HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PRESENTS
REPORT TO HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
23 June 2006
Human Rights Council
MORNING
23 June 2006
Council Holds Interactive Dialogue with High Commissioner
on her Report
Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, today presented her report to the Human Rights Council, stressing that poverty continued to be the most serious, invidious and widespread human rights violation to be confronted. She said it was poverty and underdevelopment – both in cause and effect – that exacerbated abuse, neglect and discrimination, denying millions the enjoyment of their civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, and ultimately their right to development.
Ms. Arbour said that next to poverty, discrimination constituted another widespread source of disempowerment and of denial of rights, freedom and dignity. The proliferation of acts and expressions contributing to the exacerbation of cultural and religious tensions was producing new cleavages within and between communities, and had recently led to unprecedented levels of violence and destruction, on the ashes of which trust and tolerance had now to be rebuilt.
The High Commissioner said that the willingness of Governments to include the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in their efforts to promote and protect human rights should be viewed as the most positive indicator of a Government’s serious commitment to the realization of rights. Equally important was the access granted to special procedures mandate holders. In contrast, closed door policies had to be a source of grave concern, she added.
In the interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner which followed, a number of speakers commended the report presented, agreeing that poverty was a flagrant violation of human rights. They stressed the need to combat poverty with a concerted effort by the international community and they urged the Council to give high priority in its work to deal with the issue of poverty.
Other speakers expressed concern about the human rights situation in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine and urged the Council to react to the continued human rights violations in the territories.
Taking part in the debate were the representatives of Peru, Mexico, Austria on behalf of the European Union, China, India, United States, Thailand, Canada, Republic of Korea, Norway, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, Belgium, Russian Federation, Indonesia. Iran, Finland, Poland, Uzbekistan, Japan, Netherlands, Sudan, Switzerland, Argentina, Guatemala, Uruguay, Syria, Pakistan, on behalf of Organization of Islamic Conference, Morocco, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Palestine and Jordan.
Also speaking were the representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: International Service for Human Rights; International Commission of Jurists; and Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations.
When the Council reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will exchange views with the Chairperson of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, the Vice-Chairperson of the fifty-seventh session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of human rights, and the Chairperson of the meeting of Chairpersons of human rights treaty bodies.
Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
In the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2006/10), the High Commissioner outlines a number of activities undertaken since the sixty-first session of the Commission on Human Rights. In particular, the report focuses on steps taken by the Office of the High Commissioner in response to the Plan of Action released in May 2005. As such, and in line with the strategic vision for future operations, the report highlights activities aimed at strengthening country engagement, forging linkages between human rights and development, fostering partnerships with civil society and within the United Nations system, strengthening the Office’s thematic expertise as well as the efforts dedicated to further empowering rights-holders.
In addition, the report presents the High Commissioner’s Strategic Management Plan 2006-2007, which seeks to operationalize the strategic vision articulated in the Plan of Action, by identifying the priorities and resource requirements for the next biennium based on the magnitude of challenges in the coming years. In its final part, the report turns to the leadership role of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in particular against the background of the overall reform of the United Nations human rights machinery.
High Commissioner’s Presentation of Her Report
LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, reiterated that poverty continued to be the most serious, invidious and widespread human rights violation to be confronted. For it was poverty and underdevelopment – both in cause and effect – that exacerbated abuse, neglect and discrimination, denying millions the enjoyment of their civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, and ultimately their right to development. Next to poverty, discrimination constituted another widespread source of disempowerment and of denial of rights, freedom and dignity. The proliferation of acts and expressions contributing to the exacerbation of cultural and religious tensions was producing new cleavages within and between communities, and had recently led to unprecedented levels of violence and destruction, on the ashes of which trust and tolerance now had to be rebuilt. The use of harmful stereotypes and the perpetuation of myths that had demonized, ridiculed or insulted deep-rooted religious feelings and a profound sense of identity, had to be denounced as vigorously as the right to champion unpopular ideas had to be asserted and protected. Of particular concern in recent years had been the increasing challenge to the absolute prohibition on torture that had emerged in the context of counter-terrorism activities. In the face of that reality, the obligation of non-refoulement, which required that no individual be returned to a country where the real risk of torture and ill-treatment was present, could not be seen as a mere legal nicety. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, which had entered into force yesterday, was the clearest repudiation of the attempts to erode the protection conferred by the Convention against Torture.
Ms. Arbour said that the willingness of Governments to include the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in their efforts to promote and protect human rights should be viewed as the most positive indicator of a Government’s serious commitment to the realization of rights. Equally important was the access granted to special procedures mandate holders. In contrast, closed door policies had to be a source of grave concern. In that context, Ms. Arbour regretted that her Office had been unable to complete a comprehensive assessment of the facts related to the killings of possibly several hundred persons in May 2005 by Uzbek military and security forces in the town of Andijan. Lack of access was also a grave concern with respect to the serious human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In addition, situations of armed conflict, of national emergency, of humanitarian crisis and of occupation raised – inherently – acute human rights concerns. Widespread breaches of human rights standards in Iraq, the marked worsening of the humanitarian situation in Myanmar, the developments since the beginning of 2006 in the occupied Palestinian territories, and the violence in the Sudan and in Somalia, were all cause for such concern.
Targeted, but comprehensive interventions and early responses to unfolding crises prevented the escalation of harm and contributed to redress. The solutions, resources and instruments for change existed today as they never had before. As they engaged this year in ensuring that the Council was able to live up to the expectations that its mere existence had created, Ms. Arbour offered her full support and that of her colleagues in Geneva, in New York, and in their duty stations throughout the world.
Interactive Dialogue
ELIANE ESCUDERO (Peru) said Peru agreed with the High Commissioner that poverty was a cause for human rights violation at a massive level. This year, Peru was sponsoring a resolution on human rights and extreme poverty as it did every year during the Commission. The adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be adopted with any further delay. The indigenous peoples in many countries were expecting its adoption by the Council so that their rights would further be reinforced. The Council should recommend the adoption of the draft Declaration by the General Assembly. Peru also commended the strengthening of the special procedures.
MARIA DEL REFUGIO GONZALES DOMINGUEZ (Mexico) said subject to the reservation of making general comments on the report of the High Commissioner, this was a great opportunity to give the full support of Mexico to the work of the High Commissioner. As of now, the Member States of the Council and all the bodies in the Organization bore a huge responsibility for taking all necessary measures to implement the resolution establishing the Council, including the revision and strengthening of the mechanisms and special procedures. Until there was a review of the mandates, Mexico hoped they would be extended for a further year, and that the High Commissioner would support them.
Mexico was firmly committed to support the right of women against discrimination, and to support indigenous peoples, and would be pleased if the draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples was adopted. The rule of law could not be linked to the pretext of applying policies that ignored human rights in the fight against terrorism. Torture, and the principle of non-return, due process and personal freedom should not be suspended or perpetrated under any circumstances. It was important to empower national preventative mechanisms to this effect. Mexico considered that a democracy, to be legitimate, had to have a strong judiciary in order to ensure the effective application of the law.
WOLFGANG PETRICH (Austria), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union reiterated its commitment to an interactive dialogue with all stakeholders on human rights questions within the Council. The European Union fully supported the High Commissioner’s approach outlined in her Strategic Action Plan. What the European Union wanted to know now was, what did the High Commissioner consider to be the most important next steps to be taken to achieve those objectives. The European Union, for its part, felt that adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at the international and national level were a priority to promote and protect human rights.
