HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS REVIEW, RATIONALIZATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FOR MANDATES ON INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES AND ON TORTURE

Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON
4 June 2008

Concludes General Debate on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a review, rationalization and improvement process for the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and for the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Introducing the motion to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Hungary said judicial independence was a prerequisite to the rule of law and was a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. But it was still under attack throughout the world and occurred daily. The mandate was an important part of the Special Procedures and its renewal was strongly supported.

Leandro Despouy, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said that the independence of judges and lawyers was crucial in promoting the rule of law and democratic process and the respect of human rights. He hoped that the mandate would be re-evaluated in terms of the need for the necessary human and financial resources to fulfil the mandate.

Introducing the motion to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Denmark said despite the universal condemnation of torture, men, women and children in all parts of the world continued to be inflicted by acts of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was highly relevant and well-functioning.

Manfred Nowak, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said the practice of torture struck at the very heart of human rights. There was no part of the globe where torture was not found. In some corners torture was what passed for everyday police work. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture had played a key role in raising international awareness and steering progress in combating torture worldwide.

Delegations supported the extension of the mandates. They said that there was still work to be done on the freedom of judges and lawyers around the world. The realization of human rights was not possible without the independence of the judiciary. Torture was still one of the most evil violations of human rights, and despite global rejection of this practise, it still prevailed worldwide. The importance of Special Procedures working according to the Code of Conduct was underlined.

Speaking on the extension of the mandates were Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Cuba, India, Argentina, Ecuador, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, Switzerland, Canada, Turkey, Chile and Norway.

Also speaking were representatives of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, Association for the Prevention of Torture and the Commission Juridica para el Autodesarollo de los Pueblos Originarios Andinos,

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its general debate on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.

Bacre Ndiaye, Director of the Human Rights Council and Treaties Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that he would briefly describe four reports on the right to development; the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism: the question of the death penalty; and fundamental standards of humanity.

In the general debate, speakers raised a number of issues, including the universality and indivisibility of all human rights; the plight of internally displaced persons around the world; the fine balance which existed in preserving the need to have effective counter terrorist strategies and respect for international human rights law; the importance of the Human Rights Council’s Special Procedure and the Universal Periodic Review in promoting and protecting human rights around the world; the death penalty; the right to self-determination; the right to development; and the world food crisis, among others.

Speaking in the general debate were Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Russian Federation, Italy, Pakistan, Indonesia, Switzerland, Malaysia, Japan, Oman, and Morocco.

Also speaking were the International Movement against All forms of discrimination and Racism, Union of Arab Jurists, North South XXI, Society for Threatened Peoples, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, International NGO Forum on Indonesian development, Interfaith International, Liberation, International Educational Development, International PEN, Indian Council of South America, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, Mbororo Social and cultural Development Society, France Liberte: Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, Union de l’Action Feminine, American Association of Jurists and Centrist Democratic International.

Exercising the right of reply were Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, India, China and Pakistan.

When the Council meets at 9 a.m. on Thursday, 5 June, it will continue with its review, rationalization and improvement of mandate process with regards to extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, right to education, trafficking of humans, especially women and children, human rights of migrants, human rights and transnational corporations, and human rights and extreme poverty.


Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers

ORSOLYA TOTH (Hungary), introducing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said Hungary attached outmost importance to this mandate. It was as relevant today as when it had been introduced in 1994, in light of the many human rights violations still prevalent around the world. Judicial independence was a prerequisite for the rule of law and was a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. But it was still under attack daily throughout the world. Those working in the judiciary were at risk, especially when they were prominent human rights defenders. The mandate had provided a very valuable contribution with regard to the right to a fair trial, but also with regard to freedom of expression and the impact of counter-terrorism measures on human rights. The mandate was an important part of the Special Procedures and its renewal was strongly supported.

LEANDRO DESPOUY, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, recalling that the mandate had been established in 1994, said that next year the mandate would celebrate its fifteenth anniversary. Important achievements had been accomplished since then. It was important to discontinue laws or internal provisions that impacted on the independence of lawyers and judges. If one wanted to analyse the impact of the work carried out by the mandate, and the results of numerous contacts with non-governmental organizations, it was clear that emergency interventions had an immediate impact in crisis situations. His country visit to Ecuador had been an illustration of that. Independence was crucial in promoting the rule of law and democratic process and the respect of human rights. These were some of the many reasons for the positive review of this mandate, which should also be re-evaluated in terms of the need for the necessary human and financial resources to fulfil the mandate.

ANDREJA KORINSEK (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, noted that the European Union attached great importance to this mandate. It had contributed to the freedom of judges and lawyers. But there was still work to be done. Experience showed that those who worked in the judicial system were targets, especially if they were involved in human rights. There was therefore a continued need for this mandate, which was an essential part of the system of Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. The European Union strongly supported the renewal of the mandate for this Special Rapporteur. The mandate had always enjoyed consensus and the European Union hoped that it would get the same support now.

SYED ALI ASAD GILLANI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the Organization of the Islamic Conference attached great importance to this mandate. The realization of human rights was not possible without the independence of the judiciary. The mandate was supported. It was further hoped that the Special Rapporteur would fulfil his mandate with respect to the Code of Conduct.

YURI GALA (Cuba) said that Cuba attached great importance to all the mandates of Special Procedures in the Council, which were a valid means to achieving tangible progress on human rights. For that reason, Cuba continued to support the thematic Special Rapporteurs. It also underscored the importance of the Code of Conduct. The lawyers and judges mandate was and continued to be very relevant to human rights machinery and in general to the international community, so as to have access to justice which should be through independent magistrates. The right to a fair trial was another important reason to continue the mandate. Military tribunals and people who were illegally imprisoned throughout the planet were concrete reasons to continue the work of the mandate. Such an example was the well known case of five Cubans unfairly imprisoned in the United States for 10 years. Cuba would continue to negotiate on the draft resolution. Further, they congratulated Leandro Despouy who conducted his work with high quality and transparency.

