DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER OF CZECH REPUBLIC OFFICIALS OF NINE OTHER COUNTRIES ADDRESS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

17.03.2004

The Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech Republic told the Commission on Human Rights this afternoon that cooperation should be improved between international human rights mechanisms, including those of the Commission, and regional and national human rights efforts.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Cyril Svoboda, also said the Commission’s procedures should be synchronized with those of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies, and that if the conclusions of the Commission were to be truly authoritative, they should be accompanied by the sincere will among countries to implement them.

Mr. Svoboda’s remarks came as the Commission concluded the third day of its annual high-level segment, a series of meetings featuring addresses on general human rights matters by Government officials of high rank. This part of the Commission’s sixtieth annual session will conclude on Thursday, and on Friday the Commission will begin formal debate under its regular agenda.

Also speaking this afternoon were leading officials of Botswana, Rwanda, Argentina, Côte d’Ivoire, Viet Nam, Finland, Timor-Leste and Poland. In addition, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross delivered an address.

D.K. Kwelagobe, Minister for Presidential Affairs and Public Administration of Botswana, described Government efforts to meet reporting obligations under international human rights instruments the country had ratified, and said Governments should be afforded ample opportunity to investigate fully and respond to allegations made by Commission Special Rapporteurs of human-rights violations committed on their territories.

Edda Mukabagwiza, Minister of Justice of Rwanda, noted that the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide was to be commemorated on 7 April 2004, and invited those present at the Commission to reflect upon whether there existed sufficient political will on the part of individual States and the international community to confront genocide if conditions similar to those that occurred in her country in 1994 were reproduced.

Jakob Kellenberger, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said among other things that striking the proper balance between State security and individual liberty was difficult -- it was imperative that terrorism be fought, but it would be self-defeating for that fight to lead to lower international standards of protection for the rights and liberties of individuals.

Gustavo Beliz, Minister of Justice, Security and Human Rights of Argentina, described institutional responses to human rights violations committed during the country’s period of dictatorship and summarized Government efforts to meet current challenges that had left approximately half the Argentine population in poverty.

Bamba Mamadou, Minister of State at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Côte d'Ivoire, said that less than two months after a political and armed conflict had been launched in his country, the Government, on its own initiative, had requested the United Nations on 5 November 2002 to send an international inquiry mission, thus making known to the world its willingness to open itself to all relevant visits and inquiries on matters of human rights.

Dao Viet Trung, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam, said that in a multi-dimensional world, the universality of human rights should be combined with an understanding of the specific and historical conditions of each nation, and that protection and respect for individual rights and freedoms should conform with common national and community interests.

Erkki Tuomioja, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, said among other things that globalization affected the lives of all, and produced some indisputable benefits, but there was little doubt that the main challenge presented by globalization was that not everyone had equal access to the benefits it produced. The endeavour to attain even-handed globalization should begin at home, she said, and good governance at all levels of society was essential.

José Ramos-Horta, Senior Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Timor-Leste, said the United Nations faced a choice between showing weakness in the face of terrorism or standing up for those aspiring to free and democratic systems of government. In Iraq, as in Kosovo, Afghanistan and his own country, the United Nations must lead the political transition and the World Bank the economic reconstruction, he said, and while the fight against terrorism was to be applauded, the international community must not sacrifice human rights nor lose sight of other battles against poverty, illiteracy and exclusion.

And Jakub Wolski, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, said good governance was an objective indicator of the performance of Governments in fostering political, social and economic development, and democratic countries should be more assertive in shaping international relations by supporting democratic values, both globally and regionally.

Representatives of Costa Rica, Latvia and Cuba spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Commission will continue with its high-level segment at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 18 March.

Statements

D. K. KWELAGOBE, Minister for Presidential Affairs and Public Administration of Botswana, said the Commission remained one of the most important organs established under the Charter of the United Nations. The body played a pivotal role both as a human rights watchdog and in the implementation of universal values and norms. While one had faith in the Commission and in its historic mission, the delegation of Botswana was of the considered opinion that its methods of work, including those of its subsidiary bodies, could be improved. While the delegation respected the mandates and the sense of duty of Commission Special Rapporteurs, it had reservations about some of their methods of operation. It was only fair that States should not have to prove their innocence or credibility by being force-fed with unverified reports whose sources could not be revealed. It was only fair and proper that in situations where there were allegations of human rights violations, the Governments of the countries concerned should be afforded ample opportunity to investigate fully and adequately respond to such allegations. It was nonetheless important to underscore that the international community should continue to express outrage at human rights violations whenever, wherever and by whomever they were perpetrated if such violations could be proved and had been documented.

