HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCES, MINORITY ISSUES AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

Human Rights Council
MORNING

19 September 2006


The Human Rights Council this morning discussed reports presented by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, the Independent Expert on minority issues, and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.

Stephen J. Toope, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said today, enforced disappearance was a global problem not related to a specific region. While in the past disappearances could be blamed primarily on military dictatorships, mostly in Latin America, today they were also perpetrated in more complex situations of internal conflict. While the mandate of the Working Group was limited to violations carried out by State actors or non-State actors acting with the involvement of the State, it recognised that in the context of internal armed conflict, rebel groups and other non-State actors were often responsible for disappearances, and these were condemned, irrespective by whom they were committed.

Gay McDougall, the Independent Expert on minority issues, said exclusion, discrimination and racism directed at ethnic, religious and linguistic minority groups continued to fuel social unrest in every region of the world. Minority rights and policies of inclusion and equality played a vital role in promoting political and social stability. Discrimination against ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities was often linked in complex ways to disproportionate levels of poverty in those communities. When positive policies promoted social cohesion and no-discrimination, the results were to be seen in peaceful societies, proud of their rich cultural diversity, and benefiting from a property that was achieved by all and shared by all.

Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, said the report focused on the gap in implementation between the advances made by many countries in their domestic legislation, which recognizes indigenous peoples and their rights, and the daily reality in which many obstacles to the effective enforcement of those legislative measures were encountered. The gap in implementation would only be closed once full participation of indigenous organizations and civil society was guaranteed, and they were given the opportunity to participate in a constructive fashion within the framework of national institutions aiming at solving conflicts and reaching consensus that would ultimately be to the benefit of society at large.

Delegations taking the floor this morning included Colombia, South Africa, New Zealand, Ecuador, Argentina, Algeria, Morocco, Finland, Switzerland, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Chile, France, Costa Rica, Denmark, Guatemala, Malaysia, Canada, Armenia, Norway, United States, Japan, Peru, Austria, Mexico, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Iran, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Also speaking were the representatives of Amnesty International, Interfaith International, Minority Rights Group International, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples, and the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.

Japan, Philippines, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Japan spoke in exercise of their right of reply.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 3 p.m. on Tuesday 19 September, when it will hear presentations of the reports of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights of internally-displaced persons, and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus.

Documents to be Presented to the Council

The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/56) entitled report of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, which expresses serious concern regarding situations of disappearance worldwide. It notes with great concern the large number of reports of disappearances transmitted over the last year. During the reporting period, the Working Group conducted a country visit to Colombia. It was still particularly concerned about reports it had received of the disappearance of children, and, in a few cases, of physically and mentally challenged persons. The Working Group recalls the obligation of States to protect all groups in situations of vulnerability. It will continue to monitor this issue closely, and treat all such cases as a matter of urgency. The protection of human rights defenders, families seeking their disappeared relatives, witnesses and legal counsel was also a constant preoccupation of the Working Group.

The Working Group again stresses its grave concern that anti-terrorist activities are being used by an increasing number of States as an excuse for not respecting the obligations of the Declaration. Credible reports point to the repression of opposition Groups in many States in the name of a “war on terror”. In addition, “extraordinary rendition” has been used to transport terrorist suspects to other States for aggressive interrogation. Information continued to reach the Working Group concerning the existence of secret detention centres where terrorist suspects are held in complete isolation from the outside world. The Working Group notes that in some post-conflict situations, mechanisms of truth and reconciliation are being used as one of the ways of moving the affected societies from war to peace and from conflict to post-conflict Government, and is concerned that such situations can give rise to the enactment of amnesty laws and the implementation of other measures that lead to the same result: impunity.

An addendum to the report (E/CN.4/2006/56/Add.1) contains an account of the Working Group’s mission to Colombia from 5 to 13 July 2005, with an overview of the constitutional and legal framework on enforced disappearances since the last visit of the Group in 1988. It highlights the existing gap between a highly sophisticated legal system and very poor concrete results of legal mechanisms. It contains recommendations to halt the ongoing situation of disappearances in the country, to protect the families of the victims and the NGOs working to locate the fate and whereabouts of the victims, to solve the situation of under-reporting of cases of disappearances due to fear and impunity, and to more effectively implement the existing legal mechanisms on disappearances in Colombia.

