of the right to adequate housing, and in his country missions he had highlighted the need to have reliable indicators in order to help States to effectively implement their obligations. The need for the elaboration of an operational framework for the realisation of the right to adequate housing, including indicators and methods of monitoring had become ever more pertinent with the emergence of the Millennium Development Goals.

Other practical tools had been developed in close collaboration with other partners to develop a set of basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement. The purpose of these operational guidelines was to assist States and the international community to develop policies and legislations to address evictions at the domestic level and to provide practical steps towards ensuring the protection of the right to adequate housing. Land was a critical element of the human right to adequate housing; inadequate housing was often the consequence of being barred access to land and common property resources.

In accordance with his mandate, Mr. Kothari said, he had undertaken three country visits. He had visited Australia, where it seemed that policies had not been able to make a significant impact on the adverse housing and living conditions faced by people and communities across the country. Addressing the plight of homelessness and its causes, as well as the housing conditions of indigenous peoples should be set as a priority by the authorities. With regards to Spain, it lacked alternative housing possibilities, and the authorities should consider reviewing the impact of economic and social policies that affected housing and related issues. In South Africa, efforts were being made at all levels to address issues related to the realisation of the right to adequate housing, and there were good practices as well as numerous issues and situations of concern.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty

The Council has before it the report of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, Arjun Sengupta (A/HRC/5/3), which builds upon his two earlier reports on extreme poverty as well as his mission report on extreme poverty conditions in the United States, and brings together the observations of the group of experts, which met in Geneva at a Workshop on Extreme Poverty on 23 and 24 February 2007. Three considerations motivated the Independent Expert’s approach to the problem of extreme poverty and human rights, and he explores each one in a separate section of his report. First, he wished to analyse the different characteristics of the conditions of extreme poverty, so that they can be linked to the conditions of deprivation of human rights, which he looks at in Section 1. Section 2 describes these core characteristics in a manner aimed at achieving an operational definition of the notion of extreme poverty, so that a process of implementation, progress-mapping and monitoring, can be developed in a comprehensive manner. Finally, in section 3, the Independent Expert looks at some of the policy experiences of different countries, in order to identify and enhance the distinct value added of implementing policies in a human rights framework. The overall general conclusion is that a human rights approach is a distinct added value in dealing with extreme poverty.

Presentation of Report by Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty

ARJUN SENGUPTA, Independent Expert on the Question of Human Rights and Extreme Poverty, said his previous reports had established a working definition of extreme poverty and the value-addition of anti-poverty programmes. This report highlighted the importance of taking a human rights approach to the problem of extreme poverty. This meant developing a social consensus on its definition, a framework for eradication and an examination of existing policies in different countries, and their successes and failures.

To facilitate consensus, Mr. Sengupta said he had built on the existing consensus of the international community, to which he added a human rights dimension. Poverty was now recognized as not just economic or income deprivation, but also social, cultural and political deprivation. The definition in the report itself was one that incorporated income poverty, human development poverty and social exclusion, with extreme poverty being extreme forms of them. Human development poverty involved lack of access to basic facilities; social exclusion involved lack of ability to lead a dignified social existence in relation to others in society. The concepts were inter-dependent. Consensus on the identification of the “extreme” threshold remained to be established. His report urged an improved grasp of the measurable dimensions of poverty. A human rights approach to extreme poverty was of special relevance to the notion of extreme poverty. A key issue was the matter of whether extreme poverty was caused by human rights violations or whether it was itself a violation. If the rights were fulfilled, would poverty be abolished? If the issue of poverty was a right in itself, it would transform the nature of obligations from charity to duty and would include enforcement of relevant human rights instruments already recognized.

There was disparity between the amount spent by western countries on arms and wasteful consumption and that spent on poverty reduction. If there was consensus on extreme poverty as a denial of human rights in itself, corresponding obligations would involve both removal of poverty and mechanisms to ensure this objective was fulfilled. Where rich countries opposed the application of instruments to reduce poverty, the adoption of extreme poverty as a human right per se would help overcome resistance by increasing the cost of opposition and by convincing rich countries of their own interest in poverty reduction. Naming and shaming could have an impact.