The Government of Botswana attached great importance to reporting and other obligations relating to international human rights and related instruments to which it was a State party, Mr. Kwelagobe said. To that end, finalization of the country’s report on its implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was under way and would be submitted as soon as it was ready. Currently, the Government was working on its report to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which was due in March 2005. Botswana had a long, documented history of rejection of, and opposition to, racial discrimination. The Bill of Rights components of the Constitution and the Penal Code not only proscribed racial discrimination but also made it a punishable offence. The Constitution also protected freedom of opinion, expression and thought.

Botswana had been blessed by a combination of good fortune and good policies and could safely boast a clean record of no political prisoners or political refugees during thirty-eight years of independence, Mr. Kwelagobe said. However, it continued to provide sanctuary for political refugees from all over the continent and from farther afield.

EDDA MUKABAGWIZA, Minister of Justice of Rwanda, noted that the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide was to be commemorated on 7 April 2004 and invited those present at the Commission to reflect upon whether there existed sufficient political will on the part of individual States and the international community to confront genocide if conditions similar to those that occurred in her country in 1994 were reproduced. Among the other topics for reflection, she said, was that the majority of the planners of the genocide had benefited from exile in Western and African States, some of which were members of the Commission. In addition to welcoming the appointment of a full-time prosecutor to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, she called upon the international community to support the Gacaca courts, which proffered the opportunity for equitable justice and would contribute to the process of truth and national reconciliation.

A number of consequences had arisen out of the 1994 genocide, Ms. Mukabagwiza said, and the responsibility for rebuilding the country rested not only upon the Rwandan State, but upon all States. Rwanda had invested in the establishment of peace and security, in institutional reconstruction and good governance, in policies for unity and reconciliation. However, the challenge faced was so enormous that Rwanda needed concrete assistance to help restore conditions of dignity to victims of the genocide. Among those victims were women and girls, many of whom had been subjected to systematic rape as a tool of war and many of whom were infected with HIV/AIDS as a result. The international community must join the people of Rwanda in condemning all manifestations and campaigns of revisionism in relation to the genocide.

The year 2003, Ms. Mukabagwiza said, had marked the end of the political transition begun in 1994. Rwanda had adopted a new Constitution, which consecrated one-fifth of its articles to the rights of the person, and the country had elected, for the first time under terms of universal suffrage and political pluralism, a President. The presidential election had been followed by legislative elections. The Government of Rwanda understood clearly the need for good governance based on decentralization, and it understood that a healthy justice system was the principal protector of fundamental freedoms and human rights. The country’s priority concerns now were to prevent and combat corruption and discrimination, prevent genocide and its ideology, eradicate all forms of division and xenophobia, and fight against ignorance and poverty.

CYRIL SVOBODA, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, said the Commission continued to play an irreplaceable role in the process of the international protection of human rights. However, it would only be able to keep its prominent position if it cooperated in a suitable manner with regional mechanisms for the protection of human rights. The Czech Republic believed that the standard of that cooperation was still insufficient. The Commission had great ambitions to protect and develop all human rights in all their various aspects. But did not the opportunities realistically before the Commission fall short of that ambition, irrespective of the fact that certain rights and groups of rights were better protected and developed by agencies or organizations that were better equipped to handle them? He believed it would be in the interests of the efficiency of the Commission and in the interest of human rights for the Commission to acknowledge that fact and to adapt its focus accordingly.

The human rights mechanisms of the Commission should be synchronized with those of the treaty bodies, Mr. Svoboda said. It would also be expedient to expand mutual topical discussions contributing to the regular exchange of knowledge and observations and it would be helpful to eliminate duplication of mandates.

National protection systems were essential for human rights, Mr. Svoboda said. The Czech Republic supported the due functioning of human rights mechanisms, including those of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Those States that consistently protected the interests of their individuals were the most qualified to promote international standards and mechanisms for the monitoring of human rights. The linking of national and international mechanisms of human rights protection was ensured, among other things, through the Commission’s system of special procedures. The Czech Republic would try to further strengthen the operation of the "eyes and ears" of the Commission through expanding the general impact of the resolution -- which the Czech Republic traditionally presented -- on human rights and special procedures. If the conclusions of the Commission were to be truly authoritative, they should be accompanied by the sincere will to ensure their subsequent implementation. Mr. Svoboda said he was pleased that the issue of women's rights was receiving special attention at the current session of the Commission.