Before the Council is the report of the Independent Expert on minority issues, Gay McDougall (E/CN.4/2006/74), which was submitted as required by Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/79. The report provides a short background on developments within the United Nations system with regard to minority issues, among other things. The Expert highlights the significant benefits that accrue to States in recognizing and actively promoting minority group contributions. She notes that no other UN special procedures mandate provides an opportunity to look holistically at the positive value of minority inclusion. While other mechanisms address categories of violation that may be directed against minorities, the minority rights component of such violation is often neglected. The Independent Expert considers her mandate as essential to filling this gap. In her conclusions, the Expert says that respect for minority rights benefits States and societies in terms of securing the richness of cultural diversity, reflecting their full heritage and contributing to social cohesion.
The Council will also consider today the report (E/CN.4/2006/78) by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous People, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, who noted the gap in implementation between, on the one hand, the advances made by many countries in their domestic legislation, which recognizes indigenous peoples and their rights, and, on the other, the daily reality in which many obstacles to the effective enforcement of those legislative measures are encountered. The report describes some of the main obstacles and the measures taken to overcome them, illustrating the problem with examples from various regions. The report also provides information on communications and replies from Governments relating to allegations of human rights violations that were received and transmitted between 1 January and 31 December 2005, as well as information on follow-up to the missions undertaken by the Special Rapporteur. At the Commission’s request, the Special Rapporteur is also transmitting a progress report on the activities under way on best practices carried out to implement the recommendations contained in his reports (E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.4).
The report also contains the conclusions and recommendations of the International Seminars on Constitutional Reforms, Legislation and Implementation of Laws regarding the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, held in Geneva at the headquarters of the Inter-Parliamentary Union on 25 and 26 July 2005 and in Tucson, Arizona, at the College of Law of the University of Arizona from 12 to 14 October 2005 (E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.5) in support of the Special Rapporteur’s work in this area.
Mr. Stavenhagen undertook official country missions to South Africa (28 July to 8 August 2005) and New Zealand (2-11 November 2005), to observe the situation of the indigenous peoples. The mission reports are contained in documents E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.2 and 3 respectively.
Statements by the Special Procedures

STEPHEN J. TOOPE, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said the Working Group was the first United Nations human rights thematic mechanism to be established with a global mandate. Today, it was more active than ever before. In one year, it had clarified 1,309 cases, conducted two country visits, prepared a General Comment, and responded in a timely manner to sources and Governments. However, despite the clarification of over 7,000 cases by the Working Group in the past five years, the total number of cases under active consideration that had not yet been clarified or discontinued stood at over 40,000, and concerned 79 States. There was grave concern that of these States, the Governments of Burundi, Guinea, Israel, Mozambique, Namibia and the Seychelles, as well as the Palestinian Authority, had never replied to the Working Group’s requests for information, or its reminders. Other Governments had provided pro forma responses that did not contain relevant information. The Working Group urged those Governments to fulfil their obligations.

This year, for the first time, the Working Group had included in its annual report every country that had outstanding cases. In the present report, it noted with great concern the large number of reports of disappearances transmitted over the last year. The Working Group had used an urgent action procedure for 132 cases that allegedly occurred within the three months preceding the receipt of the cases by the Group. Today, enforced disappearance was a global problem not related to a specific region. While in the past disappearances could be blamed primarily on military dictatorships, mostly in Latin America, today there were also perpetrated in more complex situations of internal conflict, such as Colombia, Nepal, the Russian Federation, Iraq, and the Sudan. In other countries, such as Algeria and the Philippines, political repression of opponents resulted in hundreds of cases of disappearance. In some cases, radical political changes, such as in Iran, created conditions that led to hundreds of cases of disappearance.

While the mandate of the Working Group was limited to violations carried out by State actors or non-State actors acting with the involvement of the State, it recognised that in the context of internal armed conflict, rebel groups and other non-State actors were often responsible for disappearances, and these were condemned, irrespective by whom they were committed. The Working Group had highlighted four main areas of concern: first, reports it had received of the disappearance of children and, in a few cases, of people with physical and mental disabilities. It was also concerned with the harassment of and threats to human rights defenders, relatives of disappeared, witnesses and legal counsel. Third, it was gravely concerned that anti-terrorist activities were being used by an increasing number of States as an excuse for not respecting the obligations of the Declaration. Finally, it noted that in some post-conflict situations, mechanisms of truth and reconciliation were used as one of the ways of moving affected societies from war to peace, and from conflict to post-conflict Government, and was concerned that such circumstances could give rise to the enactment of amnesty laws and the implementation of other measures that led to the same result: impunity.

GAY J. MCDOUGALL, Independent Expert on minority issues, said her work had at its core promoting implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. She had identified four broad areas of concern relating to minorities globally, which would provide a legal and conceptual framework for her work: protecting a minority’s existence, including through protection of their physical integrity and the prevention of genocide; protecting and promoting the right of minority groups to enjoy their collective cultural identity and to reject forced assimilation; ensuring effective non-discrimination and equality, including structural or systematic discrimination; and ensuring effective participation of members of minorities in public life, especially with regard to decisions that affected them.