Turning to field activities, the European Union gave its full support to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ (OHCHR) office in Colombia, and it favoured the continued role of the office in Colombia in discussions with the Government there. The same was true of the OHCHR office in Nepal. The Nepal Office had played an important role both before the trouble and would play an important role in the transition. How did the High Commissioner see the role of her office in that regard? Also, the European Union would appreciate hearing what were her main conclusions following her visit to Sudan on which areas the international community should focus its attention. The European Union agreed with the High Commissioner’s assessment of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, and supported substantial immediate assistance to the Palestinian people to alleviate the situation there. Finally, the European Union warmly welcomed the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. In that regard, the Union wondered what mechanism should the OHCHR provide in establishing national implementation and monitoring mechanisms.
SHA ZUKANG (China) said the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had a big responsibility in promoting and protecting human rights. It had so far done relevant work in the field of human rights. The establishment of the Council would give ample opportunity to the Office to further strengthen its work. The Office was expected to work in a transparent manner with regard to its decisions. The increase of its budget during the coming five years would enable it to carry out its work as required by the Member States. China recognized the work done by the High Commissioner and urged further cooperation with States. China had also benefited from the technical assistance the Office offered. China reaffirmed its concern about the lack of fair geographical distribution of the staff of the Office, which did not reflect the desires of the Member States.
MURLIDHAR C. BHANDARE (India), said India attached great importance to the work of the United Nations human rights machinery, and was committed to making the new Council a strong, effective and efficient body, capable of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. Human rights were inalienable, inviolable and universal. The promotion and protection of human rights by strengthening the capacity of States, upon request, through technical and financial assistance, was really the effective way forward. In this context, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was an important mechanism for developing the capacity of States.
The High Commissioner had proposed a Plan of Action and a Strategic Management Plan. It was hoped that the action points identified in these documents would be pursued in close cooperation and partnership with Member States. The various human rights conventions were diverse in their form and content, and had distinct and unique scope and implementation mechanisms, and treating them alike would upset the delicate balance achieved during the negotiations of the Conventions. The present system of different committees ensured greater representation from countries.
WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said that the United States remained a strong supporter of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and encouraged it to increase its field efforts, where its technical expertise made a crucial difference.
As all were aware, Al Qaida had declared war on the United States on 11 September 2001. The detainees held in Guantanamo were enemy combatants, or those who had aided and abetted them in their war on the United States. It was United States policy to treat detainees humanely. It was also United States policy to uphold its commitment to prohibit and prevent torture, ill-treatment or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of any kind.
CHAYIONG SATJIPANON (Thailand) said the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was assist States in carrying out their human rights obligations and responsibilities through the provision of effective and constructive country engagement. Thailand was very pleased that the High Commissioner was currently planning for greater country engagement though various initiatives such as an increased deployment of human rights staff to countries and regions, and establishing standing capacities for rapid deployment, investigations, field support, human rights capacity building, advice and assistance. Thailand supported the High Commissioner’s efforts in strengthening its regional office in Bangkok and looked forward to working closely with the office to fulfil its aspirations in promoting human rights in Thailand and throughout the region as the whole. It was essential for States to be provided with technical assistance from the Office. The High Commissioner’s staff should reflect as much as possible a balanced geographical distribution as well as diversity in their background.
LOUISE ARBOUR, High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding to the questions and comments made by delegations, said with regards to the Office’s strategy of country engagement, this had been made explicit in the Strategic Management Plan, and she was delighted at its reception. As the Office had elaborated in the Plan, this required the full engagement of the full capacities of the Office in its interactions with Member States, in particular in order to galvanise all internal capacities. In engagements with countries, the Office aimed to ensure that the work of all the mechanisms and special procedures was respected and involved, and all talents and resources were engaged.
There had been particular success in bringing coherence to the presence of human rights officers in peace-keeping missions, allowing for a much more directed guidance to the human rights activities carried out by those large contingents, she said. The bilateral arrangements that had been conducted with several countries which had allowed for the exercise of the full mandate of the Office were particularly appreciated. Missions in Nepal, Uganda, Guatemala, and, it was hoped, imminently, Togo, had been carried out at the request of the Governments who wished to improve their human rights situation. There was also a more robust regional presence being developed.
It was hoped that country-specific reports would be examined in a more detailed manner by the Council in the autumn, Ms. Arbour said. There was concern for the impunity that prevailed with regards to the very serious human rights violations that were taking place in Darfur in the Sudan, and there was yet to be a serious sense of credible investigations, prosecutions and punishment of perpetrators, particularly with regards to sexual violence. In Myanmar, the situation was also complex. With regards to the Convention against Torture, the Office had been doing considerable work to create expertise to support the work of the Sub-Committee. The Office would also be setting up a special fund to implement the work of the Sub-Committee. Work was also being done to implement staffing in a manner which reflected more widely the wide nature of human rights work.
PAUL MEYER (Canada) said that, in Canada’s view, the interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner was an important opportunity to provide the Council with timely updates on the work of her Office, including field missions, which Canada found very informative, and which should help the Council to work in a coherent and complementary way. Canada hoped that they would be able to continue that dialogue at each session of the Council.
Canada supported the High Commissioner’s Plan of Action and Strategic Action Plan, in particular the emphasis on the promotion and protection of human rights in the field, and on technical assistance to States, which in Canada’s view was consistent with the Council’s focus on implementation and cooperation. In that connection, the information that the High Commissioner had provided on the situations in Uzbekistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Myanmar, were of special relevance. He wondered how the results of the Office’s efforts at the national level could best be integrated into the work of the Council? In addition, he noted in the High Commissioner statement that she had highlighted the preservation of civil society space. In that regard, how could the Office best help in doing that, he wondered.
DON DORG-HEE (Republic of Korea) said the Office had been given significant new resources, reflecting the greater importance the international community placed on the cause of human rights. The Office should direct those resources in such a manner that they brought about the greatest possible concrete improvements in the human rights situation on the ground. Actual improvement in the lives of people around the world was the bottom line. The Republic of Korea fully stood behind the strategic vision for the future operations of the Office contained in the plan of action presented to the Secretary-General last year. Capacity building and technical cooperation were the keys to improving the human rights situation in the field, since they helped in implementing human rights norms in Member States. Capacity building and cooperation aimed at improvement in strengthening democracy and the rule of law, particularly the training of judges, lawyers and prosecutors.
PETER F. WILLE (Norway), said the High Commissioner had raised many important issues, in particular implementation, and the focus on poverty as an human rights concern. Norway fully supported the High Commissioner and her work. The World Summit had stressed the strong link between respect for human rights and peace and security. The decision to double the regular budgetary resources for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was therefore fully supported. The Plan of Action and the Strategic Management Plan were welcomed, as they, for the first time, provided a full picture of the situation. Norway also supported the strategic vision and the objective of strengthening country engagement.
SARALA M. FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said that, although this first session of the Council had been forecast as largely procedural, the statements made in the high-level segment and the High Commissioner’s statement reminded members of the real issues that they were here to address. Sri Lanka agreed with other delegations that there was a need to put aside the old habits of naming and shaming that had hampered the work of the Commission and that the Council needed to find new and innovative approaches for its work. The situation in Palestine should be addressed on a priority basis by the Council, and Sri Lanka supported the view expressed by the group of developing countries that it should be the prime issue addressed at this first session. Migration was another issue that the Council should address. It was a timely issue that was high on the United Nations agenda, and it would complement the high-level segment of the General Assembly on migration that was planned to be held in New York September.
General Assembly resolution 60/251, which had created the Council, had noted that technical assistance and capacity-building for States were crucial. That requirement should be linked to the fourth paragraph of that resolution, which said that all human rights were linked to the right to development.
NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said the report of the High Commissioner was presented in a very satisfactory manner. The United Kingdom welcomed the strategic vision for the future operations of the Office contained in the Plan of Action adopted by the Office. The doubling of the budget of the Office would support the independence of its work. Dialogue and cooperation had been stressed during the Council’s debate this week, and the Office was expected to follow suite. The situation in northern Uganda should be addressed as a matter of urgency. There was also a concern about the situation in Darfur. The situation in Palestine and other occupied territories was also of concern. The United Kingdom called on States to strengthen their cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner.
