Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Special Procedures
REPORT OF HIGH COMMISSIONER ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRESENTED; FOCUSES ON EDUCATION, ROLE OF COURTS, TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN
19 March 2004
Share
test
MORNING
19 March 2004
REPORT OF HIGH COMMISSIONER ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRESENTED;
FOCUSES ON EDUCATION, ROLE OF COURTS, TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN
Special Rapporteurs on Mercenaries, Situation in Occupied Palestine Speak;
Report on Conditions in Liberia Presented
The Commission on Human Rights began this morning its substantive work for the year, hearing presentation of the annual report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and summations of developments over the past year in occupied Palestine and in the activities of mercenaries.
Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan, introducing the report of the High Commissioner, outlined proposals for improving human rights education, stressing that manuals in local languages should be available for teachers to use in schools and in institutes of higher learning. He said the courts could play a greater role in human rights protection and that judges should be trained in relevant international standards. He called for urgent action to combat trafficking in women, and said there should be establishment of a mechanism to study and analyze the problem, to present findings and recommendations to the Commission, to protect those at risk, and to lead an international campaign against trafficking in human beings.
Mr. Ramcharan also presented a summary of the human rights situation in Liberia, saying conditions in that country had grown severe enough that it had seemed necessary for his Office to issue a report to the Commission on the matter.
John Dugard, the Commission’s Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, said among other things that Palestinian living conditions had deteriorated significantly over the past year and Israeli construction of a massive security wall raised a real prospect that life would become so intolerable for those villagers living in the subsequent “Closed Zone” that they would abandon their homes and migrate. Mr. Dugard’s report was submitted ahead of formal debate under the Commission’s agenda item on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, and general comment on the document will occur later in the Commission’s six-week session.
A Representative of Israel termed Mr. Dugard’s report a wholesale rejection of the current complex situation in favour of a simplistic picture in which one side of the conflict had a total monopoly on victimhood, and said the report was well outside the realm of any reasonable discourse.
A Representative of Palestine said the report was objective, truthful and sincere, but that it had not been possible for the Special Rapporteur to deal with all the human rights violations perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people, as it was not impossible for such a document to cover so many wide-ranging abuses.
Enrique Bernales Ballesteros, Special Rapporteur on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, said there were changes in mercenary activities from activities against the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination carried out by individual mercenaries or more or less informal groups of mercenaries, to their recruitment and use by extremist organizations, terrorist groups and organizations engaged in trafficking in people, migrants, arms and munitions, diamonds and precious stones, and drugs.
Over the course of the morning the Commission began general debate on the topic of the report of the High Commissioner. Contributing statements were representatives of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, China on behalf of the Like-Minded Group, Egypt, New Zealand, Ukraine, Indonesia, Cuba, the United States, Bahrain, Brazil, the Russian Federation and Mexico.
Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, also started the general debate on the agenda item on the right of peoples to self-determination.
Representatives of Israel, India, Palestine and Pakistan spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue with its general debate on the report of the High Commissioner and the right of peoples to self-determination.
Documents
Under its agenda item on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, opened briefly in advance of general consideration later in the session, the Commission has before it the report of its Special Rapporteur, John Dugard (E/CN.4/2004/6), which concludes, among other things that the Israeli occupation continues to result in widespread violations of human rights, affecting both civil and socio-economic rights, and international humanitarian law. Israel's justification for these actions is that they are necessary in the interests of its own national security, the document states, but the Rapporteur finds it difficult to accept that excessive use of force that disregards the distinction between civilians and combatants, the creation of a humanitarian crisis by restrictions on the mobility of goods and people, the killing and inhumane treatment of children, widespread destruction of property and territorial expansion could be justified as a proportionate response to the violence and threats of violence to which Israel is subjected. The construction of “the Wall” within the West Bank and the continued expansion of settlements, which, on the face of it, have more to do with territorial expansion, de facto annexation or conquest, than security, raise serious doubts about the good faith of Israel's justifications in the name of security, the report states.
Under its agenda item on the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and follow-up to the World Conference on Human Rights, the Commission has before it several documents and addenda.
There is the annual report of the High Commissioner (E/CN.4/2004/12), which assesses the state of human rights in the contemporary world and looks at key building blocks for international cooperation, examines the state of human rights protection and makes suggestions for strengthening international protection. Human rights continue to be violated, the report notes. Poverty has not declined; civilians continue to be targeted in violation of international law; violence continues to be perpetrated by State and non-State actors; racism and intolerance have increased; democracy and the rule of law are under threat; and to this litany of world ills, terrorism must be added.
To address threats to international order, the report contends, States must recommit themselves to their responsibilities to respect, protect and fulfill fundamental human rights, in which context there were five increasingly important areas of activity: strengthening national protection systems; better implementation of the human rights treaty system; strengthening of the system of special procedures; promotion of human rights education; and development of the role of the courts in the protection of human rights.
The report states that in strengthening international protection, emphasis must be placed on preventing gross violations of human rights and on rapid intercession to protect actual and potential victims. As the Commission has the primary role for prevention, key features to be kept in mind when planning for the future are highlighted. Finally, a strong appeal is made to the Commission to act on the problem of trafficking in young women.
A first addendum to the report (Add.1) addresses implementation of the Secretary-General’s reforms contained within his report entitled “Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change”, highlighting the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner to strengthen human rights-related United Nations actions at the country level, to consult with treaty bodies on new streamlined reporting procedures and to undertake a review of the special procedures and make recommendations on enhancing their effectiveness and improving the support provided.
A second addendum (Add.2) discusses tolerance and pluralism as indivisible elements in the promotion and protection of human rights. It contains a survey of activities undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner, including through the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004), the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (1994-2003), and the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination (1993-2002) and follow-up, as well as efforts undertaken through the Office’s Programme of Advisory Services and Technical Cooperation.
A third addendum (Add.3) is a progress report on support for the strengthening of national human rights protection systems. It states that 31 States have replied to a questionnaire sent to Member States soliciting information on their national systems of protection of human rights, and it contains a summary of their responses. It also describes action taken with respect to system-wide efforts to support Member States in strengthening their national protection systems.
There also is a report on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Liberia (E/CN.4/2004/5), which notes that, since the Commission’s last session, the human rights situation in Liberia has deteriorated in a shocking manner. The report provides information on criminal violations of human rights that it says require the Commission’s urgent consideration. It also advances ideas to integrate human rights into planned efforts for peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace-building in Liberia.
Violations and abuses in Liberia must be urgently investigated and assessed, concludes the report, especially in light of recent developments, including violations of the ceasefire agreement. Human rights monitoring and reporting on the situation and the provision of technical cooperation and assistance to build human rights capacities must also be undertaken and the proposed United Nations mission to the country must have a strong mandate for the protection of civilians and the promotion and protection of human rights. Among other recommendations, the Joint Monitoring Committee could monitor compliance with standards of protection of civilians and could play an important role in collecting information on abuses and violations of human rights and humanitarian law.
There is a report on the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms (E/CN.4/2004/4), which notes that the tenth meeting of Special Rapporteurs/Representatives, Experts and Chairpersons of Working Groups had been held in Geneva from 23 to 27 July 2003, and had considered issues such as measures to be taken to enhance effectiveness in accordance with the Secretary-General’s reform agenda; challenges posed by the current international climate and the fight against terrorism for the protection and promotion of human rights; globalization and ways of improving cooperation with the Commission; human rights treaty bodies; and non-governmental organizations.
Under its agenda item on the right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation, the Commission has before it a report of the Secretary-General on the situation in occupied Palestine (E/CN.4/2004/14), which states that, in compliance with resolution 2003/3, adopted at the Commission’s fifty-ninth session, the Secretary-General had addressed a note verbale to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel, and to all other Governments, requesting information pertaining to the implementation of the resolution by his Government. No reply had been received at the time of the report’s preparation.