As the clock ticked on international efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Gaols by 2015, minorities and other communities that had faced long term endemic discrimination was failing to benefit from such efforts due to their often highly marginalized and excluded status. Discrimination against ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities was often linked in complex ways to disproportionate levels of poverty in those communities. Poverty could be both a cause and manifestation of the diminished rights and opportunities available to members of minority communities. In spite of the unprecedented global efforts under the Development Goals, there was a real danger that certain minority groups would slip through the net of current national development initiatives and remain among the poorest of the poor.

Exclusion, discrimination and racism directed at ethnic, religious and linguistic minority groups continued to fuel social unrest in every region of the world. Minority rights and policies of inclusion and equality played a vital role in promoting political and social stability. That had been recognized at the highest level of the UN and was notably re-stated in the outcome document of the 2005 World Summit of Heads of State and Government. When positive policies promoted social cohesion and no-discrimination, the results were to be seen in peaceful societies, proud of their rich cultural diversity, and benefiting from a property that was achieved by all and shared by all. Consistent with the terms of her mandate, she was devoting close attention in all aspects of her work to the particular situations facing women of minority groups. Women and girls from disadvantaged minority groups generally faced multiple forms of discrimination based on both their minority status and their gender. She thanked the Government of Hungary for its political will and dedication to address the needs of and the problems faced by minorities in general and, in particular, the Roma minority.
Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, said that the report focused on the gap in implementation between, on the one hand, the advances made by many countries in their domestic legislation, which recognizes indigenous peoples and their rights, and, on the other, the daily reality in which many obstacles to the effective enforcement of those legislative measures are encountered. The report described some of the main obstacles and the measures taken to overcome them, illustrating the problem with examples from various regions. The gap in implementation would only be closed once full participation of indigenous organizations and civil society was guaranteed, and they were given the opportunity to participate in a constructive fashion within the framework of national institutions aiming at solving conflicts and reaching consensus that would ultimately be to the benefit of society at large.
The Special Rapporteur added that the report also dealt with official country missions he undertook to South Africa (28 July to 8 August 2005) and New Zealand (2-11 November 2005), to observe the situation of the indigenous peoples. The mission reports were contained in documents E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.2 and 3 respectively. The Special Rapporteur welcomed the adoption by the Council in last June and during its first session of the Declaration on the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was an international instrument long awaited by the indigenous community and the human rights community at large. He expected the General Assembly to adopt this Declaration shortly, as it constituted a new tool to protect and promote the rights of indigenous people worldwide.

Statements by Concerned Countries

CARLOS FRANCO (Colombia), speaking as a concerned country, said in view of the presentation of the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances, Colombia had invited the Working Group as it had a policy of transparency, and also a policy of combating involuntary disappearances, with a large number of cases reported and investigated. The report contained many comments which had nothing to do with the mandate of the Working Group, such as the structure of ministries, the way in which armed groups and their collaborators were judged, and others. The report did not recognise the demands incorporated in a process of demobilisation. The peace process in Colombia had shown great concern for peace, justice, and reconciliation. The report contained serious claims that were without foundation.

The present Government had struck hard blows against paramilitary groups and their networks, leading to demobilisation, and the prosecution of their members. The report showed a different reality, and opinions contrary to this were not taken seriously. There had been important advances in Colombia in the last year, including that as of next month there would be a single registry of disappeared persons. Information had been collected to exhume at least 2,000 people who had been illegally buried. The national Commission for Justice and Reconciliation cared for the relatives of victims, and put pressure on the State to identify and judge those who were guilty. Colombia was committed to human rights for all, and would continue to work to this end.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI.(South Africa) said that it had only been twelve years since South Africa had achieved freedom from apartheid. In that short period, the people of South African had established a Constitutional order based on the ideals of democracy, good governance, the rule of law, and the respect for and observance of human rights. As South Africa entrenched democracy, the Government faced the challenge of rectifying more than 350 years of dispossession, domination, disenfranchisement and marginalization. Consequently, post-apartheid South Africa was still characterized by a society of haves and have-nots drawn mostly along racial lines. Necessarily, her Government had prioritised the re-ordering of the South African economy with the goal to address the poverty and underdevelopment that affected the vast majority of Black people. In terms of substantive equality, which was Constitutionally guaranteed, the Government had undertaken many concrete programmes and projects to advance the rights of indigenous peoples. Those included the resuscitation of languages, which were on the verge of extinction, the revival of cultural practices, heritage and indigenous knowledge systems.