Statements by Concerned Countries

TETYANA SEMENIUTA (Ukraine), speaking as a concerned country, said with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on toxic and dangerous products and waste, Okechukwu Ibeanu, the Government of Ukraine had tried to provide all necessary assistance during his visit. Ukraine took all possible measures to protect its population from toxic waste and was pleased that the Special Rapporteur noted this in his report. The country was looking forward to the report. Ukraine was thankful to the Special Rapporteur for his efforts and was looking forward to continuing cooperation with him.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), speaking as a concerned country, said Special Procedures were an important and valuable part of the international human rights machinery. Effective promotion and protection of human rights around the globe depended on focused targeting of resources on areas of concern. The report by the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing was unbalanced. Australia continued to target poverty as the major contributor to people’s access to a decent standard of living. Australia was proud to be in the top three countries in the Annual UN Human Development Report. The Special Rapporteur’s report contained a number of inaccuracies: on public housing waiting lists, on the percentage of public housing on the rental market, on maintenance of public housing, and other issues. The report was misleading and wrong in its details and the Special Rapporteur had failed to take account of the factual information provided by the Australian Government.

JUAN ANTONIO MARCH (Spain), speaking as a concerned country, said Spain supported the system of Special Procedures which was strong and independent, and its action gave great value to the human rights system. Spain thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Miloon Kothari, as well as his efforts with regards to the country. Mr. Kothari had recognised the efforts undertaken in Spain, including the identification of best practices. Spain would have, however, liked to discuss the final report, and there should have been time for this as the visit was six months ago. It therefore considered the recommendations to be temporary.

Various institutions sought to find an answer to the problems in Spain, in particular with regards to access to housing. Regarding access to housing, the variation in prices had placed the market in a climate of stability regarding the sub-sector of protected housing. Regarding vulnerable populations, there was a State plan of universal scope which covered those who were in difficult situations, including youth, students, and special members of the community such as the Gypsy population. The development of housing had increased and there was an increase in available rentals. The trend of corruption had clearly changed since a law was introduced, and this piece of legislation should be highlighted.

Interactive Debate on Right to Food, Toxic and Dangerous Wastes, Adequate Housing and Extreme Poverty

CARLOS EDUARDO DA CUNHA OLIVEIRA (Brazil) said with reference to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, despite of the global trend of victims of hunger, there were also positive trends. The zero-hunger-programme launched in Brazil in 2003 had reached concrete results. Access to food could thus be guaranteed to 40 million people. The programme also strengthened income distribution. The goal to reduce by half the number of children suffering from hunger by 2015 would not be achieved. Mr. Ziegler mentioned that all governments should address the root causes of migration. A legal framework should guarantee the right to food for all.

The fight against poverty was multidimensional. The links between human rights and poverty were noted. Fighting poverty was not only about increasing the GDP. Brazil shared the concern that poverty would lead to an increase in inequality. The country welcomed the positive trends the report identified in some Asian countries. Brazil was in line with providing ways for safer and cheaper drinking water.

CHHEANG VUN (Cambodia) said Cambodia had emerged from a dark period in its history after the Khmer Rouge. Internal displacement within the country was a characteristic of the country’s recent history. Laws of 1993 and 2001 had stipulated the way in which private and public property would be protected, and a programme of urban and rural development was under way. Squatters and illegal occupancy of state property had become a problem. Security and hygiene and aesthetic improvements were key aspects of the development of urban areas, and there were mechanisms to transfer illegal occupants into legal housing, involving house building programmes, land development and budgetary provisions. Questions relating to land property were different to other countries as a result of the genocide of the former regime and the transition from a planned economy to a market economy. The Government had successfully settled many land disputes. The Special Rapporteur’s report focused only on negative aspects of the situation, and included inaccuracies that Cambodia rejected categorically. He gave one example, that of the “Vietnamese Bridge”, and called for a correction by the Special Rapporteur.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, this report questioned the conscience of humanity. It was a sad comment that while the world produced more than enough food to feed all, some 18,000 children died every day due to malnutrition. These silent deaths were not shown in the media. The grave imbalances in distribution were part of the cause of this, and macro-economic disparities were widening. The effort made by the Special Rapporteur to highlight these issues in his report were welcomed, and they needed to be dealt with and discussed in the Council and in other international bodies. The Human Rights Council should strategise on the basis of the Special Rapporteur’s report to undertake an advocacy role to help bring an end to hunger and malnutrition.