And there is the report of Enrique Bernales Ballesteros, Special Rapporteur on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (E/CN.4/2004/15), which analyzes changes in mercenary activities – from activities against the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination carried out by individual mercenaries or more or less informal groups of mercenaries, to their recruitment and use by extremist organizations, terrorist groups and organizations engaged in trafficking in people, migrants, arms and munitions, diamonds and precious stones and drugs. The report also considers the growth and expansion of the activities of private companies offering military assistance, consultancy and security services.
The document analyses the use of mercenaries in various contexts and summarizes the Special Rapporteur’s official missions since 1998, the difficulties he has encountered in his efforts to eradicate mercenary activities, and shortcomings in international legislation. It contains a proposal for a new legal definition of a mercenary.
Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine
JOHN DUGARD, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, presenting his report to the Commission in advance of scheduled discussion under the agenda item, said that sadly, the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories had deteriorated over the past year from a human rights perspective. The occupied Palestinian territories were experiencing a humanitarian crisis with disastrous consequences on employment, health and education for Palestinians. Over the past year a further wrong had been added to a list of wrongs: the “Wall”, the construction of which had resulted in the large-scale destruction of Palestinian property and had created a “Closed Zone”, the permit system for which was administered in an arbitrary and humiliating manner. This system, which subjected Palestinian freedom of movement to the whim of the occupying power, created anger, anxiety and humiliation among the population, and as a result was likely to create insecurity for Israel rather than security.
There was a real prospect that life would become so intolerable for those villagers living in the Closed Zone that they would abandon their homes and migrate. The main beneficiaries of the Wall were Israeli settlers. The Wall could have been justified as a legitimate security measure to prevent would-be suicide bombers from entering Israel had it followed the course of the Green Line. The Special Rapporteur said that he had visited the Wall, and at no point where he had visited did physical features of the land, on the face of it, justify placing the Wall within Palestinian territory. Israel would have to answer many questions in a satisfactory way if it wished to persuade the international community that the Wall was a good faith attempt to provide security for its people rather than forcible territorial expansion.
The Special Rapporteur said he could only conclude that the Wall violated the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by forcible means and seriously undermined the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people by reducing the size of a future Palestinian State. Moreover, it violated important norms of international humanitarian law. Human rights norms were likewise violated, particularly those affirming freedom of movement, the right to family life and the right to education and health care. An internationally acceptable peace in the region should take place within the framework and constraints of the rules of international law and the appropriate United Nations resolutions on the topic of the occupied Palestinian territories. By reporting on violations of these rules, the Special Rapporteur said he believed that he advanced rather than hindered the peace process.
YAAKOV LEVY (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said the latest report submitted by the Special Rapporteur and his recent addendum were, regrettably, no different from their predecessors, and continued to use the Rapporteur’s mission and mandate as a platform for advancing a political agenda. His wholesale rejection of the current complex situation in favour of a simplistic picture in which one side of the conflict had a total monopoly on victimhood placed his report well outside the realm of any reasonable discourse. The refusal to acknowledge any Palestinian obligation or wrongdoing whatsoever reflected a patronizing attitude to Palestinian society that could only undermine any attempt to develop a responsible and accountable leadership.
Many of the allegations raised by the Special Rapporteur repeated misleading charges made in his earlier reports. Not only did the Rapporteur misrepresent the current situation, but he also sought to prejudice the outcome of future negotiations between the parties, notably in his repeated attempts to establish the so-called “green line” as an international border. The report contained little reporting on facts, and was more a presentation of a virtual reality that conformed to the Special Rapporteur’s political agenda. It showed no interest in a debate about humanitarian issues in the territories, and was clearly part of the problem and not of the solution.
NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, said the Special Rapporteur’s report had been objective, truthful and sincere. Nevertheless, it had not been possible for him to deal with all the human rights violations perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people, as it was impossible for such a limited report to contain all such violations. As he himself could not address all of his concerns in regard of violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people in the limited time available now, he would be addressing them in due course when the item was opened for general debate. He would address the allegations made by the Representative of Israel at that time.
Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Follow-Up to the World Conference on Human Rights
BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the annual report of the High Commissioner, said the document traced some of the important promotional building blocks on which the international community could promote the protection of human rights in the future. It highlighted areas such as the importance of international protection systems, human rights education, and the role of courts in the protection of human rights.
In regard to human rights education, Mr. Ramcharan stressed the importance of key steps to advance human rights education nationally, including the provision of a teaching booklet on human rights, in the prevailing local language, for every teacher in primary and secondary schools and of a manual for use by teachers in schools of higher learning which could be drawn upon in courses on human rights conducted by all faculties. Teacher training colleges should also have human rights on their curricula to help teachers impart the human rights idea. It was also felt that a convention on human rights education would help to produce a framework promoting such objectives and that existing national experiences could be drawn upon to help shape future policy. Furthermore, Mr. Ramcharan suggested that a group of five experts, from each region of the world, should review information on the realization of those objectives every five years.
On the topic of the role of courts, the acting High Commissioner suggested that the role of judges in protecting human rights should be strengthened through the provision of human rights manuals setting out principal human rights norms in local languages for judges, and through the provision of an accompanying manual on key parts of international human rights jurisprudence. Periodic national, regional and sub-regional consultations among judges on the application of international human rights law in national courts should also be supported and human rights should be included in the curricula of schools for judges and lawyers. Such cooperative programmes could be carried out with Governments, regional organizations and legal organizations such as the International Bar Association, the Union internationale des advocates and the International Commission of Jurists.
Mr. Ramcharan said that at the time the report before the Commission on the human rights situation in Liberia had been prepared – just before the departure of ex-President Charles Taylor -- he had felt it necessary to make a special report on the situation. He emphasized the importance of the strong appeal made in the annual report for the Commission to act on the problem of trafficking in women. There should be establishment of a mechanism to study and analyze the problem, to present findings and recommendations to the Commission, to engage in urgent action for the protection of those at risk, and to lead an international campaign against trafficking in human beings.
SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the international human rights system had proved inadequate for the full realization of fundamental human rights, and there was a need for a serious review as to how factors like poverty, conflict, terrorism, violence, prejudice and bad governance continued to contribute to conditions of human rights abuse. The universal realization of human rights required application of justice, equality, cooperation, understanding and tolerance as core principles. Muslims around the world had suffered gravely as a result of non-implementation of recognized human rights standards.
The primary role of the United Nations agencies and country teams should remain development-focused, and should not be undermined by extraneous linkages. The Commission’s reporting and implementation procedures and mechanisms should be conducted within its own framework, and the efficient and transparent working of the Office of the High Commissioner was crucial for effectively pursuing the protection of human rights. Respect for human rights and human dignity were core values of Islam, and there was a need to build a global human rights culture based on human dignity and diversity of cultures, religions and civilizations.
SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking on behalf of the Like-Minded Group, said the report of the High Commissioner and its addenda illustrated the present state of human rights in the contemporary world, explored ways for the promotion of human rights from five different perspectives, emphasized the importance of strengthening international protection, and raised some issues for the Commission to reflect upon. Regarding national protection systems for human rights, the Like-Minded Group believed that the promotion and protection of human rights was first and foremost the responsibility of States. The international community should help create favorable conditions and provide necessary assistance for States to build their respective national protection schemes.
Democracy and good governance were important for the realization of human rights, and these should be practiced at the international level also. The Like-Minded Group supported the efforts to improve and strengthen the work of treaty bodies and special procedures. It also was important to provide necessary financial and material resources from the United Nations regular budget to ensure that the Office of the High Commissioner could carry out its mandates effectively and expeditiously. The composition of the staff of the Office remained a serious concern; it should be better balanced on a regional basis. The staff, in discharging its duties, should function within given mandates and maintain the highest United Nations standards of neutrality, impartiality and objectivity.