For reasons of contextualizing South Africa’s political approach to the indigenous peoples issue, the commonly used definition of indigenous people, as articulated in the ILO Convention 107 on Indigenous and Tribal Populations and 169 on Indigenous and Tribal People in Independent Countries, could not be strictly applied to the South African situation. Those definitions, if literally applied to its situation, would effectively render all Black South Africans non-indigenous.

DON MACKAY (New Zealand), speaking as a concerned country, welcomed the opportunity to comment on the Special Rapporteur’s report on his visit to New Zealand in November of last year. New Zealand was one of a small number of countries that had issued a standing invitation to all United Nations Special Mechanisms, and it was on that basis that the Special Rapporteur visited New Zealand. The purpose of the Special Rapporteur’s visit was to gain a better understanding of the situation of Maori, the indigenous peoples of New Zealand, through discussions with relevant stakeholders on a range of complex legal, political, cultural, economic and social issues.

Maori, like all New Zealanders, New Zealand said, lived in a contemporary democracy that was by all standards participatory and inclusive. Arrangements in place for Maori took into account historical inequalities, and, as appropriate, encouraged self-management. A delicate balance could and must be struck between measures that might be put in place specifically for indigenous peoples and the imperative to avoid creating different classes of citizenship. New Zealand’s experience indicated that the two needed not be mutually exclusive.

GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador), speaking as a concerned country, said the important statement by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous peoples with regards to his official visit was appreciated, as was the positive spirit in which he made his comments. The report clearly asserted that Ecuador had advanced laws which recognised the collective rights of indigenous peoples. To some extent, it highlighted the lack of secondary laws to implement the higher Constitutional laws, and this assertion was partly true - there were major secondary legal norms, some of which the Special Rapporteur referred to.

There had been significant progress in the country over the last few years, through a number of institutions designed to improve the situation of indigenous peoples on many levels. This was highlighted in the report, but what was said about these institutions lacking a budget was not wholly. There was criticism of lacking infrastructure for indigenous peoples at the north border, and this was true, but this was a situation affecting rural populations. It was important to highlight the positive comments of the Special Rapporteur of the Government’s efforts and the efforts of Ecuadorian society over the last few years to come up with a Constitutional framework to protect indigenous peoples.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking as a concerned country, said that Argentina would soon receive the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances which had been invited to the country. Argentina would be proposing a draft resolution on the right to the truth during this session of the Council and the Working Group would make use of it. Argentina hoped that the Independent Expert on minorities would make more clear information on the funding of the trust fund for minorities, and Argentina was ready to indicate to her how to deal with the issue.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria), speaking as a concerned country, said Algeria did not agree with a paragraph in the report of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances which referred to enforced disappearances in Algeria as taking place today. Such disappearances had taken place in the 1990s, but were no longer taking place. In addition, responsibility for enforced disappearances lay at the door of terrorists and not at the Government’s door. Algeria fully supported the work of the Working Group to find a peaceful solution to the conflict but would not agree to any measures leading to impunity, as such would be an erroneous interpretation of the law. Algeria also praised the Special Rapporteur on minority rights for her report and her moral standing.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), speaking as a concerned country, said the sustained efforts of the Working Group to react to allegations on enforced disappearance throughout the world were appreciated, as was their work to clarify these. Morocco shared the satisfaction expressed by the Chair on the adoption of the Convention on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance by the Working Group, and wished the General Assembly to do this also, as it would be a valuable addition to the legal arsenal for the protection of human rights. On the work of the Working Group, greater coordination and cooperation was required between the Working Group and other United Nations bodies with related mandates to avoid overlaps. Particular attention should be paid to the outcome of investigations to make sure no political use was made of these.

Sources were fundamental to the work of the Working Group, and the reliability and relevance of the information of some should be examined, particularly when they were politically motivated. When a Government cooperated in good faith, then the burden of proof should be reversed and required of the source. Morocco was prepared to continue to work with the Group and to cooperate as required.

Interactive Dialogue

KIRSTI POHJANKUKKA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, asked the Chairperson of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances on how he intended to stress on good practices within the fight against terrorism in the context of enforced disappearances. How could he describe the situation of disappearances in Sri Lanka. With regard to minorities, how did the Independent Expert intend to promote equitable and equal respect for minorities, and how did she intend to disseminate good practices with the protection of indigenous peoples against discrimination. With regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedom of indigenous people, how could the instrument on indigenous peoples impact on his work. Could he evaluate access to the Council by the indigenous people and the synergy existing between the Council and the Permanent Forum.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland ) made reference to the report of the Independent Expert on minority issues where she spoke about the relation between armed conflicts affecting minority groups and stability in the country, as well as the relation between poverty and minority communities. Based on Ms. McDougall’s report, Switzerland wanted to know what, in the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, were the priorities to be adopted with reference to communities torn by violence and how multilateral international help had to be carried out taking account of the rights of minority groups. In addition, Switzerland addressed a question both to Mr. Stavenhagen and Ms. McDougall on whether they thought appropriate to keep a global forum for minority groups and indigenous peoples that would be linked to the Council and would foster dialogue among these bodies.