JAKOB KELLENBERGER, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that for centuries international law had been concerned only with relations among States -- it had not recognized that individuals, too, could be the subject to its rules. While international humanitarian law primarily established the duties of the parties involved in armed conflict, there was no doubt that its norms, provided that they were respected, served to spare individuals to the fullest extent possible, the ravages of war. It was international human rights law that gave normative expression to the notion that a State’s treatment of persons on its territory or otherwise in its power did not belong only to the sphere of its international affairs. While one of the specific aims of international humanitarian law was to ensure the protection of persons affected by armed conflict, and, in particular, of those who found themselves in the hands of their adversaries, the purpose of human rights law was to govern the relationship between States and individuals.

The world had recently witnessed the emergence of transnational networks capable of inflicting enormous injury, death, and long-term suffering on civilians by means of terrorist acts, Mr. Kellenberger said. The utmost should be done to prevent such heinous behaviour and to punish it when prevention had failed. The international community had at its disposal the tools to protect both States and individuals against such threats. To respond to and prevent indiscriminate attacks against civilians, States should take action and enforce laws. Striking the proper balance between State security and individual liberty was difficult. It was imperative that terrorism be fought, but it would be self-defeating for that fight to lead to lower international standards of protection for the rights and liberties of individuals.

The ICRC would spare no effort to promote best practices related to such issues, as recommended by United Nations conferences, especially among Governments, organized armed groups, and inter-governmental and non-governmental humanitarian organizations, Mr. Kellenberger said. It would also participate, within the bounds of its mandate and sharing its experience, in any mechanism designed to address human rights issues effectively.

GUSTAVO BELIZ, Minister of Justice, Security and Human Rights of Argentina, said the defense of human rights played a central role in the new political scheme of the Argentine Republic. The Government was trying to respond to the needs of a society which had acquired maturity through decades of suffering, and today was demanding a Government which respected life and the dignity of the person as an essential factor of democratic co-existence. All terrorist acts must be condemned, both those taking place in Argentina and those taking place in other countries. The struggle against the barbarity of terrorism should be undertaken within the framework of international law, and with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Institutional responses to violations of human rights had been put in place in Argentina, notably in the case of those who had disappeared during the period of dictatorship. Unconstitutional amnesties and pardons relating to that period were also under investigation, as were many other challenges that had left approximately half of the country’s population in poverty. Argentina was undergoing a form of social genocide, and full respect for economic, social and political rights, as well as collective rights, such as the right to development, was necessary to improve the situation of the population.

Further concerns were the rights of women, migrant workers, people in prison, and those who were discriminated against due to sexual orientation. Policies related to the promotion and defense of human rights had been incorporated into the Argentine legal system, with international legal norms and standards as their basis. A way of bringing about friendly solutions to legal cases linked to human rights abuses was being sought on a systematic basis. Argentina affirmed its open invitation to visits from the thematic procedures of the Commission.

BAMBA MAMADOU, Minister of State at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Côte d'Ivoire, said that less than two months after a political and armed conflict had been launched in his country, the Government, on its own initiative, had requested the United Nations on 5 November 2002 to send an international inquiry mission. By reacting in that manner, Côte d’Ivoire sought to make known to the world its willingness to open itself to all relevant visits and inquiries on matters of human rights. During the previous session of the Commission, Côte d'Ivoire had committed itself to receiving visits from thematic rapporteurs and had committed itself to the promotion and protection of human rights. It had also engaged itself, on the same issue, before the African Commission of Human and Peoples' Rights. The African Commission had sent a first mission in May 2003 to evaluate the human rights situation in Côte d’Ivoire. In February 2004, the country had received visits from the Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteurs on freedom of opinion and expression and elimination of racial discrimination. Their preliminary reports were expected to be submitted to the Commission during this session.

Côte d'Ivoire had reaffirmed its attachment to respect for human rights. It had ratified almost all international instruments pertaining to the protection and promotion of human rights, and the Constitution devoted 22 articles to human rights and public liberties. Even before the start of the crisis, a ministry had been set up on 19 September 2002 to deal with human rights. Also, in accordance with paragraph 6 of the Linas Marcoussis Accord relating to human rights, the Government, with the aim of establishing a National Commission on Human Rights, had adopted a draft law that soon would be considered by Parliament. As provided for by the Accord, the country would respect the creation of an international commission of inquiry concerning human rights violations.

Côte d'Ivoire would continue its cooperation with different mechanisms of the Commission by hosting visits in the future by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Displaced Persons; the Special Rapporteur on migrants; and the Special Rapporteur on mercenaries. The country would continue to be a land of hospitality for the peoples of the region and for refugees.