NAÉLA GABR (Egypt) said the report of the High Commissioner had reiterated once more the pillars of the promotion and protection of human rights, and had said once again that poverty eradication should be placed at the forefront. Egypt supported efforts to promote non-duplication and cohesion among reports, and supported the Office of the High Commissioner’s holding of the meetings necessary to promote the rationalization of the human rights reporting system. The importance of human rights education, especially at the primary and secondary schooling levels, was clear, as was the importance of raising awareness of human rights among law enforcement officials.
Egypt held regular training courses for those administering justice and had programmes to teach youth and the general public about mutual respect and other values. In regard of regional efforts, positive references in the report to Arab League efforts to modernize and update the Arab Charter on Human Rights were welcomed. The fight against trafficking in individuals and women was a matter of priority; the smuggling of people amounted to gross and serious violations of human rights. Moreover, violence against women occurred worldwide and must be fought. Overall, the report was full of positive and constructive ideas, but the programme of technical assistance and consultative service, linked with the provision of assistance to national institutions in developing countries, should be given greater analysis.
TIM CAUGHLEY (New Zealand) said the report of the High Commissioner placed before all a number of challenges which demanded collective action and engagement. The foundation of the response should be a recommitment to the International Bill of Human Rights. The Commission, in order to remain credible, should strive to end human rights violations wherever they occurred. The prevention of gross violations of human rights could serve also to prevent conflict. The Commission was the body mandated to bring to the attention of the international community issues of fundamental concern regarding the promotion and protection of human rights.
New Zealand, Australia and Canada had worked jointly to support the initiatives of the Secretary-General in his report "Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change”. Human rights, including the role of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office, were fundamentally intertwined with the goals and objectives of the United Nations. The community of nations should work effectively to address the Commission's common objectives. The prime responsibility for implementing human rights rested with States. No State could be immune to scrutiny of its human rights performance, and all States should actively strive to improve. Enhancing the effectiveness of the human rights treaty body system was also a priority for all countries.
MYKHAILO SKURATOVSKYI (Ukraine) said Ukraine shared the concern expressed in the report of the High Commissioner that human rights continued to be grossly violated in the contemporary world, notwithstanding the strong commitments made at the Vienna World Conference. Commonplace slogans would scarcely be adequate response to the threats to human rights the international community was facing, let alone their consequences. It was of the utmost urgency to intensify efforts at the national, regional and international levels to prevent conflicts in order to prevent gross violations of human rights. With regard to good governance, Ukraine agreed with the acting High Commissioner that economic processes in the globalized world were calling into question the ability of Governments to respect basic human rights.
The strengthening of the protection of human rights at the national level continued to be a matter of utmost priority. Recognizing that national mechanisms played a prime role in safeguarding the dignity and rights of individuals in Ukraine, the Government had attached great importance to strengthening judicial systems, protecting human rights through non-judicial remedies and raising human rights awareness. The existence of effective judicial remedies, effectively accessible to all persons, was of decisive importance. It was the obligation of a State to fill the gap between human rights in law and human rights in practice.
EDDI HARYADHI (Indonesia) said the comprehensive annual report submitted by the acting High Commissioner provided a number of thought-provoking insights. Indonesia supported in principle the particular importance of the five strategic areas of activity outlined in the report, even if some of the document’s suggestions related to the strategic areas deserved further study and consideration.
With regard to strengthening the role of human rights special mechanisms, the Commission needed to engage in a comprehensive review aimed at establishing a clear and transparent framework for such mechanisms. This should include, among other things, review the appointment procedure, working methods and the code of conduct of the Office of the High Commissioner, as well as criteria for the transmission and administration of communications. Only through such a thorough review would the role of the special mechanisms be truly improved in a correct and constructive manner. Indonesia, having now re-joined the membership of the Commission, was more than ready to work together with the Board, fellow delegates and with civil society in their collective endeavours to better promote, protect and fulfill human rights, based on this positive spirit.
MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA (Cuba) said that as the report of the High Commissioner put it, more than 55 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and more than 10 years after the adoption of the Programme of Action of the World Conference on Human Rights, the realization of all human rights for everyone continued to be an unattainable dream for most of the people of the world. This situation was an utter shame if one took into account that, while millions of human beings were not even aware that they were entitled to rights, the Commission, established just to promote and protect human rights, plunged ever more into discredit and politicization, on the basis of the attitude and actions of some countries of the North. The North, thinking itself perfect, had turned the Commission into a biased court against the States of the South, and had made the South hostage to ruthless political interests and hegemonic purposes.
Cuba deemed it necessary to denounce the attempts by some States of the North. With the complicity of some transnational non-governmental organizations (NGOs) under their control, the North was trying to impose arbitrary and discriminatory "requirements" on the members of the Commission. That was totally unacceptable. Nonetheless, if some day it was decided to establish "conditions" for the eligibility of States appointed to the functional committees of the ECOSOC, it would be best to begin by denying access to those who promoted aggression and wars, failed to meet their committed levels of the official development aid, curtailed the right to self-determination of peoples, denied the human rights of indigenous peoples and reparations for the crime of the transatlantic slave trade, and imposed coercive unilateral measures that ran counter to international law.
RICHARD WILLIAMSON (United States) said that along with fellow democratic nations, the United States sought to increase the degree to which the Commission fulfilled its mandate of strengthening human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world, offering international support to those fighting national and local tyranny and giving voice to the voiceless. The Commission had been given an immense and worthy task, and it should shine a light on the abyss of liberty taking place in the world and encourage all States to improve their protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights.
The United States was committed to an effective Commission -- one that took concrete steps that resulted in real and tangible improvements in the lives of human beings worldwide. Initial steps towards reform should focus on Commission membership. A second goal of reform should be to re-establish the importance of implementation of treaties and other human rights obligations that States had ratified or undertaken; and a third would be to improve the procedures of the body to enable it to perform its work more effectively.
SAEED MOHAMED AL-FAIHANI (Bahrain) said the role of the Office of the High Commissioner was vital for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, despite the fact that the primary responsibility for human rights was borne by States and Governments. The Office was vital to the development and strengthening of dialogue and cooperation between States, within the framework of the United Nations system, and it served as a catalyst for international efforts to prevent flagrant violations of human rights.
In addition to supporting the Office and encouraging its activities, the Commission should give moral support and encouragement to those States cooperating with it and working to support and respect human rights. The promotion of human rights continued unabated in Bahrain, where the individual was able to exercise his right to freedom of opinion and expression and women were given high priority under the country’s Supreme Council of Women. Workshops had been organized to promote the rights of the child, and the democratic process had been reaffirmed as questioning and accountability had become the two main components of the work of the Shura and Representatives Councils. Bahrain had attained a distinctive rank regionally, due to its vast achievements in the field of human rights, and these achievements had resulted in political, economic and social progress.
CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil) said Brazil shared the acting High Commissioner’s concern with regard to the violations of human rights that continued to take place in various parts of the world. Many issues to which Brazil attached great importance, including poverty, racism and discrimination, torture, trafficking in human beings, the rights of women, the rights of indigenous peoples and the rights of children, had been referenced in the report.
Supportive of initiatives designed to strengthen national protection systems and improve the implementation of the human rights treaty system, Brazil viewed dialogue within the Commission and with conventional and extra-conventional mechanisms as a tool for improving the situation of human rights at both the national and international levels. Brazil remained open to the various suggestions made by the acting High Commissioner on improving the work of the Commission and could be counted upon as an active actor in the process.
SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation), said the country attached great importance to the Commission, as it defined the character of international cooperation in human rights and also influenced other areas of international multilateralism. Success in implementing the mandate of the High Commissioner was only possible when there was a successful multilateral dialogue based on fairness and taking into account national, cultural and religious features. With regard to the periodic proposals on the topic of reform, Russia felt many initiatives were not in accordance with the goals of developing fair cooperation amongst the Member States and also were against the United Nations Charter.