BART OUVRY (Belgium) said the presentation by the High Commissioner was appreciated, and it was hoped that this interactive exchange of views would be repeated regularly at each session. Belgium unflaggingly supported the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and was pleased at the doubling of its budget. Belgium had decided that most of its voluntary contributions would no longer be earmarked, and this would increase the independence of the Office. The attempts to strengthen the field offices were also appreciated, and Governments’ cooperation with the Office was a proof of their commitment to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights.
Since Belgium particularly appreciated the efforts to mainstream human rights throughout the United Nations system, which was an embodiment of the belief that peace, security, development and human rights were interdependent, any information that could be provided on this mainstreaming would be appreciated. On the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, this was a crucial step forward, and Belgium had signed it and would ratify it as soon as possible. Any advice that could be given on how to establish a national mechanism for torture prevention would be appreciated.
GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation would like to reaffirm its interest in strengthening the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and developing mutual beneficial interaction with the Office. The Russian Federation believed that the establishment of the Council was an important step in strengthening the United Nations system’s ability to promote and protect human rights. But it was not enough. They had to strengthen the treaty body system. In that connection, the Russian Federation would be very interested to hear the legal and financial ramifications of the results of the study made by the Office on establishing such reforms.
Respect for the principle of fair geographic distribution among the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which had been voiced by several other States, was a concern that the Russian Federation shared. In that regard, the Russian Federation welcomed the High Commissioner’s affirmation today that that imbalance would be addressed.
MOCHAMAD S. HIDAYAT (Indonesia) said Indonesia agreed with the High Commissioner in citing areas where grave human rights were being violated and in seeking solutions to those situations. Transparent cooperation should be pursued by the Office as well as the use of the budget. With the increase in the budget of the Office, which would enable it to recruit 91 persons, it was necessary that States that were underrepresented should be taken into consideration. The activities of the High Commissioner in the field should focus on the implementation of advisory services and cooperation. Further focus should also be made on human rights education.
MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran), said it was appreciated that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the High Commissioner were trying to do their work in a comprehensive and effective manner. Over the last years, it was Iran’s opinion that the international community had had the opportunity to express itself with regards to its visions and demands and priorities which would help it to overcome problems that lay ahead with regards to the system’s efforts to promote and protect human rights. These should be manifested properly in the structure, programmes and plans and even in the daily activities of the Office. The key elements that the international community or the human rights system needed to keep in mind included that non-selectivity and impartiality, and the equal status of all human rights, including the right to development, and respect for cultural diversity and the deeply held beliefs of other cultures, should be respected to the greatest extent.
On secret detention centres, had the Office been able to send an urgent appeal to the authorities engaged in this, or did they plan to send a fact-finding mission to identify the problems involved therein, he asked.
VESA HIMANEN (Finland) said that Finland fully aligned itself with the statement given and the questions raised by Austria, on behalf of the European Union. In addition, Finland felt that much more needed to be done by the international community to address today’s human rights challenges, and that the High Commissioner should play a central role therein. Finland fully supported the strategic action plan and the field missions of the Office of the High Commissioner.
In follow-up to the reference on mainstreaming human rights made by the High Commissioner, how did she see that as part of the United Nations efforts to strengthen work at the country level. Regarding special procedures, what were the tools at the disposal of the Office when a country, like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, refused visits? Regarding the High Commissioner’s recent mission to the Russian Federation, which resulted in the setting up of an office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights there, the High Commissioner had expressed concern about the situation in that country.
ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) said that while marking the essential elements of an effective and cooperative programme from the very outset of her mandate, Ms. Arbour had offered a comprehensive blueprint for her Office to the last World Summit. This was an impressive, forward looking document, a document of responsibility and determination. Poland welcomed the doubling of the Office’s budget and hoped for its effective implementation supported by a significant increase of voluntary contributions. Poland would double its contribution to the work of the Office. Mainstreaming human rights by the Secretary-General in his first report on the reform of the organization was an important way to increase the potential of the UN human rights programme. Poland also welcomed the willingness of the international community, including the UN agencies and programmes, as well as non-governmental organizations, to join forces for the cause of human rights.
BRADDIDIN OBIDOV (Uzbekistan) said that in her statement, the High Commissioner had referred to particular issues in Uzbekistan, although Uzbekistan had repeatedly informed the Office about those events. Today, unfortunately, another attempt to interpret that information and the decisions of the courts which had occurred afterwards had been made. A number of armed people had carried out attacks, freeing prisoners and attacking governmental buildings, taking governmental officials, law-enforcement officials and civilians hostage, attempting to destabilise the Government of Uzbekistan. Immediately afterwards, the Government had reaffirmed its commitment to carrying out a democratic investigation. An open court case had been held of those who had committed these terrorist acts, and observers had had the opportunity to acquaint themselves with all of the evidence and proof presented at the trial. The result of the court case showed that these terrorist acts took place with the aim of overthrowing the Government of Uzbekistan. The statements of the High Commissioner threw a pall over Uzbekistan, which had supported the work of the Council and was against any attempt to politicise its work.
SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said that Japan welcomed the priority put on the importance of mainstreaming human rights, and it hoped that the Office of the High Commissioner would lend itself even more effectively and efficiently to that task. Japan stood ready to support the High Commissioner in that regard. In her intervention, the High Commissioner had made a specific reference to poverty as a human rights violation, and Japan fully agreed. For that reason, Japan was working to promote and protect human security, characterized by a bottom up approach at the local level, and targeted to overcome discrimination, as well as the protection and empowerment of vulnerable people.
Japan said that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was promoting cooperation with many countries. Countries such as Cambodia, which had suffered seriously, were cooperating with the United Nations and with the High Commissioner. On the other hand, there were other countries that did not cooperate. One such country was the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Japan welcomed the fact that the High Commissioner had taken up the question of the human rights situation in that country in her address to the Council this morning. Japan hoped that, in the future, that country would agree to the visit of the High Commissioner there. In conclusion, Japan welcomed this opportunity for an interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner, and it looked forward to working closely together with her in the future.
HEDDA SAMSON (Netherlands) said that the Netherlands had expressed support for the work of the Office of the High Commissioner. The mainstreaming of human rights in the work of the High Commissioner’s Office, particularly in the field, was very important. The Netherlands shared the concern of the High Commissioner with regard to access to States to review human rights situations. Since members of the Council had pledged to respect and promote human rights during their work as part of their election criteria, it was essential that all States should open their doors and cooperate with the Office. The interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner was very important and should be repeated.
ABDUL MONEIM TAHA (Sudan) said that in the spirit of effective dialogue, Sudan was grateful for the efforts of the High Commissioner and her Office, and the role of human rights officers and observers established under the Action Plan. The situation was pacifying, and it was hoped that all United Nations agencies would continue their support for the peace process in Sudan in all its aspects, including resettlement during the post-conflict period. Sudan had declared that only a negotiated and agreed-upon accord would help, and the presence of peacekeepers was welcomed. Sudan would continue to work with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) said that Switzerland gave the High Commissioner its total support, in particular to its offices in the field and regional offices. Turning to the High Commissioner’s report, especially in its analysis of the situation in Sudan, Switzerland agreed with the conclusions made therein. Switzerland had two questions: individuals were suffering from abuses. Had the situation in Sudan improved since her visit, and were tangible measures being taken to combat impunity? Also, United Nations experts had, in theory, free unlimited access to places of detention. In her report, the High Commissioner had mentioned that, excluding Khartoum, her office was having trouble gaining access to such sites in the rest of Sudan. Were they able to make any progress there, he asked?