DAO VIET TRUNG, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam, said every day wars, conflicts, terrorism, poverty, epidemics and transnational crime threatened the peace, security, independence and prosperity of every nation, thus hindering the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe. With responsible cooperation by all United Nations members, efforts could be joined to eliminate all causes leading to such problems. Viet Nam had been recognized by the international community as an exemplary country in terms of poverty reduction, where political and social stability and human rights were guaranteed.

It was obviously impossible to distinguish between civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights when speaking about human rights, the Assistant Minister said. These rights should always be promoted harmoniously. Nevertheless, it was essential to emphasize that in a multi-dimensional world, the universality of human rights should be combined with an understanding of the specific and historical conditions of each nation. Protection and respect for individual rights and freedoms should conform with common national and community interests. All nations, big or small, rich or poor, were entitled to their choice of the path of development that best suited their conditions. In a context in which the majority of developing countries were poor and opportunities and benefits were unequal among countries, the right to development and to be free from poverty was vital for safeguarding peace, independence and freedom; these were also the conditions which would best protect and promote human rights. It was time for the Commission to adopt a comprehensive approach to all civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, as only this way could it regain its credibility in the world community, especially among developing countries

The evolution of human rights represented the level of progress and civilization of a society, the Assistant Minister said. The protection and promotion of human rights was the common cause and responsibility of all humanity, of each and every person. Human rights could only be protected and promoted in an environment where peace, security and sustainable development were ensured. All should work together towards this end.

ERKKI TUOMIOJA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, said too often had controversies inside the Commission prevented it from fully concentrating on its essential responsibilities. All needed to overcome divisions and focus on the objectives of the Commission, as the Commission’s work continued to be profoundly important for the people of the world.

Globalization affected the lives of all, and produced some indisputable benefits, but there was little doubt that the main challenge presented by globalization was that not everyone had equal access to the benefits it produced. The endeavour to attain even-handed globalization should begin at home, and good governance at all levels of society was essential. Good governance had a human rights dimension, as it was difficult to see how human rights could be realized in circumstances where corruption was widespread and where the individual could not rely on effective access to justice. Corruption affected human rights in various ways, and it was often the most vulnerable who suffered as a result, for example in creating obstacles for girls to go to school, or for women to have full access to health services. Further, deep-rooted gender inequality meant that the social costs of globalization had fell disproportionately on women.

Globalization tended to increase contacts among people; but distinctly positive developments sometimes had negative effects. Factors such as extreme poverty and the absence of human rights protection at the level of the individual prepared the ground for adverse phenomena, such as trafficking in women and children. As a result of globalization, the significance of economic, social and cultural rights had increased. These rights should be regarded as justiciable human rights that could provide tools for balancing economically motivated activity. Global problems required united efforts, and challenges with global dimensions could only be addressed thorough multilateral cooperation. This was why the Commission mattered. It was the principal global forum for promoting and protecting universal human rights.

JOSE RAMOS-HORTA, Senior Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Timor-Leste, said the United Nations faced a choice between showing weakness in the face of terrorism or standing up for those aspiring to free and democratic systems of government. In Iraq, as in Kosovo, Afghanistan and his own country, the United Nations must lead the political transition and the World Bank the economic reconstruction. And while the fight against terrorism was to be applauded, the international community must not sacrifice human rights nor lose sight of other battles against poverty, illiteracy and exclusion.

Saying he was cognizant of the integrity and dedication to human rights evinced by the NGO community in his country’s struggle for independence, Mr. Ramos-Horta stressed that the United Nations’ human rights system would be poorer and less meaningful if NGOs’ rights and duties to report to the international community on the state of human rights in the world were curtailed.

In national developments over the past year, Mr. Ramos-Horta said, legislation had been introduced to establish an office of the Provider for Justice; an initiative to develop a national plan of action for human rights had been launched; and significant progress had been made by Timor-Leste’s Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation and its Serious Crimes Unit. The Government remained committed to pursuing accountability for the perpetrators of gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law during the events of 1999. However, the country continued to confront significant challenges in health, education, poverty, infrastructure and capacity building. What was required to stimulate the economy and strengthen the Government was overwhelming. This raised the question of treaty body reform, as the question of where to direct scarce national resources was raised when it came time for the country to report developments on human rights. It was imperative to develop a new streamlined process of reporting, towards which end Timor-Leste would work closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

JAKUB T. WOLSKI, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Poland, said that in recent years the United Nations and regional organizations had negotiated and adopted an impressive body of international law instruments pertaining to human rights. However, the system was not yet complete. Gross violations of human rights took place in many places the world over, sometimes on a massive scale. The international community should be more resolute and effective in responding to such occurrences as part of its common responsibility for preserving the dignity and rights of every human being. There could be no more important issue than the prevention of genocide. Therefore, the goal of this session should be to bolster the credibility of the Commission and to make sure that its raison d’etre was properly understood. In view of the complexity of the problems entrusted to it, effective implementation of human rights in the world required constructive dialogue, cooperation and technical aid. Dialogue should be the basis of the Commission’s work during this session.