It was time to review existing practices, particularly those with regard to Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts, so as to improve the effectiveness of the reporting system and remove political partiality from special procedures. The identified priorities to strengthen national capacities with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights in the report of the acting High Commissioner were viewed with approbation, but the basic principles of contribution towards other reforms suggested in the report should be voluntary and based on political neutrality.
ERASMO MARTÍNEZ (Mexico) said the report of the High Commissioner was an important one. The suggestions made by Mr. Ramcharan were supported by Mexico. The invitation to States to establish national human rights protection systems was welcomed. Mexico had already created a national mechanism for the protection of human rights. The defense of human rights should be a national policy of States.
Mexico's experience in the defense of human rights could be a good example for others. The Government of Mexico had carried out a number of seminars and workshops on national protection systems of human rights. It had cooperated with the Office of the High Commissioner and continued to host special mechanisms of the Commission, which had produced reports on the situation in the country, including on the rights of indigenous peoples. The international human rights protection system should impact on national human rights systems.
BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding to the debate on the report of the Office of the High Commissioner, said his report had been submitted in the spirit of constructive engagement, and he would study all comments that had been made upon it. With regard to the independence of the Office of the High Commissioner, this was a matter of principle that was fully supported by the Office. As for the geographical distribution of the staff of that Office, the comments made were understood, and attempts had been made to ensure that the staff did reflect the make-up of the world. However, it was difficult to see how to expand geographical spread while respecting the need for competence. Under the system of voluntary contributions, there was some flexibility for new staff.
On the issue of voluntary contributions, a fair point had been made, and the Office would like to see more resources coming from the regular budget of the United Nations. The Secretary-General had been helping with this. About two-thirds of the budget came from voluntary contributions, and it was hoped that this could be changed to a 50/50 ratio. With regard to alleged lack of transparency in recruitment, this issue would be studied. As for the proposed Convention on Human Rights Education, this was an interesting proposal. There was great respect within the Office for the mechanism of Special Rapporteurs.
The financial implications of the Office’s operations should be circulated well in advance, but this was a difficult and complicated process, Mr. Ramcharan said.
SHA ZUKANG (China) expressed thanks for the gesture announced that in this huge building, the acting High Commissioner would recruit one Chinese person to work in his Office. While China had no candidates at the present time, the offer had been noted. Furthermore, the one Chinese passport holder cited by the acting High Commissioner as working in his Office was married to a non-Chinese and had been recruited from outside China.
The Right of Peoples to Self-Determination
ENRIQUE BERNALES BALLESTEROS, Special Rapporteur on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, introducing his report (E/CN.4/2004/15), said terrorism and trafficking in persons constituted one of the scourges of modern times. Mercenaries had been used in the context of aggression against various African peoples, against national liberation movements by the South African apartheid regime, in covert operations in Central America, in attempts to overthrow the Government of the Maldives, and to commit terrorist acts in Cuba. Recently, Zimbabwe had arrested a number of mercenaries who were heading to Guinea with the aim of destabilizing the State. Guinea had also detained several mercenaries who were ready to commit criminal activities. His report analyzed the progress made in Sierra Leone and continuing difficulties in Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia with regard to the use of mercenaries.
There were changes in mercenary activities from activities against the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination carried out be individual mercenaries or more or less informal groups of mercenaries, to their recruitment and use by extremist organizations, terrorist groups and organizations engaged in trafficking in people, migrants, arms and munitions, diamonds and precious stones, and drugs. He considered the growth and expansion in the activities of private companies offering military assistance, consultancy and security services, which were now established on the five continents and some of which had recently obtained contracts worth tens of millions of US dollars.
Interactive Dialogue on Report on Mercenaries
The Representative of Cuba put forward three issues that should be addressed by the Special Rapporteur’s successor, namely, the involvement of anti-Cuban organizations based in Miami; preparation for visits to various European capitals, and other regions, to investigate and clarify the strong allegations of involvement in mercenary activities on the African continent; and continuing work on the present Special Rapporteur’s compilation of information on the activities of private mercenary companies.
In response, MR. BALLESTEROS said that he saw the last few months of his mandate as a period of preparation for the handover to his successor, so as to ensure continuity in their work. On the issue of future visits, he said that requests for future visits Côte d’Ivoire and Sierra Leone had been made. On the subject of visits to European capitals, he said the first thing that must be done was to verify the allegations concerning the cargo plane that had landed in Zimbabwe. There had been 63 individuals on board who were mercenaries. Once that information had been officially submitted, it would be the time to request appropriate information from other governments, which might be concerned directly or indirectly. In regard of his work on the systematic compilation of private security firms, he acknowledged that he had spent at least five years on the project, and that the information would have enormous ramifications.
Right of Peoples to Self-Determination
SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the right of people to self-determination was sacrosanct and inalienable. The primacy of this right had been recognized by international law, international human rights instruments and final declarations of major world conferences. Self-determination was fundamental, as the realization of all other rights emanated from the realisation of the right to self-determination. This fundamental right had been conferred upon the people of Palestine and of Jammu and Kashmir by the United Nations more than 50 years ago. Regrettably, Israel not only continued to defy these rights, but to perpetuate massive violations of human rights. The people of Jammu and Kashmir were also engaged in a struggle for their right to self-determination, and the international community was hopeful that the dialogue which had recently started between India and Pakistan would lead to a peaceful resolution of the dispute and the establishment of peace and stability.
The denial of the right to self-determination and the subjection of people to occupation and subjugation constituted a grave denial of fundamental human rights, which acted as an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation. Non-cooperation by the occupying powers should be responded to by concrete measures, and the Commission was urged to take effective measures for achieving this objective.
Right of Reply
YAAKOV LEVY (Israel), speaking in a right of reply, said it was regrettable to view that in the first hours of work that the Organization of the Islamic Conference had chosen to focus on one nation, Israel, and that half its speech singled Israel out. One of the most serious violations of human rights took place when Palestinians did not make any distinction between civilians and Israeli army personnel in their suicide attacks. Those imprisoned in Israel were there for their acts of terrorism. The Wall was there purely for a defensive measure, and was not meant as a political act, nor as a border. It had no effect on the ownership of land, and was temporary. Its sole purpose was to protect people, and was reversible, as the lives taken by terrorists were not. Israel was clearly aware of the impact of the Wall on lives of Palestinians, and from thence had already implemented changes in its route, and wished only to protect lives without causing unnecessary hardship to the people of Palestine. Israel was committed to the Road Map, and considered the Wall as part of the self-defense of its population, and thus as a part of the protection of the right to life of its people.
Pankaj SARAN (India), speaking in a right of reply, said that the statement on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) had contained an unacceptable reference to a part of his country. That statement had betrayed a willful misinterpretation of history and reality. It was sincerely hoped that the OIC would halt work on this mindset and avoid referring to half-truths during the rest of the Commission’s session. In January, the leaders of India and Pakistan had agreed to carry the process of normalization forward. If the OIC was sincere in its wishes to see progress, it should desist from making counterproductive statements.
NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine) said the Representative of Israel had just said that the Palestinians were terrorists. Palestinians were living under occupation and they had to resist that situation. The Special Rapporteur had said that Israel was committing terrorism against Palestinians. When Palestine was refusing the Wall, it was for the only reason that it was built on Palestinian territory, but Israel could build it on its own territory. The Wall, as it now stood, was a violation of international law.
IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Pakistan), speaking in a right to reply, said his country was surprised at the statement from India, since the statement made by Pakistan for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) was a mere reiteration of the facts as they stood. The occupation of the Kashmiri territories was a fact, and the contention that it was an integral part of India was contested. The right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people went unrealized, and evidence to contravene what had just been heard from India could be produced. The (OIC) had produced resolutions on the dispute over many years, and had upheld and defended the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination, and instead of attacking the Muslim people of the world, India should examine those resolutions more closely. Pakistan had raised this issue as a matter of principle. It had no desire to engage in an acrimonious dialogue, and looked forward to opening the discussion with India.