SALAH ABU ZEID (Sudan) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, for his report. The fast track system, which included measures to access food in Darfur, was supposed to narrow the gap the people from Darfur suffered from. Access to food was much better in Darfur. Sudan renewed its appeal to the United Nations to monitor the groups obstructing the humanitarian aid to Darfur, including the looting of food aid.

Right of Reply

ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, said Zimbabwe disagreed with some of the comments that had come up during the debate. Zimbabwe won its independence after a bloody struggle against the white racist oppressors. The United States, United Kingdom Australia and Canada were criticized for their double standards, selectivity and politicization of the Zimbabwe issue, which he said came down to “land, land, land”. Land they had been made to give up. There was no racial discrimination against any national group in Zimbabwe today. Zimbabwe despaired for aboriginals in Australia at the hands of racist judges and police authorities. Today, Australia ignored their cries for justice. Zimbabwe also criticized the removal of judges in the United States.

SALAH ABU ZEID (Sudan), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, he had mentioned that the Darfur conflict was between the nomads and the farmers. The friction between tribes in the area was regardless to their origin - there could be competition even in the same tribe for resources and revenue. These frictions were resolved within the group, and were not for religious reasons, nor with the aim of religious or ethnic cleansing. The armed groups which had attacked the police, the army and civil sites had been addressed by the Government.

With regards to the Janjaweed, they were outlawed groups in Darfur, and were from several tribes. The Government prosecuted the groups and put them on trial. As for the militias’ alleged attempts to cleanse Black Africans, there was no evidence of ethnic cleansing. The Constitution of Sudan promoted equality among all citizens without discrimination. Sudan was committed to a peaceful political solution to the issue, and urged the international community to contribute towards bringing all sides to the table.

OMER BERZINJI (Iraq), speaking in right of reply in response to the statement by the Arab Jurists, said that the past regime in Iraq had killed thousands of people during 35 years. Saddam came to power through a bloody revolution and the past regime organized factitious elections. Could Iraq not condemn him to capital punishment after all his crimes. Those who were denying the crimes of the past regime were like those who denied that the sun existed. Prosecuting authoritarian regimes was a legitimate right. The Saddam regime must not be excluded from it and all those who had committed atrocities must be prosecuted.

HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), speaking in right of reply, said the statement by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, claiming that Korean nationals were facing worsening discrimination and harassment in Japan, was rejected. Japan’s Constitution prohibited racial discrimination and xenophobia, Japan had acceded to international conventions against discrimination and was committed to combating racial discrimination.

OLEG MALGINOV (Russian Federation), speaking in a right of reply, said the reports of the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia were not correct, lacked accuracy and were not representative of a politicised approach. The responses given by the Special Rapporteur were not convincing. His approach could give rise to a contentious and inadequate evaluation of the situation. This was also how the Russian Federation saw the statement of the Representative of Georgia which contained unjustified remarks with regards to the prosecution of certain persons with Georgian nationality. These bore no relevance to the measures used by the authorities to fight illegal migration.

Any offences committed by persons in the Russian Federation were judged by the courts in compliance with Federal legislation. There was no discrimination against Georgians - and the number of Georgian citizens who were subject to deportation was lower than those from other countries. The Georgian complaints of discrimination on ethnic grounds by the Russian law enforcement and other bodies were unfounded. Detailed information had been sent to the Special Rapporteur by the Russian Federation authorities in February 2007.

SHAVINDRA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), speaking in right of reply in response to the statement of the International Commission of Jurists on the Sri Lankan judiciary, said it was incorrect to state that since there was no Constitutional Council, and since appointments had to be made to fill the vacancies created that this had caused the erosion of independence of such offices. With regard to the killing of the 17 aid workers, and the reason for the change of the magistrate, the judicial decision was taken for a very good reason. The magistrate who was functioning at the time was himself a victim during that period and could have been called upon to be a witness. So the Judicial Service Commission correctly decided to appoint a magistrate who could hear the case without any bias and without any personal involvement in that incident

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was concerned about allegations made by Japan. The human rights violations against Korean nationals in Japan, in the form of discrimination and harassment, which were accelerated last year and this year, were now becoming hasher. These violations had been criticized in many United Nations human rights fora. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea urged Japan to stop all human rights violations, such as the discrimination and harassment of Korean nationals in Japan.
__________

For use of the information media; not an official record