JUNEVER MAHILUM WEST (Philippines) said with regards to the report of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, it was very comprehensive, and the Working Group had done important work to clarify the status of reported disappearances throughout the world. Most of the reported cases in the report of disappearances in the Philippines referred back to the 1970s and 1980s when the Philippines was under martial law under former President Ferdinand Marcos. There was an ongoing trial in the Philippines in this regard, and the Working Group should take this information into consideration.

Regarding the recommendations following the Working Group’s visit to the Philippines in 1991, updates could be provided to the Working Group. Full details on a reported incident of disappearance and any updates should be conveyed to the Government concerned as soon as possible to help in tracing a missing person’s fate and whereabouts.

W. FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said that as a result of the close cooperation with the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, the number of un-clarified past cases had decreased substantially. That had also enabled the Government to address the misconception that Sri Lanka was a country with a large caseload of disappearances without clarifications. As a result of that constructive cooperation with the Group, adequate domestic mechanisms were in place to handle allegations and inquire into disappearances. Cases of alleged disappearance could be reported to the police stations as well as to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, among others.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples, this report rejected the application of special laws to common crimes committed in the framework of social struggles, and highlighted the case of some Mapuche leaders in Chile, who had been charged under the anti-terrorist law adopted in 1984. The Government had recently committed itself not to apply this law to future cases which could come before the ordinary courts, and the law could be amended in the future. The Government of Chile was committed to ratifying ILO Convention 169 as early as possible.

On the report on disappeared persons, Chile commended the work of the Working Group. Chile was mentioned as a country bearing the heavy burden of the past, with many cases remaining to be clarified. It was difficult, after more than 30 years, to do so, but Chile was committed to determining the fate of the disappeared, with truth, justice, and reconciliation, and would continue to report to the Working Group in this regard, where a lot of progress had been made. Enforced disappearances were not just a cause for the past, they were also one for the present, as the phenomenon continued.

JEAN-MAURICE RIPERT (France) praised the work of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances for its high quality. France attached great importance to the issue and particularly welcomed the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearances, which had been approved by consensus by the Council, and hoped the General Assembly would soon adopt it. France stressed the importance of national reconciliation, as well as the need to comply with international legislation and fight to combat impunity. France added that the work of peace-operations in this respect together with the cooperation of the High Commissioner were relevant. France asked the Working Group about how to deal appropriately with children affected by enforced disappearances and the ensuing impact on their families.

LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Cost Rica) said the phenomenon of disappearance did not emanate only from the States but also from non-state agents. There were more than 5,000 cases of disappearances that had been presented this year, which indicated that the phenomenon of disappearances was recurrent.

MARIE LOUISE OVERVAD (Denmark) said in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous peoples and its conclusions, Mr. Stavenhagen had highlighted that in order to close the implementation gap or the vacuum between existing legislation and administrative, legal and political practice, a programme of action for the human rights of indigenous peoples should address these, and the programme of action for the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples stressed the need to focus on the issue of implementation in its recommendations, and the speaker asked how the Special Rapporteur would propose to strengthen emphasis on this very important issue and what would be a practical approach in this regard.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala) said as the Chair of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances had said, the Working Group had visited Guatemala. Guatemala had presented its report to the Working Group, and had an exchange of views with Experts on the subject, with a clarification of cases. A follow-up visit had been held this year, and there had been progress in follow-up to recommendations. The results of the study were anticipated, and would be applied. Guatemala had supported the efforts of the Human Rights Council for the approval of the Conventions on Enforced Disappearances and on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the work of these two Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups should continue.

IDHAM MUSA MOKTAR (Malaysia) said that there was still a fundamental lack of clarity as to the definition of indigenous people in international discourse. The Government of Malaysia had been consistent in its policy of recognizing the rights of the indigenous group in the country. In bringing the indigenous people into the mainstream development process, the Government continued to exercise due respect and care for the cultural and historical heritage of its indigenous people. The mainstreaming was undertaken within the full ambit of the relevant legal provisions of the applicable laws in the country, including the case of disputes.