MORNING
19 March 2004
REPORT OF HIGH COMMISSIONER ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRESENTED;
FOCUSES ON EDUCATION, ROLE OF COURTS, TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN
Special Rapporteurs on Mercenaries, Situation in Occupied Palestine Speak;
Report on Conditions in Liberia Presented
The Commission on Human Rights began this morning its substantive work for the year, hearing presentation of the annual report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and summations of developments over the past year in occupied Palestine and in the activities of mercenaries.
Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan, introducing the report of the High Commissioner, outlined proposals for improving human rights education, stressing that manuals in local languages should be available for teachers to use in schools and in institutes of higher learning. He said the courts could play a greater role in human rights protection and that judges should be trained in relevant international standards. He called for urgent action to combat trafficking in women, and said there should be establishment of a mechanism to study and analyze the problem, to present findings and recommendations to the Commission, to protect those at risk, and to lead an international campaign against trafficking in human beings.
Mr. Ramcharan also presented a summary of the human rights situation in Liberia, saying conditions in that country had grown severe enough that it had seemed necessary for his Office to issue a report to the Commission on the matter.
John Dugard, the Commission’s Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, said among other things that Palestinian living conditions had deteriorated significantly over the past year and Israeli construction of a massive security wall raised a real prospect that life would become so intolerable for those villagers living in the subsequent “Closed Zone” that they would abandon their homes and migrate. Mr. Dugard’s report was submitted ahead of formal debate under the Commission’s agenda item on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, and general comment on the document will occur later in the Commission’s six-week session.
A Representative of Israel termed Mr. Dugard’s report a wholesale rejection of the current complex situation in favour of a simplistic picture in which one side of the conflict had a total monopoly on victimhood, and said the report was well outside the realm of any reasonable discourse.
A Representative of Palestine said the report was objective, truthful and sincere, but that it had not been possible for the Special Rapporteur to deal with all the human rights violations perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people, as it was not impossible for such a document to cover so many wide-ranging abuses.
Enrique Bernales Ballesteros, Special Rapporteur on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, said there were changes in mercenary activities from activities against the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination carried out by individual mercenaries or more or less informal groups of mercenaries, to their recruitment and use by extremist organizations, terrorist groups and organizations engaged in trafficking in people, migrants, arms and munitions, diamonds and precious stones, and drugs.
Over the course of the morning the Commission began general debate on the topic of the report of the High Commissioner. Contributing statements were representatives of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, China on behalf of the Like-Minded Group, Egypt, New Zealand, Ukraine, Indonesia, Cuba, the United States, Bahrain, Brazil, the Russian Federation and Mexico.
Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, also started the general debate on the agenda item on the right of peoples to self-determination.
Representatives of Israel, India, Palestine and Pakistan spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue with its general debate on the report of the High Commissioner and the right of peoples to self-determination.
Documents
Under its agenda item on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, opened briefly in advance of general consideration later in the session, the Commission has before it the report of its Special Rapporteur, John Dugard (E/CN.4/2004/6), which concludes, among other things that the Israeli occupation continues to result in widespread violations of human rights, affecting both civil and socio-economic rights, and international humanitarian law. Israel's justification for these actions is that they are necessary in the interests of its own national security, the document states, but the Rapporteur finds it difficult to accept that excessive use of force that disregards the distinction between civilians and combatants, the creation of a humanitarian crisis by restrictions on the mobility of goods and people, the killing and inhumane treatment of children, widespread destruction of property and territorial expansion could be justified as a proportionate response to the violence and threats of violence to which Israel is subjected. The construction of “the Wall” within the West Bank and the continued expansion of settlements, which, on the face of it, have more to do with territorial expansion, de facto annexation or conquest, than security, raise serious doubts about the good faith of Israel's justifications in the name of security, the report states.
Under its agenda item on the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and follow-up to the World Conference on Human Rights, the Commission has before it several documents and addenda.
There is the annual report of the High Commissioner (E/CN.4/2004/12), which assesses the state of human rights in the contemporary world and looks at key building blocks for international cooperation, examines the state of human rights protection and makes suggestions for strengthening international protection. Human rights continue to be violated, the report notes. Poverty has not declined; civilians continue to be targeted in violation of international law; violence continues to be perpetrated by State and non-State actors; racism and intolerance have increased; democracy and the rule of law are under threat; and to this litany of world ills, terrorism must be added.
To address threats to international order, the report contends, States must recommit themselves to their responsibilities to respect, protect and fulfill fundamental human rights, in which context there were five increasingly important areas of activity: strengthening national protection systems; better implementation of the human rights treaty system; strengthening of the system of special procedures; promotion of human rights education; and development of the role of the courts in the protection of human rights.
The report states that in strengthening international protection, emphasis must be placed on preventing gross violations of human rights and on rapid intercession to protect actual and potential victims. As the Commission has the primary role for prevention, key features to be kept in mind when planning for the future are highlighted. Finally, a strong appeal is made to the Commission to act on the problem of trafficking in young women.
A first addendum to the report (Add.1) addresses implementation of the Secretary-General’s reforms contained within his report entitled “Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change”, highlighting the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner to strengthen human rights-related United Nations actions at the country level, to consult with treaty bodies on new streamlined reporting procedures and to undertake a review of the special procedures and make recommendations on enhancing their effectiveness and improving the support provided.
A second addendum (Add.2) discusses tolerance and pluralism as indivisible elements in the promotion and protection of human rights. It contains a survey of activities undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner, including through the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004), the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (1994-2003), and the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination (1993-2002) and follow-up, as well as efforts undertaken through the Office’s Programme of Advisory Services and Technical Cooperation.
A third addendum (Add.3) is a progress report on support for the strengthening of national human rights protection systems. It states that 31 States have replied to a questionnaire sent to Member States soliciting information on their national systems of protection of human rights, and it contains a summary of their responses. It also describes action taken with respect to system-wide efforts to support Member States in strengthening their national protection systems.
There also is a report on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Liberia (E/CN.4/2004/5), which notes that, since the Commission’s last session, the human rights situation in Liberia has deteriorated in a shocking manner. The report provides information on criminal violations of human rights that it says require the Commission’s urgent consideration. It also advances ideas to integrate human rights into planned efforts for peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace-building in Liberia.
Violations and abuses in Liberia must be urgently investigated and assessed, concludes the report, especially in light of recent developments, including violations of the ceasefire agreement. Human rights monitoring and reporting on the situation and the provision of technical cooperation and assistance to build human rights capacities must also be undertaken and the proposed United Nations mission to the country must have a strong mandate for the protection of civilians and the promotion and protection of human rights. Among other recommendations, the Joint Monitoring Committee could monitor compliance with standards of protection of civilians and could play an important role in collecting information on abuses and violations of human rights and humanitarian law.
There is a report on the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms (E/CN.4/2004/4), which notes that the tenth meeting of Special Rapporteurs/Representatives, Experts and Chairpersons of Working Groups had been held in Geneva from 23 to 27 July 2003, and had considered issues such as measures to be taken to enhance effectiveness in accordance with the Secretary-General’s reform agenda; challenges posed by the current international climate and the fight against terrorism for the protection and promotion of human rights; globalization and ways of improving cooperation with the Commission; human rights treaty bodies; and non-governmental organizations.
Under its agenda item on the right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation, the Commission has before it a report of the Secretary-General on the situation in occupied Palestine (E/CN.4/2004/14), which states that, in compliance with resolution 2003/3, adopted at the Commission’s fifty-ninth session, the Secretary-General had addressed a note verbale to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel, and to all other Governments, requesting information pertaining to the implementation of the resolution by his Government. No reply had been received at the time of the report’s preparation.