Good governance was an objective indicator of the performance of Governments in fostering political, social and economic development. The role of democratic States in promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms should become increasingly visible. Democratic States should upgrade their consultations on key problems facing the international community with regard to human rights. Democratic countries should be more assertive in shaping international relations by supporting democratic values, both globally and regionally.

The road to a world that was safer and more just led through effective multilateralism and support for well-functioning international organizations, Mr. Wolski said. Hence the Polish initiative in 2002 for a New United Nations Act for the 21st Century, containing proposals to further consolidate the United Nations, streamline its programmes, refresh its ideas and sharpen its activities. Poland expected that those appointed by the Secretary-General to the high-level panel on challenges, threats and change which corresponded to the Polish proposal would also reflect on the role of good governance and democracy in international relations, and that human rights would find their due place in the conclusions of the panel.

Right of Reply

MANUEL A. GONZALEZ-SANZ (Costa Rica), speaking in right of reply, said concerning the gratuitous insults offered by Cuba that morning that Costa Rica would not fall into the trap of provocation, and would defend its impeccable human rights record by the facts that were available to all on the basis of the openness and transparency that characterized the country. Costa Rica was one of the first countries in the world to abolish the death penalty, and had never hesitated to condemn that practice. The people and Government of Costa Rica reiterated their friendship for the Cuban people, who had every right to live in freedom and to exercise their human rights. Costa Rica would defend human rights and would respectfully denounce, without giving in to intimidation, violations of human rights, wherever they took place. Much had been said about the discredit attributed to the Commission, but Costa Rica was proud of its place on the Commission. The arrogance, intimidation and fruitless attempts of Cuba to insult the Commission would be ignored.

JANIS KARKLINS (Latvia), speaking in right of reply, said there had been several factual inaccuracies concerning Latvia in the statement made this morning by the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation. Educational reform in Latvia was not detrimental to the Russian language, as had been alleged. Educational reform required that in tenth grade 60 per cent of subjects in secondary minority schools should be taught in Latvian and 40 per cent in one of the eight minority languages, including Russian. The Foreign Minister’s accusations of violations of human rights of Latvian non-citizens and of a deficit of democracy in Latvia were not only wrong but also profoundly unjust. If there had been any serious deficit of democracy in Latvia, it had been during the more than 50 years of illegal Soviet occupation.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a right of reply, said the statement of Costa Rica was lacking in one element: the Costa Rican representative had not answered the question raised that morning, whether it was Costa Rica that would take on the role of pawn and puppet of the United States to present the document prepared by that country as its own, which had the aim of obstructing the revolution and obscuring the achievements enjoyed by the people of Cuba. Whether this was because the speaker had not been given an authorization by the US was unclear. Cuba had serious doubts on this score, as Costa Rica was the only Latin American country on the Commission which had played the role of a lackey and proposed an amendment, which had been rejected by an overwhelming majority by the Commission. Cuba continued to look forward to an answer in a spirit of transparency, truth and credibility as upheld in the Commission.



MANUEL A. GONZALEZ-SANZ (Costa Rica), in a second right of reply, said the attitude of intimidation shown in the Commission by Cuba could not be accepted. The Commission deserved dignity without any abuse. Costa Rica had always advocated respect for rights of the people of Cuba. Costa Rica would sponsor this year’s draft resolution on Cuba as it had done in the past. The position taken by Cuba in the Commission would only contribute to the bad reputation of the Commission.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a second right of reply, said it was not Cuba that was creating difficulties in bilateral relations between countries and groups. The Ambassador of Costa Rica was asked if what had been said yesterday by the Foreign Minister of Cuba was not correct and accurate, and whether Costa Rica had not spoken in the past of serious violations committed by Israel against Palestine in the occupied territories, and had it not voted on this topic? Was it true that Costa Rica did not support the just policy that an end be put to the violations of human rights of the Palestinians and other Arabs in the territories occupied by the Israeli Government? The issue was realities, and whether Costa Rica could defend its policies in the Commission and in front of its own people.