Regarding Myanmar, Switzerland wondered whether the High Commissioner intended, despite well known obstacles, to step up her efforts with the Burmese authorities to address the human rights situation in that country. Finally, Switzerland welcomed the interactive dialogue between the Council and the High Commissioner.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said poverty was one of the main causes for human rights violations, and the Council should pay much attention to this issue during its debate. The report of the High Commissioner had also stressed the issue of poverty as being one of the causes for the massive violations of human rights. Greater emphasis should be made on peace and democracy for they were prerequisites to the implementation of human rights. Through the increase in financial resources, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should strengthen its technical assistance and cooperation with States. The Council should also consider a table listing all the mandates of the special procedures so that the Member States could review them vis-à-vis the new situation in the Council.
ANGELA MARIA CHAVEZ BIETTI (Guatemala) said Guatemala was pleased that last year the petition to have an office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Guatemala had been accepted, and this had helped Guatemala to improve the promotion and protection of human rights in the country. The comments of the High Commissioner during her visit were appreciated. Guatemala was a country which was different from that which existed at the time of the armed conflict, and important progress for human rights had been made. Efforts to consolidate peace and democracy had continued.
RICARDO GONZALEZ ARENAS (Uruguay) said the report of the High Commissioner was welcomed, as it would help all to weigh up the magnitude of the challenges being faced at this time with the new Council. Uruguay thought that the report of the High Commissioner had a good list and analysis of the problems facing the country. Poverty was one of the main human rights violations, and millions of people in extreme poverty were facing problems of human rights. The mention of special procedures and emergency situations was appreciated. Uruguay gave great importance to the work done in the field by the Office with Governments, civil society and others, in protecting human rights nationally and internationally. Generating capacity locally through technical cooperation and assistance was important. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture was a key issue. The High Commissioner could count upon the cooperation of Uruguay for developing work at this very important stage of the development of the Council.
BASHAR JA'AFARI (Syria) said that Syria had listened carefully to the statement of the High Commissioner, however it had not heard anything about the most important problem: the killing of people – the problem of the Israeli occupation of Arab territories. The humanitarian issues that the High Commissioner had referred to in her intervention were new ones, whereas the disastrous situation in the Middle East had been going on for decades, and yet she had not referred to at all. For example, the situation in the occupied Golan, where Syrians’ rights were being violated, had not been mentioned at all. Palestine had become a place to train people to become monsters. Twenty-eight civilians had been massacred by the invading forces, who had come from the planet Mars – the new name for the Israeli occupier.
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said as asserted by the High Commissioner, extreme poverty was affecting the human rights of millions of people in the world. The eradication of poverty from the face of the planet required concerted efforts of the international community. What measures were being taken by the Office of the High Commissioner with regard to programmes pertaining to poverty eradication? With regard to the right to freedom of thought, which was one of the fundamental pillars of human rights, a balance should be made in its exercise without infringing on the rights of others.
MOHAMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), said the dialogue with the High Commissioner was most welcome. Poverty was the most blatant violation of human rights, and this was a concern which Morocco shared, and it had therefore taken up a National Initiative for Human Development, seeking to eradicate extreme poverty, among other things. All were affected by racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, and should build an alliance of civilisations against them. Combating torture was a political, legal and moral imperative. Morocco had established a body for reconciliation and equity with the aim of repairing all human rights violations that had taken place since independence. It also shared the idea of the need of giving space to civil society, as it played a valuable part in the promotion and protection of human rights.
MYONG NAM CHOE (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regretted the remarks of the High Commissioner with regard to the country. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had held discussions with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, including with Ms. Arbour, on the situation in the country, but in her report, the situation had been assessed in a unilateral way. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was concerned that that kind of statement would lead to the old way of doing things. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea also rejected the politically motivated allegations that had just been made by the Japanese representative.
MOHAMED ABU-KOASH (Palestine) expressed concern that the paragraphs of the report concerning Palestine did not mention Israel as an occupying power. In order for Israel to respect the human rights of the people whose lands it was occupying, the international community should continue its pressure. Israel was flagrantly committing human rights violations against the people whose territories were still occupied. The occupying power should totally evacuate the territories it occupied and return to the borders before 1967.
CHRIS SIDOT, of the International Services for Human Rights, said the High Commissioner had rightly pointed out a number of significant areas for human rights concern in her report. In relation to discrimination, the report had referred to a number of bases that should be addressed, and others should be added, including that of sexually-based discrimination. The Council should also address these issues. The High Commissioner should explain the role of her Office in addressing issues that had always been considered taboo. The High Commissioner was treating countries in an objective manner in her report, making suggestions where required, and indicating concerns where there was a denial of cooperation, and where the active situation required a contribution by the international community or her Office. Many countries had called for an end to naming and shaming, and the report did this. The report should be the basis on which the Council dealt with country situations.
NICHOLAS HOWEN, of the International Commission of Jurists, said that the International Commission of Jurists agreed on the value of alerting the Human Rights Council to emerging or alarming human rights situations. The Council would benefit from the High Commissioner being able to address the Council at any time on questions she considered urgent. Action had to be taken urgently in certain cases. With regard to the violence in Sri Lanka, for example, what did the High Commissioner feel should be the next constructive, positive human rights steps to deal with the reversal of the peace process? The Council was posed to adopt new international standards on enforced disappearances and indigenous peoples. That reaffirmed that international human rights lawmaking would continue be an important role of the Council. Did the High Commissioner believe that international human rights lawmaking would continue to be a function of the Council? With regard to attacks on the judiciary and its independence at the national level, would the High Commissioner recommend that the Council focus on that issue at a later session?
ALEXANDER GOLDBERG, of the Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, welcomed the awarding of further resources to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to enable human rights to become the third pillar of the United Nations. In order not to repeat the errors of the past, the new Council must adapt procedures that would enable the examination of all human rights abuses throughout the world. The Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations also hoped that the Council would enable the non-governmental organizations and civil society movement to fully participate in this process and that the methods of the work of the Council would be transparent, fair and impartial.
MUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan) said the High Commissioner was to be thanked for her report, which was very balanced. A number of important issues had been referred to, relating to all areas of relevance to human rights, in particular with regards to the victims of human rights violations, and human rights defenders. Jordan was in a strong position to combat poverty, and agreed with the High Commissioner on the consequences of occupation, as that in the Middle East provided huge grounds for human rights violations. A military solution to this conflict could not be found - it had to be a humane solution, as it was a serious cause for concern. Responsibility for violations of human dignity could be found everywhere, and the High Commissioner should continue her efforts to help to find a solution to the situation in the occupied territories.
LOUISE ARBOUR, High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that, given time constraints, they would have an opportunity in the course of the Council’s work next week to review with a more detailed view the efforts of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). She would be brief here. First, she was very encouraged by the feedback that she had received regarding her concern about extreme poverty, and poverty alleviation in general. She counted on concrete engagements to address that issue. Secondly, she had heard many calls for transparency. It was her wish and hope that delegations would recognize the efforts that had been taken to afford as much transparency as possible with regard to the work of the Council, and she hoped that more frequent meetings and further dialogue would make it clear that her Office was working transparently. She also welcomed the continuing contributions of the donor community, old and new donors, and to make them without specific earmarking, which would greatly help the work of OHCHR.
The High Commissioner reiterated her call for openness on the part of States, which would all now be asked to participate through the universal periodic review system. While she felt that capacity-building had an impact on the ability to enjoy human rights, she did not believe that capacity had anything to do with access, openness, transparency and engagement, and she hoped that they could count that the broadest and widest access would be allowed. In conclusion, Ms. Arbour believed OHCHR should exercise leadership in research and advocacy in human rights protection, and she hoped the Council would be a forum in which they could do that, as well as an important forum for human rights lawmaking.