NADIA STUEWER (Canada) underlined the important role of the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances and the contribution of its members, including Chairman/Rapporteur Toope, to the elaboration of a legally binding instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances. Canada supported the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearances by the Council during its first session in June 2006. Canada asked how could the Working Group best complement this new instrument, and how could the international community further support changes at the national level to ensure accountability for the most serious international crimes, including the crime of enforced disappearances.

Canada also supported the important role played by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous people and commended him for working with the United Nations Forum on Indigenous Issues towards mainstreaming indigenous issues in the United Nations. The Special Rapporteur had so far visited eight countries. Could he speak of some of the challenges and obstacles that he faced. Of the eight countries that he had visited, indigenous populations were identified in seven of them. The issue of the definition of indigenous groups remained a topic of debate.

HASMIK SIMONYAN (Armenia) said Armenia attached particular attention to minority issues, and had unequivocally supported and co-sponsored the resolution establishing the mandate of the Independent Expert, which should fill the existing protection gap, and contribute to the mainstreaming and coherent action on minority issues. The Independent Expert should closely cooperate with existing relevant United Nations bodies, mandates and mechanisms. Her views and approach, including those on the scope of the mandate, methods of work and parameters were welcomed. Work done by other bodies as well as future deliberations of the newly established advisory committee on genocide prevention would help to elaborate a set of tools and indicators for identifying concerns.

VEBJORN HEINES (Norway) said the report by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous people had a strong focus on the situation for indigenous peoples in Latin America, and future reports should deal with the rights of indigenous people also in other regions, and the Special Rapporteur was invited to Norway. Several recommendations called for stronger participation by representatives of indigenous peoples in national decision-making processes. The views of the Special Rapporteur on how the Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples could contribute to bridging the gap between laws for protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and their practical implementation would be appreciated, as would be to what extent did the United Nations country teams presently give attention to indigenous issues.

PAULA BARTON (United States) said that the international community did not always agree with the position of the United States Government with regard to the measures applied against terrorists. President Bush had clarified last week the treatment of suspected terrorists and the ICRC had been informed about the situation.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI ( Japan) praised the Chairperson of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances for his report and the earnest efforts made in the pursuit of his mandate. It was true that some of the efforts had not borne fruit yet, but it was not the responsibility of the Working Group as for instance the Working Group had not receive enough support from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Japan supported the adoption of the new International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearances. Japan said that the support of the international community was indispensable.

ALEJANDRO NEYRA (Peru) said Peru shared the concern of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous peoples on the implementation gap which he had focused on, as States often fell down when it came to implementing the international norms and instruments. Consolidating a body of legal texts which made it possible to make certain actions binding and which could protect such vulnerable groups as indigenous peoples was also necessary. The system of creation of international norms for the rights of indigenous peoples had recently been strengthened.

Peru hoped that the work of the Special Rapporteur on indigenous people would be backed up and would like the opinion of the Special Rapporteur on the instrument and the possible improvements that could be made to it. It was States’ obligation to ensure that these norms became a reality. Peru had various norms in the field of protection, and had national institutions aimed at implementing them. Peru was aware that norms did not solve problems, and practice was more difficult than was thought, and the Special Rapporteur should give his opinion on drawing up an International Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations.

BERT THEUERMANN (Austria) said with regards to the questions that Finland had posed for the European Union, the report of the Independent Expert on minority issues had been very interesting, in particular the identification of priorities and how Ms. McDougall intended to carry out the mandate. More should be said on ongoing cooperation with United Nations actors engaged on gender issues. The substantive challenges which were facing minorities but were not properly addressed by other mandates should also be further detailed, as should be what were the more positive results and obstacles within the United Nations system itself.

SOCORRO ROVIROSA PRIEGO (Mexico) thanked the Special Procedures for their valuable reports and underscored the importance of the interactive dialogue that was being carried out, as it brought forth the relationship among all the different human rights and also with minority groups. Mexico thanked the valuable contribution made by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous people for his recommendation made upon his visit to the country. Mexico was following up on his recommendations, and in that sense it had organized a number of seminars on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Mexico praised the report of the Special Rapporteur with reference to tools on the implementation of best practices. Mexico stressed the importance for the General Assembly to quickly adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearances.

ALICIA MARTIN (Nicaragua) referring to the report on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedom of indigenous people, said that most of the Latin American countries had amended their law books and had recognized the rights of indigenous people. Nicaragua had made progress in treating its indigenous people. It had recognized the rights of those peoples, and accommodated their requests. Nicaragua would also continue to promote and protect the rights of its indigenous people and applied international conventions applicable to them.

