HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS DEBATE ON VARIOUS ISSUES

Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON

3 October 2006


The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a brief general debate on initiatives, issues, decisions and resolutions affecting its work during which speakers raised a range of subjects.

An issue raised by several speakers was to whom the Council’s report should be transmitted, whether to the General Assembly or to the Third Committee. Speakers pointed out that the report should not be transmitted to a subsidiary body, and that it was up to the General Assembly to decide what to do with the report once it had received it. The President of the Council said that this was a matter of procedure which remained to be clarified after discussion.

Speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Brazil, Finland for the European Union, Cuba, Algeria, China, Argentina, and Switzerland.

The next session of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Wednesday 4 October, when it is scheduled to consider the joint report by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights of internally displaced persons, and the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living on their mission to Lebanon and Israel, as well as the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food on his mission to Lebanon.

Statements

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said seven points deserved attention and merited reflection on the part of the Human Rights Council. First was that the Human Rights Council should present its report to the General Assembly and not to the Third Committee. Second, Brazil attached importance to the growing role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the Human Rights Council, and the rules of procedure of NGOs participation should be that of ECOSOC. Third, human rights in all countries should be scrutinised and examined by all countries, and this was the key concept underlying the Universal Periodic Review, which would be instrumental in eliminating political selectivity. Fourth, rationalisation of mandates should not be interpreted as a possibility for restriction on mandates, nor on restrictions to mandate holders. Fifth, priority for the implementation of decisions, resolutions and initiatives should go hand in hand with the idea of covering new human rights issues resulting in the change of society. Sixth, the exercise of having more effective treaty bodies should not lose sight of the need to preserve the specificities of all treaty bodies. Seventh, Brazil had three initiatives dealing with the right to health, access to medication, and the incompatibility between racism and democracy.

VESA HIMANEN (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that it was important that the Council demonstrate in practice its ability to respond to the different aspects of its mandate. The European Union welcomed the exchange of views taking place under ‘other issues.’ In this context, the European Union wanted to emphasize that to allow the Council to develop to its full potential, all Governments must extend their full cooperation to the Council and its mechanisms.

The European Union attached great importance to the Council’s mandate to contribute towards the prevention of human rights violations and respond promptly to human rights emergencies. In this context, it was important that this session of the Council addressed decisively the currently alarming human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur, and sought meaningful ways to prevent further escalation of violence.

The European Union was committed to promoting lasting peace and security in the Middle East. This had been demonstrated recently through the European Union’s active commitment to assist the Lebanese Government in meeting emergency, humanitarian and environmental needs and taking forward the required reforms.

The promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law were key areas of focus in the European Union’ relations with Iraq. The aim was to assist Iraq in implementing the Government’s human rights strategy and in abiding by its human rights commitments.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said Cuba believed that the annual report of the Council should be sent to the Third Committee. The General Assembly resolution 60/251, spoke of impartiality, universality and non-selectivity, and States were expected to cooperate on the basis of such principles. The path was to rationalize the mandates and not to repeat the past mistakes and not to retrieve the old viruses back into the Council.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) said with regards to the issue of transmitting the report of the Human Rights Council to the General Assembly, it was normal for this to happen, and then it was up to the Assembly to decide what it would do with the report, whether to have it discussed in plenary, or to refer it to a further Committee, and it was up to the General Assembly to decide on this, and therefore no debate was necessary.

ZHANG YI (China) said that it was China’s understanding that the General Assembly had taken the decision that the reports of the Council would be taken up by the Third Committee. China noted that resolution 60/251 specified that annual reports of the Council had to be submitted to the General Assembly. China asked the President on whether the Council’s session report had also to be presented to the General Assembly.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said that there should be follow-up measures to the adoption of the Optional Protocol on the Convention against Torture. Argentina welcomed the entry into force of the treaty. The future advisory body that was envisaged to replace the Sub-Commission should receive adequate resources in order to carry out its mandate. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had already sought resources. The membership of the future body would be decided at the beginning of next year when the Council would be in session.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said in the first few months of its existence, the Council still needed to make progress to fully implement the spirit of cooperation that the Secretary-General of the United Nations had urged at its creation. In order to ensure better cooperation, all should opt for a rights-based approach, as this would allow for a more common language. It would be an illusion to try to eliminate politics, but positions should be based on universally recognised principles. A diplomacy based on the principle of good faith, cooperation and dialogue should be preferred.

Switzerland had always advocated the full participation of non-governmental organizations and civil society in the work of the Council, including those not given consultative status by ECOSOC. Switzerland would make available the necessary funds to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure the Council’s deliberations would be transmitted on the webcast. There was great concern for the violation of human rights and humanitarian law in Darfur, and all parties should cooperate to bring an end to this, as well as to impunity.

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