* *** *
For use of information media; not an official record
MORNING
23 June 2006
Council Holds Interactive Dialogue with High Commissioner
on her Report
Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, today presented her report to the Human Rights Council, stressing that poverty continued to be the most serious, invidious and widespread human rights violation to be confronted. She said it was poverty and underdevelopment – both in cause and effect – that exacerbated abuse, neglect and discrimination, denying millions the enjoyment of their civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, and ultimately their right to development.
Ms. Arbour said that next to poverty, discrimination constituted another widespread source of disempowerment and of denial of rights, freedom and dignity. The proliferation of acts and expressions contributing to the exacerbation of cultural and religious tensions was producing new cleavages within and between communities, and had recently led to unprecedented levels of violence and destruction, on the ashes of which trust and tolerance had now to be rebuilt.
The High Commissioner said that the willingness of Governments to include the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in their efforts to promote and protect human rights should be viewed as the most positive indicator of a Government’s serious commitment to the realization of rights. Equally important was the access granted to special procedures mandate holders. In contrast, closed door policies had to be a source of grave concern, she added.
In the interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner which followed, a number of speakers commended the report presented, agreeing that poverty was a flagrant violation of human rights. They stressed the need to combat poverty with a concerted effort by the international community and they urged the Council to give high priority in its work to deal with the issue of poverty.
Other speakers expressed concern about the human rights situation in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine and urged the Council to react to the continued human rights violations in the territories.
Taking part in the debate were the representatives of Peru, Mexico, Austria on behalf of the European Union, China, India, United States, Thailand, Canada, Republic of Korea, Norway, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, Belgium, Russian Federation, Indonesia. Iran, Finland, Poland, Uzbekistan, Japan, Netherlands, Sudan, Switzerland, Argentina, Guatemala, Uruguay, Syria, Pakistan, on behalf of Organization of Islamic Conference, Morocco, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Palestine and Jordan.
Also speaking were the representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: International Service for Human Rights; International Commission of Jurists; and Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations.
When the Council reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will exchange views with the Chairperson of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, the Vice-Chairperson of the fifty-seventh session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of human rights, and the Chairperson of the meeting of Chairpersons of human rights treaty bodies.
Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
In the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2006/10), the High Commissioner outlines a number of activities undertaken since the sixty-first session of the Commission on Human Rights. In particular, the report focuses on steps taken by the Office of the High Commissioner in response to the Plan of Action released in May 2005. As such, and in line with the strategic vision for future operations, the report highlights activities aimed at strengthening country engagement, forging linkages between human rights and development, fostering partnerships with civil society and within the United Nations system, strengthening the Office’s thematic expertise as well as the efforts dedicated to further empowering rights-holders.
In addition, the report presents the High Commissioner’s Strategic Management Plan 2006-2007, which seeks to operationalize the strategic vision articulated in the Plan of Action, by identifying the priorities and resource requirements for the next biennium based on the magnitude of challenges in the coming years. In its final part, the report turns to the leadership role of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in particular against the background of the overall reform of the United Nations human rights machinery.
High Commissioner’s Presentation of Her Report
LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, reiterated that poverty continued to be the most serious, invidious and widespread human rights violation to be confronted. For it was poverty and underdevelopment – both in cause and effect – that exacerbated abuse, neglect and discrimination, denying millions the enjoyment of their civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, and ultimately their right to development. Next to poverty, discrimination constituted another widespread source of disempowerment and of denial of rights, freedom and dignity. The proliferation of acts and expressions contributing to the exacerbation of cultural and religious tensions was producing new cleavages within and between communities, and had recently led to unprecedented levels of violence and destruction, on the ashes of which trust and tolerance now had to be rebuilt. The use of harmful stereotypes and the perpetuation of myths that had demonized, ridiculed or insulted deep-rooted religious feelings and a profound sense of identity, had to be denounced as vigorously as the right to champion unpopular ideas had to be asserted and protected. Of particular concern in recent years had been the increasing challenge to the absolute prohibition on torture that had emerged in the context of counter-terrorism activities. In the face of that reality, the obligation of non-refoulement, which required that no individual be returned to a country where the real risk of torture and ill-treatment was present, could not be seen as a mere legal nicety. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, which had entered into force yesterday, was the clearest repudiation of the attempts to erode the protection conferred by the Convention against Torture.
Ms. Arbour said that the willingness of Governments to include the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in their efforts to promote and protect human rights should be viewed as the most positive indicator of a Government’s serious commitment to the realization of rights. Equally important was the access granted to special procedures mandate holders. In contrast, closed door policies had to be a source of grave concern. In that context, Ms. Arbour regretted that her Office had been unable to complete a comprehensive assessment of the facts related to the killings of possibly several hundred persons in May 2005 by Uzbek military and security forces in the town of Andijan. Lack of access was also a grave concern with respect to the serious human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In addition, situations of armed conflict, of national emergency, of humanitarian crisis and of occupation raised – inherently – acute human rights concerns. Widespread breaches of human rights standards in Iraq, the marked worsening of the humanitarian situation in Myanmar, the developments since the beginning of 2006 in the occupied Palestinian territories, and the violence in the Sudan and in Somalia, were all cause for such concern.
Targeted, but comprehensive interventions and early responses to unfolding crises prevented the escalation of harm and contributed to redress. The solutions, resources and instruments for change existed today as they never had before. As they engaged this year in ensuring that the Council was able to live up to the expectations that its mere existence had created, Ms. Arbour offered her full support and that of her colleagues in Geneva, in New York, and in their duty stations throughout the world.
Interactive Dialogue
ELIANE ESCUDERO (Peru) said Peru agreed with the High Commissioner that poverty was a cause for human rights violation at a massive level. This year, Peru was sponsoring a resolution on human rights and extreme poverty as it did every year during the Commission. The adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be adopted with any further delay. The indigenous peoples in many countries were expecting its adoption by the Council so that their rights would further be reinforced. The Council should recommend the adoption of the draft Declaration by the General Assembly. Peru also commended the strengthening of the special procedures.
MARIA DEL REFUGIO GONZALES DOMINGUEZ (Mexico) said subject to the reservation of making general comments on the report of the High Commissioner, this was a great opportunity to give the full support of Mexico to the work of the High Commissioner. As of now, the Member States of the Council and all the bodies in the Organization bore a huge responsibility for taking all necessary measures to implement the resolution establishing the Council, including the revision and strengthening of the mechanisms and special procedures. Until there was a review of the mandates, Mexico hoped they would be extended for a further year, and that the High Commissioner would support them.
Mexico was firmly committed to support the right of women against discrimination, and to support indigenous peoples, and would be pleased if the draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples was adopted. The rule of law could not be linked to the pretext of applying policies that ignored human rights in the fight against terrorism. Torture, and the principle of non-return, due process and personal freedom should not be suspended or perpetrated under any circumstances. It was important to empower national preventative mechanisms to this effect. Mexico considered that a democracy, to be legitimate, had to have a strong judiciary in order to ensure the effective application of the law.
WOLFGANG PETRICH (Austria), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union reiterated its commitment to an interactive dialogue with all stakeholders on human rights questions within the Council. The European Union fully supported the High Commissioner’s approach outlined in her Strategic Action Plan. What the European Union wanted to know now was, what did the High Commissioner consider to be the most important next steps to be taken to achieve those objectives. The European Union, for its part, felt that adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at the international and national level were a priority to promote and protect human rights.