JONNY SINAGA (Indonesia) said all three Special Procedures had made excellent presentations. Indonesia recognised the need for special protection for indigenous peoples, and this was in the Constitution of Indonesia. It was a daunting task, and new legislation was being drafted to protect all ethnic groups, including indigenous peoples. A definition to be used by States, given the uniqueness and particularity of every State, should be given, which could be used universally.

MAHMOUD KHARI JVEYABAD (Iran) said with regard to enforced and involuntary disappearances, the job of the Special Rapporteur was very delicate, and required meticulous attention to all cases. The report contained some references to Iran that required clarification, and this should be made. The role of non-State actors and others in countries around Iran should be carefully considered.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said the discussion of the report of the Working Group on forced disappearances was welcomed. The cases against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been fundamentally resolved, but they were described as outstanding, due to political manoeuvres by Japan, aimed at discrediting the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The Working Group should take steps to remove these political manipulations. Japan should stop its pursuit of the political game immediately.

TANIA BALDWIN, of Amnesty International, asked how the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances could contribute to help the situation in Sri Lanka. Did the Group address requests for information to the Government of Sri Lanka, and if so what was the response? President Bush had said that the terrorists under detention had provided valuable information during their investigation; how did the Group see that situation?

MOHAMED ASHAN, of Interfaith International, said concerning the Independent Expert on minority issues, it might be appropriate to note one particular case as a subject for further study, i.e. the question of provincial autonomy as in Pakistan. In Pakistan there was a conglomeration of various ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious groups that chose to live in a shared geographic entity on the basis of a common historical experience. The Special Rapporteur should undertake such problems where they existed within a State.

S. BOKULIC, of Minority Rights Group International, said the Independent Expert on minority issues was essential for addressing minority rights violations. No other United Nations mandate covered this issue, and her work was essential for filling this gap, and for strengthening the promotion and protection of this issue in many countries. The benefits of dialogue were multiple, and Governments should ensure they did this, as it would lead to the strengthening of the implementation of minority rights. In the light of the tremendous contribution the Independent Expert was making, the mandate should be made permanent. Representatives of minority civil society appreciated her work, and reiterated that the mandate should be preserved.

LES MALEZER, of Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, said the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people was excellent, and country performances should be examined against his recommendations. All countries should cooperate with the procedures used by the Special Rapporteur, in particular Botswana. The Government of New Zealand should give constitutional recognition to the Treaty of Waitangi. The best practices contained in the report should be used as a guideline for all Governments on how to address indigenous issues within their jurisdiction.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Moument contre le racisme et pour l’amitie entre les peoples (MRAP), said with reference to the case of the Panchen Lama of Tibet, China, the Movement remained deeply concerned about the disappearance of Gedhum Choekyi Nyima and his parents, and requested the Working Group to update the Council about its current efforts on this outstanding case.

RHODA DALANG, of International Workgroup for Indigenous Affairs, in a joint statement with International Indian Treaty Council, said that 96 indigenous peoples had been assassinated in the Philippines and such killings against human rights activists had continued. Outrage over the political killings had been raised by various sectors and organizations in the country as well as in the international community. Indigenous peoples together with the rest of the people continued their call for justice and to put an end to the killings.

Concluding Statements

STEPHEN J. TOOPE, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances, responding to the questions and issues, said he thanked the speakers. The Working Group worked in close contact with Governments and non-governmental organizations. With regards to Colombia, the Government had invited the Working Group, and had cooperated fully. There had been many complaints but few effective cases. The demobilisation of paramilitaries was a key theme of the report, and it was absolutely true that justice and peace required a balance, and the Government should be aware of the General Comment on article 18 of the Convention, which treated that delicate balance. Part of the justice and peace law had not been upheld by the courts. The news that the national search plan would be actively funded was welcomed. Laws in Colombia were already strongly written. The Working Group hoped the Government would review recommendations clearly.

There was a typographical error in the reference to Algeria made in the written statement, and these were indeed concluded. However, Algeria should also be aware of the General Comment on article 18 on mitigation, as this was not tied to any country situation. Morocco had cooperated extensively, and the Government was commended. The suggestion that the burden of proof be moved to the source to clarify allegations was not accepted, and the Working Group would maintain its current balance in this regard. On the questions of the European Union on the fight against terrorism, the public acknowledgement of detention was central to work. Extradition should take place in the context of established criminal procedures. The Government of Sri Lanka continued to cooperate with the Working Group, but there was concern that patterns of the 1980s and 1990s were starting to emerge once more.

There would be a clear role for the Working Group with any body set up under the Convention, Mr. Toope said. The problem of non-State actors troubled the entire human rights system of the United Nations, and there were two distinct issues: where non-State actors connived with the State, then the State was considered responsible. The difficulty was when these armed groups were in opposition to the State, in which case the Working Group could only condemn these cases. Rendition was outside any legal framework, and the Working Group encouraged the use of extradition and criminal assistance programmes rather than rendition. The removal of the secret detainees to Guantanamo was welcomed. The cases in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had not been clarified, as families involved had not accepted the explanation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

GAY MCDOUGALL, Independent Expert on minority issues, expressed her appreciation to governmental and NGO speakers for their support of her mandate. With reference to a number of questions from the floor, Ms. McDougall addressed them by making some general comments. On the question of her view on how to undertake conflict prevention, something that was brought up by Finland, Switzerland and others, focus had to be on early-warning, a structural answer - including poverty - and a close look at the situation and treatment of minorities that might deteriorate with time and result in conflict. In addition, it was important to work closely with Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Special Advisor to Prevent Genocide, the Peace-Building Commission, and other bodies that dealt with the centrality of minority rights and their treatment in conflict prevention.

On technical assistance Ms. McDougall said that her office was assisting Iraq with reference to its legal framework. In Iraq many people were struggling to rebuild a legal foundation to a peaceful society.

With reference to the question by Switzerland on her view of the establishment of a global forum for minority groups, Ms. McDougall supported that initiative, and found that that forum in conjunction with the Council could facilitate a dialogue, bring in the voices of minority groups and help to provide sustainable solutions. The minority community had to be heard throughout the United Nations system.

On best practices, and on how to develop and disseminate them, Ms. McDougall said it was of the greatest assistance to conduct country visits. Best practices had to be seen in context and entailed dialogue on the ground. She urged other governments to be agreeable to her consulting and seeing the situation in the field.

RODOLFO STAVENHAGEN, Special Rapporteur on human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, said that he had taken careful note of the questions and comments of the delegates. Concerning the issue of definition, raised by speaker from South Africa, it was not up to the Rapporteur or the Council to use the concepts of indigenous peoples used by different countries. In a number of African and Asian countries, legislation was being drafted with regard to indigenous peoples. A number of other countries had also raised the issue of rights in which they said that indigenous peoples had the same rights as the rest of the population. He called for those countries to provide data indicating the number of indigenous people enjoying access to services. Some States were applying polices in the promotion and protection of indigenous people.

Consideration should be given to the indigenous people in accordance to ILO Convention 169 on the rights of indigenous people. When development or construction plans were considered, the situation of the indigenous people should be given high priority. Those who had been evicted from their lands should be able to return to their lands. The adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People by the Council was significant for the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. The adoption of national legislation in line with the Declaration, which had been submitted to the Assembly General, would also help in fostering the rights of indigenous peoples. The Permanent Forum would also strengthen the foundation of the indigenous rights.

Right of Reply

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the statement made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, this was not a political game. The abduction issue was a grave violation of human rights, and was an issue of international concern. After acknowledging and apologising for the acts of abduction, no satisfactory explanation had been provided on the fates of the victims. Japan’s families, people and Government could not accept the claim that the issue had been resolved, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea should provide Japan with relevant information and allow the abductees to return to their country without delay. This important human rights issue should be resolved promptly.

JUNEVER MAHILUM WEST (Philippines), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the intervention made by the Cordillera’s People’s Alliance, a joint letter had been received from two Special Rapporteurs regarding this case, and the authorities were investigating and would convey a response as soon as possible. As for the other issue, the speaker was referred to the appropriate agenda item.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said the unsubstantiated allegations made by Japan, the issue had been completely and fundamentally resolved, with nothing left out. Japan had made despicable attempts as part of political purposes in the context of its ongoing hostility towards the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and in efforts to bury the past crimes against humanity which it had committed during the Second World War. These crimes could never disappear simply by clamouring about a situation that had been resolved. Japan should throw away its antagonism, and settle the situation of the past.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in a right of reply, said Japan could not accept the claim that this issue had been resolved in a situation where satisfactory responses had not been given. This was a humanitarian issue. Japan acknowledged the facts of history with sincere feelings of remorse. However, this should not be used to justify abductions which were an ongoing violation of human rights. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea should cooperate with Japan, and the figures stated by that country were unsubstantiated.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said the Japanese allegations were rejected, and the case had been completely resolved, and nothing had been left out. The Japanese commission of crimes against humanity were referred to as these were related to the valuable lives of human persons and not animals. Korean nationals lives were dear and valuable to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Japan was a chauvinistic and xenophobic country, and had shown this in the past, and this was also shown through the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism, presented yesterday. Japan should settle its past crimes, rather than arrogantly pointing the fingers at others.

* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record