And there is the report of Enrique Bernales Ballesteros, Special Rapporteur on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (E/CN.4/2004/15), which analyzes changes in mercenary activities – from activities against the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination carried out by individual mercenaries or more or less informal groups of mercenaries, to their recruitment and use by extremist organizations, terrorist groups and organizations engaged in trafficking in people, migrants, arms and munitions, diamonds and precious stones and drugs. The report also considers the growth and expansion of the activities of private companies offering military assistance, consultancy and security services.
The document analyses the use of mercenaries in various contexts and summarizes the Special Rapporteur’s official missions since 1998, the difficulties he has encountered in his efforts to eradicate mercenary activities, and shortcomings in international legislation. It contains a proposal for a new legal definition of a mercenary.
Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine
JOHN DUGARD, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, presenting his report to the Commission in advance of scheduled discussion under the agenda item, said that sadly, the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories had deteriorated over the past year from a human rights perspective. The occupied Palestinian territories were experiencing a humanitarian crisis with disastrous consequences on employment, health and education for Palestinians. Over the past year a further wrong had been added to a list of wrongs: the “Wall”, the construction of which had resulted in the large-scale destruction of Palestinian property and had created a “Closed Zone”, the permit system for which was administered in an arbitrary and humiliating manner. This system, which subjected Palestinian freedom of movement to the whim of the occupying power, created anger, anxiety and humiliation among the population, and as a result was likely to create insecurity for Israel rather than security.
There was a real prospect that life would become so intolerable for those villagers living in the Closed Zone that they would abandon their homes and migrate. The main beneficiaries of the Wall were Israeli settlers. The Wall could have been justified as a legitimate security measure to prevent would-be suicide bombers from entering Israel had it followed the course of the Green Line. The Special Rapporteur said that he had visited the Wall, and at no point where he had visited did physical features of the land, on the face of it, justify placing the Wall within Palestinian territory. Israel would have to answer many questions in a satisfactory way if it wished to persuade the international community that the Wall was a good faith attempt to provide security for its people rather than forcible territorial expansion.
The Special Rapporteur said he could only conclude that the Wall violated the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by forcible means and seriously undermined the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people by reducing the size of a future Palestinian State. Moreover, it violated important norms of international humanitarian law. Human rights norms were likewise violated, particularly those affirming freedom of movement, the right to family life and the right to education and health care. An internationally acceptable peace in the region should take place within the framework and constraints of the rules of international law and the appropriate United Nations resolutions on the topic of the occupied Palestinian territories. By reporting on violations of these rules, the Special Rapporteur said he believed that he advanced rather than hindered the peace process.
YAAKOV LEVY (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said the latest report submitted by the Special Rapporteur and his recent addendum were, regrettably, no different from their predecessors, and continued to use the Rapporteur’s mission and mandate as a platform for advancing a political agenda. His wholesale rejection of the current complex situation in favour of a simplistic picture in which one side of the conflict had a total monopoly on victimhood placed his report well outside the realm of any reasonable discourse. The refusal to acknowledge any Palestinian obligation or wrongdoing whatsoever reflected a patronizing attitude to Palestinian society that could only undermine any attempt to develop a responsible and accountable leadership.
Many of the allegations raised by the Special Rapporteur repeated misleading charges made in his earlier reports. Not only did the Rapporteur misrepresent the current situation, but he also sought to prejudice the outcome of future negotiations between the parties, notably in his repeated attempts to establish the so-called “green line” as an international border. The report contained little reporting on facts, and was more a presentation of a virtual reality that conformed to the Special Rapporteur’s political agenda. It showed no interest in a debate about humanitarian issues in the territories, and was clearly part of the problem and not of the solution.
NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, said the Special Rapporteur’s report had been objective, truthful and sincere. Nevertheless, it had not been possible for him to deal with all the human rights violations perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people, as it was impossible for such a limited report to contain all such violations. As he himself could not address all of his concerns in regard of violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people in the limited time available now, he would be addressing them in due course when the item was opened for general debate. He would address the allegations made by the Representative of Israel at that time.
Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Follow-Up to the World Conference on Human Rights
BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the annual report of the High Commissioner, said the document traced some of the important promotional building blocks on which the international community could promote the protection of human rights in the future. It highlighted areas such as the importance of international protection systems, human rights education, and the role of courts in the protection of human rights.
In regard to human rights education, Mr. Ramcharan stressed the importance of key steps to advance human rights education nationally, including the provision of a teaching booklet on human rights, in the prevailing local language, for every teacher in primary and secondary schools and of a manual for use by teachers in schools of higher learning which could be drawn upon in courses on human rights conducted by all faculties. Teacher training colleges should also have human rights on their curricula to help teachers impart the human rights idea. It was also felt that a convention on human rights education would help to produce a framework promoting such objectives and that existing national experiences could be drawn upon to help shape future policy. Furthermore, Mr. Ramcharan suggested that a group of five experts, from each region of the world, should review information on the realization of those objectives every five years.
On the topic of the role of courts, the acting High Commissioner suggested that the role of judges in protecting human rights should be strengthened through the provision of human rights manuals setting out principal human rights norms in local languages for judges, and through the provision of an accompanying manual on key parts of international human rights jurisprudence. Periodic national, regional and sub-regional consultations among judges on the application of international human rights law in national courts should also be supported and human rights should be included in the curricula of schools for judges and lawyers. Such cooperative programmes could be carried out with Governments, regional organizations and legal organizations such as the International Bar Association, the Union internationale des advocates and the International Commission of Jurists.
Mr. Ramcharan said that at the time the report before the Commission on the human rights situation in Liberia had been prepared – just before the departure of ex-President Charles Taylor -- he had felt it necessary to make a special report on the situation. He emphasized the importance of the strong appeal made in the annual report for the Commission to act on the problem of trafficking in women. There should be establishment of a mechanism to study and analyze the problem, to present findings and recommendations to the Commission, to engage in urgent action for the protection of those at risk, and to lead an international campaign against trafficking in human beings.
SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the international human rights system had proved inadequate for the full realization of fundamental human rights, and there was a need for a serious review as to how factors like poverty, conflict, terrorism, violence, prejudice and bad governance continued to contribute to conditions of human rights abuse. The universal realization of human rights required application of justice, equality, cooperation, understanding and tolerance as core principles. Muslims around the world had suffered gravely as a result of non-implementation of recognized human rights standards.
The primary role of the United Nations agencies and country teams should remain development-focused, and should not be undermined by extraneous linkages. The Commission’s reporting and implementation procedures and mechanisms should be conducted within its own framework, and the efficient and transparent working of the Office of the High Commissioner was crucial for effectively pursuing the protection of human rights. Respect for human rights and human dignity were core values of Islam, and there was a need to build a global human rights culture based on human dignity and diversity of cultures, religions and civilizations.
SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking on behalf of the Like-Minded Group, said the report of the High Commissioner and its addenda illustrated the present state of human rights in the contemporary world, explored ways for the promotion of human rights from five different perspectives, emphasized the importance of strengthening international protection, and raised some issues for the Commission to reflect upon. Regarding national protection systems for human rights, the Like-Minded Group believed that the promotion and protection of human rights was first and foremost the responsibility of States. The international community should help create favorable conditions and provide necessary assistance for States to build their respective national protection schemes.
Democracy and good governance were important for the realization of human rights, and these should be practiced at the international level also. The Like-Minded Group supported the efforts to improve and strengthen the work of treaty bodies and special procedures. It also was important to provide necessary financial and material resources from the United Nations regular budget to ensure that the Office of the High Commissioner could carry out its mandates effectively and expeditiously. The composition of the staff of the Office remained a serious concern; it should be better balanced on a regional basis. The staff, in discharging its duties, should function within given mandates and maintain the highest United Nations standards of neutrality, impartiality and objectivity.