Turning to field activities, the European Union gave its full support to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ (OHCHR) office in Colombia, and it favoured the continued role of the office in Colombia in discussions with the Government there. The same was true of the OHCHR office in Nepal. The Nepal Office had played an important role both before the trouble and would play an important role in the transition. How did the High Commissioner see the role of her office in that regard? Also, the European Union would appreciate hearing what were her main conclusions following her visit to Sudan on which areas the international community should focus its attention. The European Union agreed with the High Commissioner’s assessment of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, and supported substantial immediate assistance to the Palestinian people to alleviate the situation there. Finally, the European Union warmly welcomed the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. In that regard, the Union wondered what mechanism should the OHCHR provide in establishing national implementation and monitoring mechanisms.
SHA ZUKANG (China) said the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had a big responsibility in promoting and protecting human rights. It had so far done relevant work in the field of human rights. The establishment of the Council would give ample opportunity to the Office to further strengthen its work. The Office was expected to work in a transparent manner with regard to its decisions. The increase of its budget during the coming five years would enable it to carry out its work as required by the Member States. China recognized the work done by the High Commissioner and urged further cooperation with States. China had also benefited from the technical assistance the Office offered. China reaffirmed its concern about the lack of fair geographical distribution of the staff of the Office, which did not reflect the desires of the Member States.
MURLIDHAR C. BHANDARE (India), said India attached great importance to the work of the United Nations human rights machinery, and was committed to making the new Council a strong, effective and efficient body, capable of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. Human rights were inalienable, inviolable and universal. The promotion and protection of human rights by strengthening the capacity of States, upon request, through technical and financial assistance, was really the effective way forward. In this context, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was an important mechanism for developing the capacity of States.
The High Commissioner had proposed a Plan of Action and a Strategic Management Plan. It was hoped that the action points identified in these documents would be pursued in close cooperation and partnership with Member States. The various human rights conventions were diverse in their form and content, and had distinct and unique scope and implementation mechanisms, and treating them alike would upset the delicate balance achieved during the negotiations of the Conventions. The present system of different committees ensured greater representation from countries.
WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said that the United States remained a strong supporter of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and encouraged it to increase its field efforts, where its technical expertise made a crucial difference.
As all were aware, Al Qaida had declared war on the United States on 11 September 2001. The detainees held in Guantanamo were enemy combatants, or those who had aided and abetted them in their war on the United States. It was United States policy to treat detainees humanely. It was also United States policy to uphold its commitment to prohibit and prevent torture, ill-treatment or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of any kind.
CHAYIONG SATJIPANON (Thailand) said the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was assist States in carrying out their human rights obligations and responsibilities through the provision of effective and constructive country engagement. Thailand was very pleased that the High Commissioner was currently planning for greater country engagement though various initiatives such as an increased deployment of human rights staff to countries and regions, and establishing standing capacities for rapid deployment, investigations, field support, human rights capacity building, advice and assistance. Thailand supported the High Commissioner’s efforts in strengthening its regional office in Bangkok and looked forward to working closely with the office to fulfil its aspirations in promoting human rights in Thailand and throughout the region as the whole. It was essential for States to be provided with technical assistance from the Office. The High Commissioner’s staff should reflect as much as possible a balanced geographical distribution as well as diversity in their background.
LOUISE ARBOUR, High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding to the questions and comments made by delegations, said with regards to the Office’s strategy of country engagement, this had been made explicit in the Strategic Management Plan, and she was delighted at its reception. As the Office had elaborated in the Plan, this required the full engagement of the full capacities of the Office in its interactions with Member States, in particular in order to galvanise all internal capacities. In engagements with countries, the Office aimed to ensure that the work of all the mechanisms and special procedures was respected and involved, and all talents and resources were engaged.
There had been particular success in bringing coherence to the presence of human rights officers in peace-keeping missions, allowing for a much more directed guidance to the human rights activities carried out by those large contingents, she said. The bilateral arrangements that had been conducted with several countries which had allowed for the exercise of the full mandate of the Office were particularly appreciated. Missions in Nepal, Uganda, Guatemala, and, it was hoped, imminently, Togo, had been carried out at the request of the Governments who wished to improve their human rights situation. There was also a more robust regional presence being developed.
It was hoped that country-specific reports would be examined in a more detailed manner by the Council in the autumn, Ms. Arbour said. There was concern for the impunity that prevailed with regards to the very serious human rights violations that were taking place in Darfur in the Sudan, and there was yet to be a serious sense of credible investigations, prosecutions and punishment of perpetrators, particularly with regards to sexual violence. In Myanmar, the situation was also complex. With regards to the Convention against Torture, the Office had been doing considerable work to create expertise to support the work of the Sub-Committee. The Office would also be setting up a special fund to implement the work of the Sub-Committee. Work was also being done to implement staffing in a manner which reflected more widely the wide nature of human rights work.
PAUL MEYER (Canada) said that, in Canada’s view, the interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner was an important opportunity to provide the Council with timely updates on the work of her Office, including field missions, which Canada found very informative, and which should help the Council to work in a coherent and complementary way. Canada hoped that they would be able to continue that dialogue at each session of the Council.
Canada supported the High Commissioner’s Plan of Action and Strategic Action Plan, in particular the emphasis on the promotion and protection of human rights in the field, and on technical assistance to States, which in Canada’s view was consistent with the Council’s focus on implementation and cooperation. In that connection, the information that the High Commissioner had provided on the situations in Uzbekistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Myanmar, were of special relevance. He wondered how the results of the Office’s efforts at the national level could best be integrated into the work of the Council? In addition, he noted in the High Commissioner statement that she had highlighted the preservation of civil society space. In that regard, how could the Office best help in doing that, he wondered.
DON DORG-HEE (Republic of Korea) said the Office had been given significant new resources, reflecting the greater importance the international community placed on the cause of human rights. The Office should direct those resources in such a manner that they brought about the greatest possible concrete improvements in the human rights situation on the ground. Actual improvement in the lives of people around the world was the bottom line. The Republic of Korea fully stood behind the strategic vision for the future operations of the Office contained in the plan of action presented to the Secretary-General last year. Capacity building and technical cooperation were the keys to improving the human rights situation in the field, since they helped in implementing human rights norms in Member States. Capacity building and cooperation aimed at improvement in strengthening democracy and the rule of law, particularly the training of judges, lawyers and prosecutors.
PETER F. WILLE (Norway), said the High Commissioner had raised many important issues, in particular implementation, and the focus on poverty as an human rights concern. Norway fully supported the High Commissioner and her work. The World Summit had stressed the strong link between respect for human rights and peace and security. The decision to double the regular budgetary resources for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was therefore fully supported. The Plan of Action and the Strategic Management Plan were welcomed, as they, for the first time, provided a full picture of the situation. Norway also supported the strategic vision and the objective of strengthening country engagement.
SARALA M. FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said that, although this first session of the Council had been forecast as largely procedural, the statements made in the high-level segment and the High Commissioner’s statement reminded members of the real issues that they were here to address. Sri Lanka agreed with other delegations that there was a need to put aside the old habits of naming and shaming that had hampered the work of the Commission and that the Council needed to find new and innovative approaches for its work. The situation in Palestine should be addressed on a priority basis by the Council, and Sri Lanka supported the view expressed by the group of developing countries that it should be the prime issue addressed at this first session. Migration was another issue that the Council should address. It was a timely issue that was high on the United Nations agenda, and it would complement the high-level segment of the General Assembly on migration that was planned to be held in New York September.
General Assembly resolution 60/251, which had created the Council, had noted that technical assistance and capacity-building for States were crucial. That requirement should be linked to the fourth paragraph of that resolution, which said that all human rights were linked to the right to development.
NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said the report of the High Commissioner was presented in a very satisfactory manner. The United Kingdom welcomed the strategic vision for the future operations of the Office contained in the Plan of Action adopted by the Office. The doubling of the budget of the Office would support the independence of its work. Dialogue and cooperation had been stressed during the Council’s debate this week, and the Office was expected to follow suite. The situation in northern Uganda should be addressed as a matter of urgency. There was also a concern about the situation in Darfur. The situation in Palestine and other occupied territories was also of concern. The United Kingdom called on States to strengthen their cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner.