RAJIV KUMAR CHANDER (India) thanked the delegation of Hungary and the Special Rapporteur. The judiciary was an essential part of democracy and was a check and balance against powers of the executive. India fully supported the continuation of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) reiterated Argentina's commitment to the universal system of promotion and protection of human rights, especially the Special Procedures. Since the beginning of the review, rationalization and improvement of mandates process, Argentina had supported the renewal of mandates. This mandate was a very important one and it had formulated very important recommendations. The Special Rapporteur was thanked for his vital contributions

JUAN HOLGUIN (Ecuador) said that the most important aim was to consolidate a democratic process. Ecuador was a country that had suffered from an institutional crisis, where they had been stripped of their Constitutional Court in a non-constitutional manner. However, they had been able to recover in part thanks to the suggestions made by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Despouy. Today, Ecuador had a more stable system of democracy. Ecuador would continue to defend and endorse that idea.

BRENDA VUKOVIC, of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, was pleased by the support the Human Rights Council was giving the issue of judicial independence. The Permanent Assembly supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. It was also pleased by the fact that the Council had expanded the scope of the mandate. Tribute was also paid to the work done by Mr. Despouy.

LUKAS MACHON, of International Commission of Jurists, shared the concerns about growing threats against judges, including acts of intimidation and physical attacks. Such incidents were often compounded by impunity, resulting in failure to observe international standards. A strong, independent judiciary was a key component of the rule of law and the protection of human rights, including in times of emergency. Also, influencing the appointment of judges – as was the case in Sri Lanka – had to be stopped immediately. The Special Rapporteur had demonstrated that his mandate could provide valuable guidance on this complex issue. The renewal of the mandate was supported.

PATRIZIA SCANNELLA, of Amnesty International, said that, since its establishment in 1994, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers had contributed substantially and effectively towards the protection and enhancement of the independence of the administration of justice. The Special Rapporteur had gained considerable recognition by States, non-governmental organizations and other actors. The communications with Governments and reports from previous country visits showed that many States had entered into a dialogue with the Special Rapporteur with the aim of strengthening the protection and enhancing the independence of the administration of justice in their country. Further, the report also showed serious problems remained acute, where many States did not comply with the international human rights standards and failed to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur.

LEANDRO DESPOUY, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, in concluding remarks, was pleased that those who had spoken had underscored the importance of the mandate. They highlighted that justice was the pillar on which democratic States built their institutions, as well as the pillar that supported human rights. Justice, indeed, was the practical guardian of human rights. The continued support of non-governmental organizations was needed. That dialogue was very important. Special Procedures needed an organic dialogue. He also thanked the countries that had invited him to make country visits. There was also a need to include what had been done by the Special Procedures in the Universal Periodic Review.

ORSOLYA TOTH (Hungary), wrapping up the discussion on this mandate, thanked all delegations for their remarks and for the demonstrated support for the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. It showed that the mandate remained relevant for the years to come. It was hoped that the mandate would be renewed by consensus and Hungary looked forward to the adoption of the relevant resolution.

Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman Or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment

HANS GRUNNET (Denmark), introducing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, recalled that 20 years ago the Commission of Human Rights had adopted the mandate, which had been the first Special Procedure to be established. Nevertheless, and despite the universal condemnation of torture, men, women and children in all parts of the world continued to be inflicted by acts of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Those methods were still used to extract confessions and to intimidate, and torturers continued to inflict physical agony and mental anguish.

Perpetrators also continued to get away despite the obvious obligation of all Governments to bring them to justice. A culture of impunity must not prevail. It was not the responsibility of the Special Rapporteur to eradicate torture, but rather that of States. However, the Special Rapporteur remained integral to the effort in assisting States in doing so. The current and previous Special Rapporteurs had consistently raised awareness and advocated for the worldwide implementation of the international standards relating to the absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. They have responded rapidly to large numbers of credible and reliable threats of torture and ill-treatment by regularly transmitting allegation letters and appeals to Governments. The Special Rapporteurs had also contributed to international standard-setting and provided in-depth analysis and recommendations on key issues, trends and developments related to torture and other forms of ill-treatment, including corporal punishment; counter-terrorism measures; cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; diplomatic assurances; and effective investigation of torture.

In their work the Special Rapporteurs had closely cooperated with Governments, civil society and all other relevant actors, including relevant United Nations bodies. Denmark firmly believed that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was highly relevant and a well-functioning mandate, and should be renewed.

MANFRED NOWAK, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said the practice of torture struck at the very heart of human rights. Two decades on, the relevance of the Human Rights Council to continue to scrutinize and combat the practice of torture had not diminished. There was no part of the globe where torture was not found. In some corners torture was what passed for everyday police work. Most disturbing was the trend by States towards accepting that torture of persons was an unfortunate but tolerable risk in the fight against terrorism. The Special Rapporteur drew attention to credible individual allegations through communications transmitted to Governments. Concerning country situations, it was the Special Rapporteur who was invited by a State to assess the practice of torture in a country. Through country visits, the mandate had served as an effective catalyst for public debate and the situation of torture and impunity. Since the establishment of the mandate, knowledge and understanding of the entire scope of the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had been deepened.

Perhaps the most fundamental role the Special Rapporteur performed was to be the conscience and spokesperson for the standards and norms against the practice of torture, Mr. Nowak said. Recognizing that it was States that had the primary obligation to ensure respect for the absolute prohibition of torture, addressing and preventing human rights violations were more effective when viewed as a common undertaking and achieved through coordination and partnership. The Special Rapporteur exercised leadership that drew together the various interested actors.

Unfortunately, non-cooperation by some allowed avoidances of any international scrutiny of the situations of torture and ill-treatment, Mr. Nowak lamented. While the Universal Periodic Review could partially address some issues, he appealed to the Council and observers to intensify their efforts to promote cooperation and responsiveness. The mandate of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture had played a key role in raising international awareness and steering progress in combating torture worldwide, he concluded.

ANDREJA KORINSEK (Slovenia), speaking of behalf of the European Union, said that torture was one of the most evil violations of human dignity. It was a deliberate betrayal of human values. Despite the global rejection of torture, it still prevailed worldwide. Moreover, it was done secretly. States had to ensure that cases were prosecuted diligently and without delay. States had to hold responsible every individual tolerating, giving orders to conduct or conducting torture. The Special Rapporteur played an important role in this field. He received communications from Governments and other relevant actors and could conduct visits. The visits allowed him to gain knowledge of situations and to clarify them. The monitoring of international trends was another aspect of the mandate. The cooperation the mandate enjoyed with other Governments, organizations, civil society, and United Nations bodies was important. When renewing this mandate, the European Union was confident that the Council could continue the longstanding tradition of adopting resolutions by consensus.

NATALIA ZOLOTOVA (Russian Federation) said that Russia shared the view that the issue of fighting torture was important work, and supported the ongoing nature of the current mandate. The legal framework was the decision of intergovernmental bodies on human rights – such bodies as the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. Regarding methods of work, those could be found in the Code of Conduct for the Special Procedures. Broadening the scope of the legal framework was not acceptable. In that connection, Russia asked if Mr. Novak felt that the Code of Conduct should be changed. Further, the mandate for the Special Rapporteur was normally for a period of three years. The Council should decide if the mandate should be continued, or a new Special Rapporteur should continue. Mr. Novak's mandate had finished one year ago, but had been extended like many others. The Russian Federation urged the Council to look at the list of mandate holders and review them.

RAFAEL GARCIA COLLADA (Cuba) noted that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture had been established in 1985. Since that date, it had been a key tool in combating violations of human rights. Cuba recognized the work of the Special Rapporteur. Despite all of the efforts to reduce torture, however, that practice continued and the international community continued to be shocked. Cuba recalled the existence today of clandestine prisons. It also noted that the category of "illegal enemy combatants" was being used to hold persons within the context of the War on Terror. Those were reasons enough to continue the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

DICKY KOMAR (Indonesia) said that Indonesia supported the mandate, which was very much in line with Indonesia’s ongoing efforts to combat torture. However, there were some concerns with the way the current mandate holder exercised his mandate. The major concern was the Special Rapporteur’s liberal interpretation of the Code of Conduct in conducting his country visit to Indonesia. It was imperative to prepare such a visit in a coordinated and comprehensive manner. His demand for letter of authorization and unannounced visits were a unilateral interpretation of the Code of Conduct. Such interpretations dishonoured the principle of cooperation and genuine dialogue. Indonesia was keen to see the mandate continued, but those inappropriate methods had to be rectified.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said that torture and ill-treatment were the worst violations of human rights. What the first Special Rapporteur for this mandate had said 23 years ago was still true today. Switzerland's priority in its human rights policy was the fight against torture. Switzerland therefore supported the prolongation of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. The Special Rapporteur’s work was especially integral to the transmission of communications to Governments, whether letters of allegations or recommendations. The Special Rapporteur also played an important role through his thematic actions, which continued to be an essential part in the analysis of transnational issues. Switzerland urged States to continue to invite the Special Rapporteur to make country visits and to accept the recommendations made.

JOHN VON KAUFMANN (Canada) said the Special Rapporteur on torture had made important strides in fulfilling his mandate. There were several instruments that were used to ban torture. Regrettably, however, there were many places where the use of torture continued. Canada continued to be committed to the ban on torture and supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. The Human Rights Council had an obligation to continue paying attention to this issue. Their collective support for the renewal of this mandate was important. Canada also stressed the need for States to accept country visits, which was essential to the success of the mandate.

TUGBA SARAYONLU ETENSEL (Turkey) said that Turkey supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, as one of the key mechanisms established by the United Nations in this field. The holders of the mandate had contributed to the cause of the total elimination of torture. Despite all efforts, torture continued around the world. The mandate was a great contribution to those efforts. Furthermore, Turkey supported the adoption of a gender-sensitive approach in the fight against torture.

RODRIGO DONOJO (Chile) said that the mandate on torture was of great importance. The recovery of democracy had improved the situation in Chile. Special Procedures had greatly contributed in preserving democracy in Chile. The work of the Special Rapporteur was in direct connection with the promotion and protection of human rights and as such Chile strongly supported the continuation of the mandate.

BEATE STIRO (Norway) expressed strong and continued support for the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and congratulated Mr. Nowak for his work. Norway continued to be impressed by his analysis. Norway supported his efforts and welcomed the high number of country visits he had made, which were seen as essential to the mandate. It was fundamental to maintain a strong focus on State obligations to eliminate torture. They needed the contribution of the Special Rapporteur in common efforts to eradicate torture. Norway strongly supported the renewal of the mandate on torture.

CECILIA R. V. QUISUMBING, of Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, in a joint statement with National Consultative Commission on Human Rights of France, National Commission for Human Rights of Togo, Ugandan Human Rights Commission, Advisory Council on Human Rights of Morocco, expressed their full support for the renewal of the mandate. The work of the Special Rapporteur was commended. Protection of women from torture was a topic of concern and needed more attention. Focused attention also had to be paid to the tendency to try to relativize the absolute prohibition of torture in the context of crime and terrorism. The Special Rapporteur was also encouraged to continue its close cooperation with the Committee against Torture and the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture.