NAÉLA GABR (Egypt) said the report of the High Commissioner had reiterated once more the pillars of the promotion and protection of human rights, and had said once again that poverty eradication should be placed at the forefront. Egypt supported efforts to promote non-duplication and cohesion among reports, and supported the Office of the High Commissioner’s holding of the meetings necessary to promote the rationalization of the human rights reporting system. The importance of human rights education, especially at the primary and secondary schooling levels, was clear, as was the importance of raising awareness of human rights among law enforcement officials.
Egypt held regular training courses for those administering justice and had programmes to teach youth and the general public about mutual respect and other values. In regard of regional efforts, positive references in the report to Arab League efforts to modernize and update the Arab Charter on Human Rights were welcomed. The fight against trafficking in individuals and women was a matter of priority; the smuggling of people amounted to gross and serious violations of human rights. Moreover, violence against women occurred worldwide and must be fought. Overall, the report was full of positive and constructive ideas, but the programme of technical assistance and consultative service, linked with the provision of assistance to national institutions in developing countries, should be given greater analysis.
TIM CAUGHLEY (New Zealand) said the report of the High Commissioner placed before all a number of challenges which demanded collective action and engagement. The foundation of the response should be a recommitment to the International Bill of Human Rights. The Commission, in order to remain credible, should strive to end human rights violations wherever they occurred. The prevention of gross violations of human rights could serve also to prevent conflict. The Commission was the body mandated to bring to the attention of the international community issues of fundamental concern regarding the promotion and protection of human rights.
New Zealand, Australia and Canada had worked jointly to support the initiatives of the Secretary-General in his report "Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change”. Human rights, including the role of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office, were fundamentally intertwined with the goals and objectives of the United Nations. The community of nations should work effectively to address the Commission's common objectives. The prime responsibility for implementing human rights rested with States. No State could be immune to scrutiny of its human rights performance, and all States should actively strive to improve. Enhancing the effectiveness of the human rights treaty body system was also a priority for all countries.
MYKHAILO SKURATOVSKYI (Ukraine) said Ukraine shared the concern expressed in the report of the High Commissioner that human rights continued to be grossly violated in the contemporary world, notwithstanding the strong commitments made at the Vienna World Conference. Commonplace slogans would scarcely be adequate response to the threats to human rights the international community was facing, let alone their consequences. It was of the utmost urgency to intensify efforts at the national, regional and international levels to prevent conflicts in order to prevent gross violations of human rights. With regard to good governance, Ukraine agreed with the acting High Commissioner that economic processes in the globalized world were calling into question the ability of Governments to respect basic human rights.
The strengthening of the protection of human rights at the national level continued to be a matter of utmost priority. Recognizing that national mechanisms played a prime role in safeguarding the dignity and rights of individuals in Ukraine, the Government had attached great importance to strengthening judicial systems, protecting human rights through non-judicial remedies and raising human rights awareness. The existence of effective judicial remedies, effectively accessible to all persons, was of decisive importance. It was the obligation of a State to fill the gap between human rights in law and human rights in practice.
EDDI HARYADHI (Indonesia) said the comprehensive annual report submitted by the acting High Commissioner provided a number of thought-provoking insights. Indonesia supported in principle the particular importance of the five strategic areas of activity outlined in the report, even if some of the document’s suggestions related to the strategic areas deserved further study and consideration.
With regard to strengthening the role of human rights special mechanisms, the Commission needed to engage in a comprehensive review aimed at establishing a clear and transparent framework for such mechanisms. This should include, among other things, review the appointment procedure, working methods and the code of conduct of the Office of the High Commissioner, as well as criteria for the transmission and administration of communications. Only through such a thorough review would the role of the special mechanisms be truly improved in a correct and constructive manner. Indonesia, having now re-joined the membership of the Commission, was more than ready to work together with the Board, fellow delegates and with civil society in their collective endeavours to better promote, protect and fulfill human rights, based on this positive spirit.
MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA (Cuba) said that as the report of the High Commissioner put it, more than 55 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and more than 10 years after the adoption of the Programme of Action of the World Conference on Human Rights, the realization of all human rights for everyone continued to be an unattainable dream for most of the people of the world. This situation was an utter shame if one took into account that, while millions of human beings were not even aware that they were entitled to rights, the Commission, established just to promote and protect human rights, plunged ever more into discredit and politicization, on the basis of the attitude and actions of some countries of the North. The North, thinking itself perfect, had turned the Commission into a biased court against the States of the South, and had made the South hostage to ruthless political interests and hegemonic purposes.
Cuba deemed it necessary to denounce the attempts by some States of the North. With the complicity of some transnational non-governmental organizations (NGOs) under their control, the North was trying to impose arbitrary and discriminatory "requirements" on the members of the Commission. That was totally unacceptable. Nonetheless, if some day it was decided to establish "conditions" for the eligibility of States appointed to the functional committees of the ECOSOC, it would be best to begin by denying access to those who promoted aggression and wars, failed to meet their committed levels of the official development aid, curtailed the right to self-determination of peoples, denied the human rights of indigenous peoples and reparations for the crime of the transatlantic slave trade, and imposed coercive unilateral measures that ran counter to international law.
RICHARD WILLIAMSON (United States) said that along with fellow democratic nations, the United States sought to increase the degree to which the Commission fulfilled its mandate of strengthening human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world, offering international support to those fighting national and local tyranny and giving voice to the voiceless. The Commission had been given an immense and worthy task, and it should shine a light on the abyss of liberty taking place in the world and encourage all States to improve their protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights.
The United States was committed to an effective Commission -- one that took concrete steps that resulted in real and tangible improvements in the lives of human beings worldwide. Initial steps towards reform should focus on Commission membership. A second goal of reform should be to re-establish the importance of implementation of treaties and other human rights obligations that States had ratified or undertaken; and a third would be to improve the procedures of the body to enable it to perform its work more effectively.
SAEED MOHAMED AL-FAIHANI (Bahrain) said the role of the Office of the High Commissioner was vital for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, despite the fact that the primary responsibility for human rights was borne by States and Governments. The Office was vital to the development and strengthening of dialogue and cooperation between States, within the framework of the United Nations system, and it served as a catalyst for international efforts to prevent flagrant violations of human rights.
In addition to supporting the Office and encouraging its activities, the Commission should give moral support and encouragement to those States cooperating with it and working to support and respect human rights. The promotion of human rights continued unabated in Bahrain, where the individual was able to exercise his right to freedom of opinion and expression and women were given high priority under the country’s Supreme Council of Women. Workshops had been organized to promote the rights of the child, and the democratic process had been reaffirmed as questioning and accountability had become the two main components of the work of the Shura and Representatives Councils. Bahrain had attained a distinctive rank regionally, due to its vast achievements in the field of human rights, and these achievements had resulted in political, economic and social progress.
CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil) said Brazil shared the acting High Commissioner’s concern with regard to the violations of human rights that continued to take place in various parts of the world. Many issues to which Brazil attached great importance, including poverty, racism and discrimination, torture, trafficking in human beings, the rights of women, the rights of indigenous peoples and the rights of children, had been referenced in the report.
Supportive of initiatives designed to strengthen national protection systems and improve the implementation of the human rights treaty system, Brazil viewed dialogue within the Commission and with conventional and extra-conventional mechanisms as a tool for improving the situation of human rights at both the national and international levels. Brazil remained open to the various suggestions made by the acting High Commissioner on improving the work of the Commission and could be counted upon as an active actor in the process.
SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation), said the country attached great importance to the Commission, as it defined the character of international cooperation in human rights and also influenced other areas of international multilateralism. Success in implementing the mandate of the High Commissioner was only possible when there was a successful multilateral dialogue based on fairness and taking into account national, cultural and religious features. With regard to the periodic proposals on the topic of reform, Russia felt many initiatives were not in accordance with the goals of developing fair cooperation amongst the Member States and also were against the United Nations Charter.