BART OUVRY (Belgium) said the presentation by the High Commissioner was appreciated, and it was hoped that this interactive exchange of views would be repeated regularly at each session. Belgium unflaggingly supported the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and was pleased at the doubling of its budget. Belgium had decided that most of its voluntary contributions would no longer be earmarked, and this would increase the independence of the Office. The attempts to strengthen the field offices were also appreciated, and Governments’ cooperation with the Office was a proof of their commitment to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights.
Since Belgium particularly appreciated the efforts to mainstream human rights throughout the United Nations system, which was an embodiment of the belief that peace, security, development and human rights were interdependent, any information that could be provided on this mainstreaming would be appreciated. On the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, this was a crucial step forward, and Belgium had signed it and would ratify it as soon as possible. Any advice that could be given on how to establish a national mechanism for torture prevention would be appreciated.
GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation would like to reaffirm its interest in strengthening the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and developing mutual beneficial interaction with the Office. The Russian Federation believed that the establishment of the Council was an important step in strengthening the United Nations system’s ability to promote and protect human rights. But it was not enough. They had to strengthen the treaty body system. In that connection, the Russian Federation would be very interested to hear the legal and financial ramifications of the results of the study made by the Office on establishing such reforms.
Respect for the principle of fair geographic distribution among the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which had been voiced by several other States, was a concern that the Russian Federation shared. In that regard, the Russian Federation welcomed the High Commissioner’s affirmation today that that imbalance would be addressed.
MOCHAMAD S. HIDAYAT (Indonesia) said Indonesia agreed with the High Commissioner in citing areas where grave human rights were being violated and in seeking solutions to those situations. Transparent cooperation should be pursued by the Office as well as the use of the budget. With the increase in the budget of the Office, which would enable it to recruit 91 persons, it was necessary that States that were underrepresented should be taken into consideration. The activities of the High Commissioner in the field should focus on the implementation of advisory services and cooperation. Further focus should also be made on human rights education.
MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran), said it was appreciated that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the High Commissioner were trying to do their work in a comprehensive and effective manner. Over the last years, it was Iran’s opinion that the international community had had the opportunity to express itself with regards to its visions and demands and priorities which would help it to overcome problems that lay ahead with regards to the system’s efforts to promote and protect human rights. These should be manifested properly in the structure, programmes and plans and even in the daily activities of the Office. The key elements that the international community or the human rights system needed to keep in mind included that non-selectivity and impartiality, and the equal status of all human rights, including the right to development, and respect for cultural diversity and the deeply held beliefs of other cultures, should be respected to the greatest extent.
On secret detention centres, had the Office been able to send an urgent appeal to the authorities engaged in this, or did they plan to send a fact-finding mission to identify the problems involved therein, he asked.
VESA HIMANEN (Finland) said that Finland fully aligned itself with the statement given and the questions raised by Austria, on behalf of the European Union. In addition, Finland felt that much more needed to be done by the international community to address today’s human rights challenges, and that the High Commissioner should play a central role therein. Finland fully supported the strategic action plan and the field missions of the Office of the High Commissioner.
In follow-up to the reference on mainstreaming human rights made by the High Commissioner, how did she see that as part of the United Nations efforts to strengthen work at the country level. Regarding special procedures, what were the tools at the disposal of the Office when a country, like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, refused visits? Regarding the High Commissioner’s recent mission to the Russian Federation, which resulted in the setting up of an office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights there, the High Commissioner had expressed concern about the situation in that country.
ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) said that while marking the essential elements of an effective and cooperative programme from the very outset of her mandate, Ms. Arbour had offered a comprehensive blueprint for her Office to the last World Summit. This was an impressive, forward looking document, a document of responsibility and determination. Poland welcomed the doubling of the Office’s budget and hoped for its effective implementation supported by a significant increase of voluntary contributions. Poland would double its contribution to the work of the Office. Mainstreaming human rights by the Secretary-General in his first report on the reform of the organization was an important way to increase the potential of the UN human rights programme. Poland also welcomed the willingness of the international community, including the UN agencies and programmes, as well as non-governmental organizations, to join forces for the cause of human rights.
BRADDIDIN OBIDOV (Uzbekistan) said that in her statement, the High Commissioner had referred to particular issues in Uzbekistan, although Uzbekistan had repeatedly informed the Office about those events. Today, unfortunately, another attempt to interpret that information and the decisions of the courts which had occurred afterwards had been made. A number of armed people had carried out attacks, freeing prisoners and attacking governmental buildings, taking governmental officials, law-enforcement officials and civilians hostage, attempting to destabilise the Government of Uzbekistan. Immediately afterwards, the Government had reaffirmed its commitment to carrying out a democratic investigation. An open court case had been held of those who had committed these terrorist acts, and observers had had the opportunity to acquaint themselves with all of the evidence and proof presented at the trial. The result of the court case showed that these terrorist acts took place with the aim of overthrowing the Government of Uzbekistan. The statements of the High Commissioner threw a pall over Uzbekistan, which had supported the work of the Council and was against any attempt to politicise its work.
SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said that Japan welcomed the priority put on the importance of mainstreaming human rights, and it hoped that the Office of the High Commissioner would lend itself even more effectively and efficiently to that task. Japan stood ready to support the High Commissioner in that regard. In her intervention, the High Commissioner had made a specific reference to poverty as a human rights violation, and Japan fully agreed. For that reason, Japan was working to promote and protect human security, characterized by a bottom up approach at the local level, and targeted to overcome discrimination, as well as the protection and empowerment of vulnerable people.
Japan said that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was promoting cooperation with many countries. Countries such as Cambodia, which had suffered seriously, were cooperating with the United Nations and with the High Commissioner. On the other hand, there were other countries that did not cooperate. One such country was the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Japan welcomed the fact that the High Commissioner had taken up the question of the human rights situation in that country in her address to the Council this morning. Japan hoped that, in the future, that country would agree to the visit of the High Commissioner there. In conclusion, Japan welcomed this opportunity for an interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner, and it looked forward to working closely together with her in the future.
HEDDA SAMSON (Netherlands) said that the Netherlands had expressed support for the work of the Office of the High Commissioner. The mainstreaming of human rights in the work of the High Commissioner’s Office, particularly in the field, was very important. The Netherlands shared the concern of the High Commissioner with regard to access to States to review human rights situations. Since members of the Council had pledged to respect and promote human rights during their work as part of their election criteria, it was essential that all States should open their doors and cooperate with the Office. The interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner was very important and should be repeated.
ABDUL MONEIM TAHA (Sudan) said that in the spirit of effective dialogue, Sudan was grateful for the efforts of the High Commissioner and her Office, and the role of human rights officers and observers established under the Action Plan. The situation was pacifying, and it was hoped that all United Nations agencies would continue their support for the peace process in Sudan in all its aspects, including resettlement during the post-conflict period. Sudan had declared that only a negotiated and agreed-upon accord would help, and the presence of peacekeepers was welcomed. Sudan would continue to work with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) said that Switzerland gave the High Commissioner its total support, in particular to its offices in the field and regional offices. Turning to the High Commissioner’s report, especially in its analysis of the situation in Sudan, Switzerland agreed with the conclusions made therein. Switzerland had two questions: individuals were suffering from abuses. Had the situation in Sudan improved since her visit, and were tangible measures being taken to combat impunity? Also, United Nations experts had, in theory, free unlimited access to places of detention. In her report, the High Commissioner had mentioned that, excluding Khartoum, her office was having trouble gaining access to such sites in the rest of Sudan. Were they able to make any progress there, he asked?
Regarding Myanmar, Switzerland wondered whether the High Commissioner intended, despite well known obstacles, to step up her efforts with the Burmese authorities to address the human rights situation in that country. Finally, Switzerland welcomed the interactive dialogue between the Council and the High Commissioner.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said poverty was one of the main causes for human rights violations, and the Council should pay much attention to this issue during its debate. The report of the High Commissioner had also stressed the issue of poverty as being one of the causes for the massive violations of human rights. Greater emphasis should be made on peace and democracy for they were prerequisites to the implementation of human rights. Through the increase in financial resources, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should strengthen its technical assistance and cooperation with States. The Council should also consider a table listing all the mandates of the special procedures so that the Member States could review them vis-à-vis the new situation in the Council.
ANGELA MARIA CHAVEZ BIETTI (Guatemala) said Guatemala was pleased that last year the petition to have an office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Guatemala had been accepted, and this had helped Guatemala to improve the promotion and protection of human rights in the country. The comments of the High Commissioner during her visit were appreciated. Guatemala was a country which was different from that which existed at the time of the armed conflict, and important progress for human rights had been made. Efforts to consolidate peace and democracy had continued.
RICARDO GONZALEZ ARENAS (Uruguay) said the report of the High Commissioner was welcomed, as it would help all to weigh up the magnitude of the challenges being faced at this time with the new Council. Uruguay thought that the report of the High Commissioner had a good list and analysis of the problems facing the country. Poverty was one of the main human rights violations, and millions of people in extreme poverty were facing problems of human rights. The mention of special procedures and emergency situations was appreciated. Uruguay gave great importance to the work done in the field by the Office with Governments, civil society and others, in protecting human rights nationally and internationally. Generating capacity locally through technical cooperation and assistance was important. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture was a key issue. The High Commissioner could count upon the cooperation of Uruguay for developing work at this very important stage of the development of the Council.
BASHAR JA'AFARI (Syria) said that Syria had listened carefully to the statement of the High Commissioner, however it had not heard anything about the most important problem: the killing of people – the problem of the Israeli occupation of Arab territories. The humanitarian issues that the High Commissioner had referred to in her intervention were new ones, whereas the disastrous situation in the Middle East had been going on for decades, and yet she had not referred to at all. For example, the situation in the occupied Golan, where Syrians’ rights were being violated, had not been mentioned at all. Palestine had become a place to train people to become monsters. Twenty-eight civilians had been massacred by the invading forces, who had come from the planet Mars – the new name for the Israeli occupier.
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said as asserted by the High Commissioner, extreme poverty was affecting the human rights of millions of people in the world. The eradication of poverty from the face of the planet required concerted efforts of the international community. What measures were being taken by the Office of the High Commissioner with regard to programmes pertaining to poverty eradication? With regard to the right to freedom of thought, which was one of the fundamental pillars of human rights, a balance should be made in its exercise without infringing on the rights of others.
MOHAMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), said the dialogue with the High Commissioner was most welcome. Poverty was the most blatant violation of human rights, and this was a concern which Morocco shared, and it had therefore taken up a National Initiative for Human Development, seeking to eradicate extreme poverty, among other things. All were affected by racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, and should build an alliance of civilisations against them. Combating torture was a political, legal and moral imperative. Morocco had established a body for reconciliation and equity with the aim of repairing all human rights violations that had taken place since independence. It also shared the idea of the need of giving space to civil society, as it played a valuable part in the promotion and protection of human rights.
MYONG NAM CHOE (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regretted the remarks of the High Commissioner with regard to the country. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had held discussions with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, including with Ms. Arbour, on the situation in the country, but in her report, the situation had been assessed in a unilateral way. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was concerned that that kind of statement would lead to the old way of doing things. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea also rejected the politically motivated allegations that had just been made by the Japanese representative.
MOHAMED ABU-KOASH (Palestine) expressed concern that the paragraphs of the report concerning Palestine did not mention Israel as an occupying power. In order for Israel to respect the human rights of the people whose lands it was occupying, the international community should continue its pressure. Israel was flagrantly committing human rights violations against the people whose territories were still occupied. The occupying power should totally evacuate the territories it occupied and return to the borders before 1967.
CHRIS SIDOT, of the International Services for Human Rights, said the High Commissioner had rightly pointed out a number of significant areas for human rights concern in her report. In relation to discrimination, the report had referred to a number of bases that should be addressed, and others should be added, including that of sexually-based discrimination. The Council should also address these issues. The High Commissioner should explain the role of her Office in addressing issues that had always been considered taboo. The High Commissioner was treating countries in an objective manner in her report, making suggestions where required, and indicating concerns where there was a denial of cooperation, and where the active situation required a contribution by the international community or her Office. Many countries had called for an end to naming and shaming, and the report did this. The report should be the basis on which the Council dealt with country situations.
NICHOLAS HOWEN, of the International Commission of Jurists, said that the International Commission of Jurists agreed on the value of alerting the Human Rights Council to emerging or alarming human rights situations. The Council would benefit from the High Commissioner being able to address the Council at any time on questions she considered urgent. Action had to be taken urgently in certain cases. With regard to the violence in Sri Lanka, for example, what did the High Commissioner feel should be the next constructive, positive human rights steps to deal with the reversal of the peace process? The Council was posed to adopt new international standards on enforced disappearances and indigenous peoples. That reaffirmed that international human rights lawmaking would continue be an important role of the Council. Did the High Commissioner believe that international human rights lawmaking would continue to be a function of the Council? With regard to attacks on the judiciary and its independence at the national level, would the High Commissioner recommend that the Council focus on that issue at a later session?
ALEXANDER GOLDBERG, of the Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, welcomed the awarding of further resources to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to enable human rights to become the third pillar of the United Nations. In order not to repeat the errors of the past, the new Council must adapt procedures that would enable the examination of all human rights abuses throughout the world. The Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations also hoped that the Council would enable the non-governmental organizations and civil society movement to fully participate in this process and that the methods of the work of the Council would be transparent, fair and impartial.
MUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan) said the High Commissioner was to be thanked for her report, which was very balanced. A number of important issues had been referred to, relating to all areas of relevance to human rights, in particular with regards to the victims of human rights violations, and human rights defenders. Jordan was in a strong position to combat poverty, and agreed with the High Commissioner on the consequences of occupation, as that in the Middle East provided huge grounds for human rights violations. A military solution to this conflict could not be found - it had to be a humane solution, as it was a serious cause for concern. Responsibility for violations of human dignity could be found everywhere, and the High Commissioner should continue her efforts to help to find a solution to the situation in the occupied territories.
LOUISE ARBOUR, High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that, given time constraints, they would have an opportunity in the course of the Council’s work next week to review with a more detailed view the efforts of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). She would be brief here. First, she was very encouraged by the feedback that she had received regarding her concern about extreme poverty, and poverty alleviation in general. She counted on concrete engagements to address that issue. Secondly, she had heard many calls for transparency. It was her wish and hope that delegations would recognize the efforts that had been taken to afford as much transparency as possible with regard to the work of the Council, and she hoped that more frequent meetings and further dialogue would make it clear that her Office was working transparently. She also welcomed the continuing contributions of the donor community, old and new donors, and to make them without specific earmarking, which would greatly help the work of OHCHR.
The High Commissioner reiterated her call for openness on the part of States, which would all now be asked to participate through the universal periodic review system. While she felt that capacity-building had an impact on the ability to enjoy human rights, she did not believe that capacity had anything to do with access, openness, transparency and engagement, and she hoped that they could count that the broadest and widest access would be allowed. In conclusion, Ms. Arbour believed OHCHR should exercise leadership in research and advocacy in human rights protection, and she hoped the Council would be a forum in which they could do that, as well as an important forum for human rights lawmaking.
* *** *
For use of information media; not an official record