LUKAS MACHON, of the International Commission of Jurists, said that the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had been increasingly threatened by States’ laws and practices. That had been true in the efforts to develop and use excessive interrogation techniques involving torture and other ill-treatment, or by States' attempts to return people, in particular terrorism suspects, to countries where they would be at risk of being subject to torture or ill-treatment. The enjoyment of freedom from torture and ill-treatment was facilitated through the complementary and also absolute obligation of non-refoulement, which prohibited return of people to countries where they might face a risk of torture or ill-treatment. The obligation not to return could not be constrained because of national security or counter-terrorism concerns. The International Commission of Jurists also recalled that diplomatic assurances did not establish adequate safeguards for protecting people from torture and ill-treatment to satisfy the obligation of non-refoulement.

MARINA NARVAEZ, of Association for the Prevention of Torture, in a joint statement with World Organization against Torture and International Federation of ACAT (Action By Christians for the Abolition of Torture, speaking on behalf of the Coalition of Non-governmental Organization against Torture, said the Special Rapporteur responded to a need for a mechanism with global reach. However, despite the pivotal role the Special Rapporteur played, that mechanism was often subjected to attempts by Governments to undermine its valuable and necessary work. Several countries had failed to respond positively to requests for country visits. Some requests had been outstanding for more than 10 years. The Human Rights Council was called on to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and States were urged to fully cooperate with the Special Rapporteur. The Council should carefully review the reports of the Special Rapporteur and take action against countries that persistently failed to cooperate.

TOMAS ALARCON, of Comisión Jurídica para el Autodesarollo de los Pueblos Originarios Andinos (CAPAJ), said that the indigenous leaders fighting for their territorial rights were often subject to torture. They deserved the attention of the Special Rapporteur. His mandate should be reinforced in that regard. Torture, in the view of indigenous people was a degrading phenomena; for them it meant death, it was like an extreme fear that had frightened the soul of the person, causing it to leave the body. It was believed that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was a necessity in this regard and that he should visit imprisoned leaders of indigenous people.

MANFRED NOWAK, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in concluding remarks, thanked all the delegates, Member States, and non-governmental organizations that had made encouraging remarks. He was fully aware of his responsibility under the Code of Conduct, and was working in line with it. Torture was a particular phenomenon that took place behind closed doors; as such it required certain specific methods of fact-finding which had been pointed out to the Council. Unannounced visits and the full freedom to interview detainees were included in those. One of the best practices experienced with Governments was receiving unrestricted authorization to areas of detention, which proved very useful to the interviews conducted. It was somewhat of a surprise that there had been criticism on this from Member States in the Council.

In response to Turkey's question, Mr. Nowak said there were a number of bodies involved in avoiding overlap and duplication of work. Examples of some of the organizations consulted through the process were the African Commission on Human Rights and the European Council on the Prevention of Torture.

HANS GRUNNET (Denmark), in concluding remarks, thanked the members for the interventions. The debate had shown that there was strong support for the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture to be renewed. The comments also highlighted the support for a new robust mandate. Denmark would be conducting consultations in the hope of renewing the mandate.

Reports by the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights

The Council has before it the report of the Secretary-General on the right to development (A/HRC/8/9), which contains a summary of the activities undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with regard to the implementation of the right to development. Particular attention is given to the activities in support of the open-ended Working Group on the Right to Development and the high-level task force on the implementation of the right to development, as well as other activities that could contribute to the implementation of the right to development. The Office continued to provide organizational, substantive and analytical support to the open-ended Working Group on the Right to Development, which is mandated to monitor and review progress made in the promotion and implementation of the right to development, providing recommendations and further analysing obstacles to its full enjoyment. In addition, the Office continued to provide similar support to the high-level task force on the implementation of the right to development. The objective of the task force is to provide the necessary expertise to the Working Group to enable it to make appropriate recommendations to various actors on the issues identified for the implementation of the right to development.

The Council has before it the report of the Secretary-General on the question of death penalty (A/HRC/8/11), which contains information covering the period from January 2006 to May 2008. The report indicates that the trend towards abolition of the death penalty continues; this is illustrated, inter alia, by the increase in the number of countries that are completely abolitionist and by the increase in ratifications of international instruments that provide for the abolition of this form of punishment.

The Council has before it the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (A/HRC/8/13), which highlights that human rights and counter-terrorism measures are two complementary and mutually reinforcing objectives that must be pursued together as part of States' duty to protect. The report outlines the High Commissioner's activities, particularly in the context of the Secretary-General's Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. It also considers specific human rights concerns which arise in the context of national and international efforts to counter terrorism – such as unlawful interferences with privacy, search, seizure and surveillance, the protection of the right to privacy and the prohibition against torture – and concludes with the identification of some practical challenges and recommendations to States related to complying with human rights obligations in the context of counter-terrorism.

The Council has before it the report of the Secretary-General on fundamental standards of humanity (A/HRC/8/14), which says that the following developments since 2006, inter alia, have contributed to securing the practical respect for existing international human rights and humanitarian law standards in all circumstances and by all actors: the adoption by the General Assembly of the Basic Principles on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, as well as the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; the ongoing work of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, which have elaborated on the nature and elements of certain war crimes, of genocide and of crimes against humanity; and the commencement of operations of the International Criminal Court, which contributed to efforts to securing the protection of victims and achieving accountability for serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.

The Council has before it the note by the Secretariat on efforts made by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the universal ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (A/HRC/8/15), which notes that, on 24 April 2008, the High Commissioner for Human Rights again sent a letter to the 22 States that had yet to become parties to the Convention, encouraging them to take the necessary action, and provides a list of those States.

The Council has before it the note by the Secretariat (A/HRC/8/51), which says the Secretary-General has undertaken broad consultations with all relevant United Nations actors regarding the establishment of the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, and the terms of reference of the Special Representative have been approved. The Special Representative will be appointed at the level of Assistant Secretary-General and will report directly to the Secretary-General. The Office of the Special Representative will be located in New York and provided with administrative support by UNICEF. The Special Representative will chair the Inter-Agency Working Group on Violence against Children. The position is established for a period of three years, and is to be funded from voluntary contributions.

Presentation of the Reports by the Secretary-General and the high Commissioner for Human Rights

BACRE NDIAYE, Director of the Human Rights Council and Treaties Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that he would briefly describe four reports. The first report was the consolidated report of the Secretary-General and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the “right to development”. The report summarized the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to implement this right. It continued to provide substantive and analytical support to the work of the High-Level Task Force. It continued to undertake analytical and advocacy work on issues relating to aid effectiveness, the Millennium Development Goals and trade.

The second report was the report of the High Commissioner on “the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism”. The report offered updates on recent activities and concerns, particularity in the context of the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The report focused on key issues, such as the need to establish specific and effective legislation designed to avoid overly broad definitions of terrorism. It stated that methods of intelligence and information-gathering should be regulated by law. There were concerns about the transfer of suspects without due process and the use of torture and cruel punishment. The High Commissioner was alarmed at the continuing erosion of the right to a fair trail, which happened when terrorism suspect were not granted a judicial review of their case.

The third report was the “question of the death penalty”, which updated the Secretary-General’s latest quinennial report of 2005. It indicated that the trend towards the abolition of the death penalty had continued, with the number of countries that were completely abolitionist increasing from 85 to 93. The number of retentionist countries had decreased from 65 to 60. The report recorded the Committee on Human Rights’ efforts to examine individual cases involving capital punishment under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It noted the General Comment adopted by the Committee in July 2007 on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and the right to a fair trial.

The fourth report was the Secretary-General’s report on “fundamental standards of humanity”, which outlined the progress achieved since the last report to the Commission on Human Rights. Among the most relevant developments was the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, which was now open for signature, ratification and accession. The High Commissioner for Human Rights called on all countries to ratify this Convention. The report also discussed a number of recent decisions of the International tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and noted the Extraordinary Chambers on the Courts of Cambodia and the commencement of operations of the International Criminal Court.

General Debate on the Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, wished to recall that all human rights were universal, indivisible, interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing and that the primary responsibility to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights lay within the national States. The snapshots of realities that the Special Procedures injected in the proceedings of the Council were absolutely essential. The crucial importance of full and unconditional cooperation between States and United Nations Special Procedures was underlined. Thus, it was noted with concern that the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions had reported on a vacuum created as a result of the refusal to respond to requests for a visit in many States. His disappointing follow-up conclusions on Sri Lanka were noted with outmost concern. His proposal for a new Special Rapporteur on the right of detainees was welcomed. Further, the plight of internally displaced persons continued in too many places around the world; alone in Zimbabwe it was estimated that it had reached 300,000 people. Also, the rule of law, including the fight against impunity and promotion of independence of the judiciary needed to enter the Council’s deliberations. Extreme poverty was a denial of human rights ad a serious obstacle to the realisation of other human rights.

SYED ALI ASAD GILLANI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the fight against terrorism must remain a top priority for the international community. A fine balance existed in preserving the need to have effective counter terrorist strategies and respect for international law, including international human rights law. Achievement of this balance was central to the effective implementation of global counter terrorism strategies. The Secretary-General’s Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy rightly pointed out that an effective counter terrorism strategy must combine the preventive measures with efforts to address grievances and underlying social, economic, and political conditions that included prolonged unresolved conflicts, ethnic, national and religious discrimination, socio-economic marginalization and lack of good governance. Under the garb of fighting terrorism, Islamophobia was unfortunately being perpetuated in some societies. Islam was equated with terrorism. The Organization of the Islamic Conference strongly urged political measures to deal with this trend.

MARINA VIKTOROVA (Russian Federation) said it went without saying that human rights were important in today’s world. They were one of the pillars of world order, along with security and development. The activities of human rights protection in the United Nations took on the qualities of a new character. It was important to move on from this moment. It was essential to focus on the root reasons for the violations of human rights. It was important to involve all stakeholders of human rights in discussion. In order to bring about the changes of the United Nations human rights protection regime, all groups must be involved. The Russian Federation supported the creation of the Human Rights Council. It saw the Universal Periodic Review as a key method of monitoring and implementation. The Council could not allow politicisation, as this would be repeating the worst policies of its predecessor. One of the Human Rights Council’s most important achievements was the strengthening of Special Procedures. The Russian Federation called upon all stakeholders to commit to this process. It was a means to root out intolerance. The Russian Federation fully supported all efforts of the Council to include inter-religious dialogue. Only by providing full support to the United Nations Charter could the Human Rights Council work against today’s threats and challenges.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) said that the question of the death penalty was an issue of particular importance to Italy. Italy welcomed the trend towards abolition of the death penalty. Italy believed that this contributed to the enhancement of human dignity. The lack of widely accepted evidence of the deterrent effect of the capital punishment and the irreparable consequences of any miscarriage of justice were decisive aspects for those who opposed the death penalty. While it was not prohibited by international law, historical evolution suggested that the international community was moving towards a definitive phasing out of capital punishment. Resolution 64/149 on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, approved in 2007 by the General Assembly, was believed to represent a landmark success. Italy was committed towards a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan) said that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights set down in internationally binding terms the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. The right of self-determination was jus cogens—a peremptory norm of international law. Realization of the right to self-determination was an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights. Further, all States Parties to the Covenant should take positive actions to facilitate realization of and respect for the right of peoples to self-determination. Such actions must be consistent with the United Nations Charter and other international law. The concept of self-determination was not limited to the political area. It extended to the exercise of economic, social and cultural rights.

The Foreign Secretaries and Foreign Ministers of Pakistan and India met in Islamabad on 20 and 21 May 2008 to review progress in the eight segments of the Pakistan-India Composite Dialogue, which also included Jammu and Kashmir. The two Foreign Ministers exchanged views on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and agreed to continue discussions to build on convergences and narrow down differences. They also agreed to continue with the implementation of the cross-Line of Control confidence building measures with a view to enhance interaction and cooperation.

DICKY KOMAR (Indonesia) said, looking at the report on the right to development, it was good to see that the issue was starting to get the attention it merited. Indonesia welcomed the fact that directives of the Working Group on the right to development on regular monitoring and updating of the right to development were being followed up. The clear cut agenda set for the High-Level Task Force with emphasis on practical and workable goals for efficiency especially with regard to aid effectiveness should also yield good results. Regarding the Secretary-General’s report on the death penalty, Indonesia noted the review of the present status of the death penalty around the world. While not disputing the merits of abolitionism in principle, Indonesia nevertheless believed there was an equally valid case for retaining capital punishment in certain very limited and specific situations.

BLAISE GODET (Switzerland), in a joint statement with Denmark, Germany, Lichtenstein, Sweden and the Netherlands, said that they shared the High Commissioner’s point of view that “delisting” in the framework of sanctions was a source of concern. It was important to recall that sanctions were an important tool to protect international security and peace and this practice was endorsed. Equitable and transparent radiation procedures had to be put in place. The Security Council had also expressed its desire for this procedure to be equitable and transparent. One step had been the putting into place of a focal point. Improvements were still needed. Sanctions taken had given rise in recent years to frequent concerns in the absence of an oversight body. Thus it was found that States were now in a situation were internal courts could end up declaring that this lack of an effective mechanism was not equitable with their obligations. This situation could make the fight against terrorism less effective. It was proposed that such a body should take the form of an advisory board and this would help facilitate the work.

MOKTAR IDHAM MUSA (Malaysia) said the international community’s efforts to elevate the right to development on par with other human rights were still subject to protracted deliberations among delegations. They aimed to enable an international environment to give concrete meaning to the inalienability of the right to development. There was also an imperative need to further enhance the global partnership among the United Nations Member States, development agencies, international development, financial and trade institutions. The High-Level Task Force contributed on the criteria for periodic evaluation of global development partnerships at the Fourth Session in January 2008. The criterion was a work-in-progress in this context, and Malaysia hoped a suitable date would be found to convene the Ninth Session of the Working Group on the right to development in order to consider the contributions of the High-Level Task Force.

AKIO ISOMATA (Japan) said the issue of the food crisis constituted a threat to the right to food. The issue was pressing and needed to be addressed by the international community. Special attention was paid to an international meeting in Japan last week and to the High Level Meeting being held in Rome. The international community must take truly effective actions to tackle this crisis and coordinate all activities. Japan also raised the issue of discrimination against leprosy. Japan firmly believed in the need to recognize discrimination, which was a serious violation of human rights. Japan would table a resolution on how to reduce discrimination against people with leprosy and sought unanimous support

MOHAMED AHMED SALIM AL-SHANFARI (Oman) reiterated the important role of recommendations made by Special Rapporteurs and other Special Procedures. The Council had to look with great attention at the review, rationalisation and improvement of mandates. The right to education was a basic human right and an important mandate. Oman gave special attention to the issue of education. Oman was very active in several education forums, especially the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Also, extreme poverty was an important issue. Deep concerns were expressed over the current food security problems.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said that Morocco associated itself with the statement by Egypt on behalf of the African Group. Item three of the agenda helped to make progress in promoting human rights, and comprehensively the reports presented helped to enrich the discussion. The Optional Protocol on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights filled the recognized gap in response to international expectations. The Optional Protocol was a notable contribution in promoting and protecting human rights. Morocco had been a part of the process of drafting the Optional Protocol since the beginning, and commended the constructive spirit and compromise which was expressed to protect economic, social and cultural rights. Morocco hoped that the Council adopted the draft protocol as it would further emphasize the importance of this Council.

GITTE DYRHAGEN, of International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, said there was still some action and attention needed by the Council on transitional issues from the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council. One of the key criteria for judging the success of the reform of the United Nations’ human rights architecture must be the achievements of the Human Rights Council in promoting and protecting human rights of victims to ensure they were not undermined or neglected.

ELIAS KHOURY, of Union of Arab Jurists, speaking on behalf of several NGOs2, said that today they saw a reversal of rights. The tragic circumstances in Iraq were a proof of this, as noted in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. What Leandro Despouy had said on the Iraqi justice court was worrying. Pretending to have fair and true trials under foreign occupations was a lie. All sentences handed down by the High Court in Iraq were war crimes. Detainees were arbitrarily detained and were not allowed access to a lawyer. The Council was called upon to request the release of all detainees or to put them before a fair court. While the Security Council had established an inquiry in Mr. Rafiq Hariri’s killings, it was strange that nothing had been done with regard to the attack that killed Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello.

NIRAJ KUMAR PABARI, of North South XXI, said that the reports by the Special Procedures were received late and this was indicative of the inequality that existed within the Council. The lives of people in developing countries, making more than half of the world’s population, remained difficult. An overwhelming majority of these people lived in the South. The failure to protect education and standards of living was the responsibility of the States concerned and the international community. Resources to achieve economic, social and cultural rights were not equal with funds provided for other rights.

TENZIN S. KAYTA, of the Society for Threatened People, said the Human Rights Council should appoint a Special Rapporteur on the rights of detainees. From personal experience, the speaker said that detainees suffered from torture and inhuman treatment, including hard labour. He urged for an independent investigation on the Tibetan crisis.

GI YOUN KIM, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), said that the Asian Forum looked forward to the upcoming visit to Southeast Asia by the Representative of the Secretary-general on internally displaced persons. It was hoped that the consultation process would serve as an opportunity to assess how natural disasters had been transformed into man-made disasters due to negligence and lack of rights-based approaches. The threat of terrorism continued to be used by some Governments in Asia to justify increased military operations against dissident movements. It was urgent to address the wide-range of human rights violations against internally displaced persons around the world.

RAFENDI DJAMIN, of the International NGO Forum on Indonesia Development, said that normative democracy was flourishing without significant improvement of the general human rights situation, particularly the eradication of poverty. Indonesia had succeeded in lowering the poverty level which was previously increasing due to the crisis in 1999. The extreme poverty became worse when Indonesia had to implement policies imposed by the International Monetary Fund and some developed countries through various international agreements. It had to implement international policies such as: pro growth strategy through improving investment climate, using international standards of prices for essential needs, liberalizing trade, and eliminating subsidies. The unfair and unequal relationship between developed countries, international organizations, transnational corporations, and multinational corporations with developing countries was at the root of extreme poverty.

SADANI MOULAININE, of Interfaith International, said globalisation was contributing to weaken barriers imposed by States in the name of the national security and sovereignty, but many States were tightening the straps under these self-serving notions to continue to keep people deprived or economically marginalized. The rights of the people were closely linked with good governance and good governance was not possible without ensuring social justice. Gilgit Baltistan presented a very dismal picture of the rights situation after passing 60 years under Pakistan control. The unfortunate people of this region had failed to gain the attention of the Human Rights Council despite repeated appeals. They could not seek legal remedy. Hundreds of people were facing sedition charges and Islamabad engineered sectarian riots to divide people politically.

YOANNA MARAK, of Liberation, said that article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights made it clear that all peoples had the right to self-determination. The people of Indian occupied regions were helpless victims of continued and uninterrupted violation of this universal principle. Thousands of people had been killed by the Indian security forces since the start of freedom movements in India. The Council had to demand that India allow the people of the north east to exercise their right to self-determination and had to send a fact finding mission in these areas.

KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, welcomed the continuing developments in the area of fundamental standards of humanity as set out in the report on fundamental standards of humanity. In their view, the international community could not sit by and watch people of the world suffer needlessly. The initiatives regarding the Responsibility to Protect were welcomed and were invoked in both natural and manmade catastrophes. Current needs in Burma due to the recent cyclone and the inability and unwillingness of the authorities were an example of such a case. This crisis clearly met the Responsibility to Protect criteria.

FAWZIA ASSAD, of International PEN, raised concerns about the Human Rights Council resolution on combating the defamation of religions. International PEN welcomed the United Nations’ call to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among cultures and religions. It urged the Human Rights Council to examine laws and conventions where religions were protected. International PEN respected all religions. But religions were systems of ideas embodied in institutions and sometimes States they could not remain outside the bounds of questioning, criticism and description, the whole terrain of free expression. International PEN believed that legal prohibitions on defamation of religion could easily pit one religion against another. Free criticism of institutions was essential for the advancement of societies and to ensure that rights rested with individuals, not in the groups and institutions with whom they associated. Dialogue and understanding among cultures and religions could be achieved without sacrificing the protection for the right of freedom of expression.

RONALD BARNES, of the Indian Council of South America, said that the rights of peoples to self-determination was an intricate part of international human rights law. Studies adopted by the General Assembly agreed that although some peoples had not exercised the right to self-determination emanating from the Charter, their undeniable right existed. It had been established that indigenous peoples were the proper agents and authorities to exercise this right. There were still many conflicts over this issue in today’s world, such as in Alaska and Hawaii.

LAZARO PARY, of the Indian Movement TUPAJ AMARU, said that indigenous peoples were most affected by the unfair distribution of resources, and specifically the recent food crisis had been of great concern to them. The despairing divide between the developing and developed countries was very concerning, and the egotistical rich countries use of extreme speculation to guide policies was indicative of the disparity. The food crisis needed to get more than just another resolution, and the food sovereignty of peoples had to be protected. The production of bio fuels should be prohibited, and war should be declared on the speculation on prices of food products.

M. SARDAR AMJAD YOUSEF KHAN, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said the right to self-determination was the fundamental principle of human rights law. For decades this right had allowed millions of people around the world to find their destinies. There continued to be areas under foreign occupation. Two such areas were the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Indian Occupied Kashmir where the right to self-determination was illegally and unjustly suppressed. People of these areas were unable to determine their political status. The denial of the right to self-determination had resulted in massive human rights violations. If the United Nations and the international community realized their obligations, there were chances to save thousands of human lives.

ROSA OLIVERES, of the Federacion de Associacnes de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, talked about the current situation of illegal migrants in Europe. These people were detained in prison centers against provisions of international law. Particular attention had to be given to people in irregular situations and their rights had to be protected. A debate had to be opened within the European Union in this regard.

ANESKA PALKOVA, of Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association, said that international human rights law prohibited the arbitrary deprivation of life under any circumstances. The Government of India was a signatory to the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 6 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressly prohibited derogation from the right to life, and even during a time of emergency no one should be arbitrarily deprived of his life. According to the reports of Human Rights Watch, the Indian security forces continued to commit torture, extrajudicial killings and summary executions in north east India and Jammu and Kashmir. The Government of India had enacted a series of laws that were in violation of international humanitarian laws.

TENZIN S. KAYTA, of France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, welcomed that the Human Rights Council attached great importance to the subject of violence against women and the human rights of women. But UN human rights mechanisms sometimes ignored the issue when such violence was motivated by a State policy. Tibetan women, especially nuns, had taken a prominent role in the protests on Tibet, again facing State violence. The realities of such-engineered violence against women should be noted if the Council wished to take a holistic approach to the subject.

HAJBOUHA ZOUBEIR, of Union de l'action féminine, underlined the importance of access to education for every child. The attention of the Council was drawn to the absence of this right in the Algerian Tinduf camps. The situation was very concerning and alarming. There was imprisonment without judgements and executions had been reported. Children had been indoctrinated in paramilitary schools, supposedly to give them education. They were often separated from their families, sometimes for years. There was also lack of sanitation in these camps. All democratic nations were asked to address the situation.

RICARDO ALFONSO GARCIA, of the American Association of Jurists, denounced the assassination of Mr. Filiberto Ojeda Rios, a renowned 72 year old Puerto Rican freedom fighter and musician. The perpetrators of the crimes were the Federal Bureau Investigation Agents and other United States officers that intentionally, wrongfully and with criminal intent executed Mr. Ojeda Rios on the 23rd of September 2005. The execution was related to the anti colonial plight of the People of Puerto Rico. The death of Mr. Ojeda Rios constituted an extrajudicial execution and a case of impunity availed by the United States’ Federal Courts, in violation of the international obligations of the Government. Further, the United States acted illegally and should be condemned by the Human Rights Council and referred to the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions for investigation.

SEMLALI AABADILA, of Centrist Democratic International, stated that despite efforts on human rights, there were violations in many countries. He spoke of his personal experience in being jailed and recounted various cases of executions. Given this contravention of human rights, he did not want those who had died in prison to die for nothing.


Right of Reply

ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, categorically stated that Zimbabwe was fully committed to the protection and promotion of human rights. The allegations made on the internally displaced persons in their country were false and fabricated. It was all lies fabricated by Anglo-American allies that had a corporate interest in Zimbabwe. The successive labour Governments in the United Kingdom were involved in abusing the rights of Zimbabweans, including through the promotion of violence.

DAYAN JAYATILLEKA (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply, in reference to the European Union's expression of utmost concern regarding Sri Lanka, referred the speaker to the Biblical parable which enjoined him who saw a mote in his brother's eye to first take out the beam in his own. Moreover, International Education Development had brought in the concept to protect, in relation to the country. Sri Lanka was in the process of developing mechanisms to protect citizens’ right to life in the light of terrorism. The responsibility to protect was being evoked in the loosest of senses.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India), speaking in a right of reply, in reference to the comments by Pakistan, said that those who wanted to redefine the United Nations Charter for a narrow purpose would do well to remember their own emergence as a country. The people of Kashmir had exercised their right to self-determination at the time of Indian independence and subsequently in free and fair elections. India urged the Pakistani member to restrain from such comments in the future. The Government of India had reaffirmed its desire for peace to the new Government of Pakistan. Moreover, both countries had engaged in several meetings with the aim of increasing the good will between them.

KE YOUSHENG (China), speaking in a right of reply with regard to remarks by two non-governmental organizations – the Society for Threatened People and France Liberte-Danielle Mitterand – denouncing the human rights situation in Tibet, said that the true facts were different. Since the liberation, Tibet’s economy had improved, the gross domestic product had seen a 12 per cent growth, and that was higher than the national gross domestic product. Thousands of monks were enjoying religious freedom. The Tibetan population had increased, and education was bilingual in schools. China could list a large number of facts to demonstrate all the tremendous improvements in the past decades. Facts could not be removed by any lies.

SYED ALI ASAD GILLANI (Pakistan), speaking in a right of reply in response to India’s statement, said that Kashmir remained a disputed state and was not an integral part of India. As such, dialogue had continued to take place in that regard so as to come to a solution. The issue of Kashmir had many dimensions and it continued to be on the Security Council's agenda. Therefore, there was no need for any support to fight terrorism. The illegally occupied region longed for peace and security.
__________

1Joint statement on behalf of: International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism; Asian Legal Resource Centre; Anti-Slavery International; Human Rights Watch; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development; Lutheran World Federation; Minority Rights Group International; and Pax Romana.

2Joint statement on behalf of: Union of Arab Jurists, International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; International Association of Democratic Lawyers; Arab Lawyers Union; General Arab Women Federation; United Towns Agency for North-South Cooperation; and Indian Council of South America.


CORRIGENDUM

In press release HRC/08/56 of 3 June, the statement by the Representative of Afghanistan should read as follows:

NANGUYALAI TARZI (Afghanistan), speaking as a concerned country on the report of Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that on his visit to Afghanistan, Mr. Alston had had an opportunity to meet with several officials and ministers. These contacts indicated and confirmed the Government’s determination to promote human rights in their country. On the arbitrary and summary executions in Afghanistan cited by the Special Rapporteur in his report, they wished to see the final report before giving their comments. Not all views contained in the preliminary report were shared. Afghanistan fully intended to respect human rights. All the major Conventions had been ratified by the Government. The country was going through a difficult period; they were engaged in a fight against terrorism and were grieving deeply over the death of their citizens. Protection of the life of Afghanistan’s citizens was important to the Government. The Government attached great importance to reforms concerning police, justice, and the fight against corruption. The President had taken recent decisions to put in place mechanisms to carry out these reforms. Twenty-eight years of war, including five under the ruling of the Taliban, and terrorism had affected the population that had been living under complete denial of the most basic rights. However, the Taliban were only referred to in two paragraphs of the report. The Special Rapporteur was asking to bring the Taliban into a dialogue in order for them to respect human rights. But one should remember that against all appeals by the international community and the United Nations they had destroyed the Buddha statutes. The international community was asked to help Afghanistan develop its country and to establish democracy and human rights.

____________

For use of the information media; not an official record