It was time to review existing practices, particularly those with regard to Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts, so as to improve the effectiveness of the reporting system and remove political partiality from special procedures. The identified priorities to strengthen national capacities with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights in the report of the acting High Commissioner were viewed with approbation, but the basic principles of contribution towards other reforms suggested in the report should be voluntary and based on political neutrality.
ERASMO MARTÍNEZ (Mexico) said the report of the High Commissioner was an important one. The suggestions made by Mr. Ramcharan were supported by Mexico. The invitation to States to establish national human rights protection systems was welcomed. Mexico had already created a national mechanism for the protection of human rights. The defense of human rights should be a national policy of States.
Mexico's experience in the defense of human rights could be a good example for others. The Government of Mexico had carried out a number of seminars and workshops on national protection systems of human rights. It had cooperated with the Office of the High Commissioner and continued to host special mechanisms of the Commission, which had produced reports on the situation in the country, including on the rights of indigenous peoples. The international human rights protection system should impact on national human rights systems.
BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding to the debate on the report of the Office of the High Commissioner, said his report had been submitted in the spirit of constructive engagement, and he would study all comments that had been made upon it. With regard to the independence of the Office of the High Commissioner, this was a matter of principle that was fully supported by the Office. As for the geographical distribution of the staff of that Office, the comments made were understood, and attempts had been made to ensure that the staff did reflect the make-up of the world. However, it was difficult to see how to expand geographical spread while respecting the need for competence. Under the system of voluntary contributions, there was some flexibility for new staff.
On the issue of voluntary contributions, a fair point had been made, and the Office would like to see more resources coming from the regular budget of the United Nations. The Secretary-General had been helping with this. About two-thirds of the budget came from voluntary contributions, and it was hoped that this could be changed to a 50/50 ratio. With regard to alleged lack of transparency in recruitment, this issue would be studied. As for the proposed Convention on Human Rights Education, this was an interesting proposal. There was great respect within the Office for the mechanism of Special Rapporteurs.
The financial implications of the Office’s operations should be circulated well in advance, but this was a difficult and complicated process, Mr. Ramcharan said.
SHA ZUKANG (China) expressed thanks for the gesture announced that in this huge building, the acting High Commissioner would recruit one Chinese person to work in his Office. While China had no candidates at the present time, the offer had been noted. Furthermore, the one Chinese passport holder cited by the acting High Commissioner as working in his Office was married to a non-Chinese and had been recruited from outside China.
The Right of Peoples to Self-Determination
ENRIQUE BERNALES BALLESTEROS, Special Rapporteur on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, introducing his report (E/CN.4/2004/15), said terrorism and trafficking in persons constituted one of the scourges of modern times. Mercenaries had been used in the context of aggression against various African peoples, against national liberation movements by the South African apartheid regime, in covert operations in Central America, in attempts to overthrow the Government of the Maldives, and to commit terrorist acts in Cuba. Recently, Zimbabwe had arrested a number of mercenaries who were heading to Guinea with the aim of destabilizing the State. Guinea had also detained several mercenaries who were ready to commit criminal activities. His report analyzed the progress made in Sierra Leone and continuing difficulties in Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia with regard to the use of mercenaries.
There were changes in mercenary activities from activities against the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination carried out be individual mercenaries or more or less informal groups of mercenaries, to their recruitment and use by extremist organizations, terrorist groups and organizations engaged in trafficking in people, migrants, arms and munitions, diamonds and precious stones, and drugs. He considered the growth and expansion in the activities of private companies offering military assistance, consultancy and security services, which were now established on the five continents and some of which had recently obtained contracts worth tens of millions of US dollars.
Interactive Dialogue on Report on Mercenaries
The Representative of Cuba put forward three issues that should be addressed by the Special Rapporteur’s successor, namely, the involvement of anti-Cuban organizations based in Miami; preparation for visits to various European capitals, and other regions, to investigate and clarify the strong allegations of involvement in mercenary activities on the African continent; and continuing work on the present Special Rapporteur’s compilation of information on the activities of private mercenary companies.
In response, MR. BALLESTEROS said that he saw the last few months of his mandate as a period of preparation for the handover to his successor, so as to ensure continuity in their work. On the issue of future visits, he said that requests for future visits Côte d’Ivoire and Sierra Leone had been made. On the subject of visits to European capitals, he said the first thing that must be done was to verify the allegations concerning the cargo plane that had landed in Zimbabwe. There had been 63 individuals on board who were mercenaries. Once that information had been officially submitted, it would be the time to request appropriate information from other governments, which might be concerned directly or indirectly. In regard of his work on the systematic compilation of private security firms, he acknowledged that he had spent at least five years on the project, and that the information would have enormous ramifications.
Right of Peoples to Self-Determination
SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the right of people to self-determination was sacrosanct and inalienable. The primacy of this right had been recognized by international law, international human rights instruments and final declarations of major world conferences. Self-determination was fundamental, as the realization of all other rights emanated from the realisation of the right to self-determination. This fundamental right had been conferred upon the people of Palestine and of Jammu and Kashmir by the United Nations more than 50 years ago. Regrettably, Israel not only continued to defy these rights, but to perpetuate massive violations of human rights. The people of Jammu and Kashmir were also engaged in a struggle for their right to self-determination, and the international community was hopeful that the dialogue which had recently started between India and Pakistan would lead to a peaceful resolution of the dispute and the establishment of peace and stability.
The denial of the right to self-determination and the subjection of people to occupation and subjugation constituted a grave denial of fundamental human rights, which acted as an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation. Non-cooperation by the occupying powers should be responded to by concrete measures, and the Commission was urged to take effective measures for achieving this objective.
Right of Reply
YAAKOV LEVY (Israel), speaking in a right of reply, said it was regrettable to view that in the first hours of work that the Organization of the Islamic Conference had chosen to focus on one nation, Israel, and that half its speech singled Israel out. One of the most serious violations of human rights took place when Palestinians did not make any distinction between civilians and Israeli army personnel in their suicide attacks. Those imprisoned in Israel were there for their acts of terrorism. The Wall was there purely for a defensive measure, and was not meant as a political act, nor as a border. It had no effect on the ownership of land, and was temporary. Its sole purpose was to protect people, and was reversible, as the lives taken by terrorists were not. Israel was clearly aware of the impact of the Wall on lives of Palestinians, and from thence had already implemented changes in its route, and wished only to protect lives without causing unnecessary hardship to the people of Palestine. Israel was committed to the Road Map, and considered the Wall as part of the self-defense of its population, and thus as a part of the protection of the right to life of its people.
Pankaj SARAN (India), speaking in a right of reply, said that the statement on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) had contained an unacceptable reference to a part of his country. That statement had betrayed a willful misinterpretation of history and reality. It was sincerely hoped that the OIC would halt work on this mindset and avoid referring to half-truths during the rest of the Commission’s session. In January, the leaders of India and Pakistan had agreed to carry the process of normalization forward. If the OIC was sincere in its wishes to see progress, it should desist from making counterproductive statements.
NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine) said the Representative of Israel had just said that the Palestinians were terrorists. Palestinians were living under occupation and they had to resist that situation. The Special Rapporteur had said that Israel was committing terrorism against Palestinians. When Palestine was refusing the Wall, it was for the only reason that it was built on Palestinian territory, but Israel could build it on its own territory. The Wall, as it now stood, was a violation of international law.
IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Pakistan), speaking in a right to reply, said his country was surprised at the statement from India, since the statement made by Pakistan for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) was a mere reiteration of the facts as they stood. The occupation of the Kashmiri territories was a fact, and the contention that it was an integral part of India was contested. The right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people went unrealized, and evidence to contravene what had just been heard from India could be produced. The (OIC) had produced resolutions on the dispute over many years, and had upheld and defended the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination, and instead of attacking the Muslim people of the world, India should examine those resolutions more closely. Pakistan had raised this issue as a matter of principle. It had no desire to engage in an acrimonious dialogue, and looked forward to opening the discussion with India.
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: