SUB-COMMISSION EXPRESSES GRIEF AND OUTRAGE AT MASSIVE DENIAL AND VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LEBANON

Sub-Commission on the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights

7 August 2006


Approves its Agenda for the Three-Week Session


The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this afternoon adopted a Chairperson’s Statement expressing its deep grief and outrage at the massive denial and violation of human rights in Lebanon.

The Chairperson’s Statement, adopted by consensus, said that the Sub-Commission began its fifty-eighth session at a tragic moment when a brutal and barbarous war had already deprived a thousand men, women, and children of their inherent right to life, several thousands have been injured and maimed, and a million innocent people displaced.

It expressed the Sub-Commission’s deep grief and outrage at the massive denial and violation of human rights in Lebanon; extended its condolences and sympathy to the victims of the war and their families; and voiced the hope that the Security Council, acting in discharge of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, would bring about cessation of the war without further delay and promote an urgent settlement of the conflict in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.

Also this afternoon the Sub-Commission approved its agenda and programme of work for the session, as revised, and decided to use all the time at its disposal.

This morning, two proposals were made to add a new item 7 to the agenda relating to the “Implementation of Human Rights Council decision 2006/102”. The present agenda item 7 became item 8, which was the adoption of the report of the fifty-eighth session to the Human Rights Council.

The Sub-Commission also decided to use all the three weeks at its disposal in order to be able to duly implement its programme of work, including the tasks imposed on it by the Human Rights Council. Pursuant to the arrangements established by the Human Rights Council for the current session, it was envisaged that the Sub-Commission should decide whether to use for its session the whole period up to 25 August, or to complete its work within the week of 14 to 18 August.

Also approved was the working time-table of the meetings of the Sub-Commission and its subsidiary bodies, according to which the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery and the Working Group on Minorities would meet alternatively in parallel to the plenary during the first week of the session of the Sub-Commission.

The Sub-Commission adopted a decision concerning the establishment of three sessional working groups on transnational corporations, the administration of justice and principles and guidelines concerning the promotion and protection of human rights when combating terrorism.

The next plenary meeting of the Sub-Commission will be held at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 August.

Chairperson’s Statement

In a Chairperson’s Statement that was adopted by consensus, the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights said it begins its fifty-eighth session at a tragic moment when a brutal and barbarous war has already deprived a thousand men, women, and children of their inherent right to life, several thousands have been injured and maimed, and a million innocent people displaced.

Bound by its mandate to promote and protect respect for human rights, the Sub-Commission:

- Expresses its deep grief and outrage at the massive denial and violation of human rights in Lebanon;
- Extends its condolences and sympathy to the victims of the war and their families;
- Voices the hope that the United Nations Security Council, acting in discharge of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, will bring about cessation of the war without further delay and promote an urgent settlement of the conflict in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.

Statements

ABDUL SATTAR, Sub-Commission Expert, said with regard to the proposed Chairperson’s Statement on the situation in Lebanon which was suggested during the morning meeting, a number of changes had been suggested, which would be passed on to the Chair. These were not substantive, and it was hoped they would not meet with any objections. He suggested that the Chair ask all members of the Sub-Commission for their opinions before making a decision, as unanimity was best, and consensus next best. If there was no consensus, however, a decision should be made.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said there were two separate issues - whether to do this, and what to do if so. The Commission had given express instructions that the Sub-Commission was not to pass country-specific resolutions. She had no fundamental objection to challenging this, as long as the Sub-Commission was sure of what it was doing. It was inevitable to mention the country concerned. The Sub-Commission needed to be sure that it was breaking the rules, and was doing so at the very year that its existence was at stake. She suggested, providing that colleagues considered the implications, that she could go along with consensus, but would wish for a certain number of amendments which she would discuss in private.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Sub-Commission Expert, said that the issue of violations against Lebanon went beyond human rights violations, and that should be invoked with regard to the situation. She did not agree with Ms. Hampton since it was not only human rights violations. The text of Mr. Sattar could be used, without referring to the defunct Commission on Human Rights.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, said the matter was urgent, and the Sub-Commission was not in an ivory tower. The defunct Commission had set limits, of which the Sub-Commission was very much aware. This was a very urgent matter, and nothing had been heard from the Human Rights Council or from the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Some of the text and details therein could be amended in order to reach consensus. There were other crises at hand but this required immediate attention, although the Sub-Commission should not ignore the situation in Somalia, for example.

SOLI JEHANGIR SORABJEE, Sub-Commission Expert, said the situation in the Middle East was so grave that silence was not an option. Mr. Sattar’s statement had all the merit and should be accepted.

N.U.O. WADIBIA-ANYANWU, Sub-Commission Expert, said it was necessary for the Sub-Commission to say something on the topic, as otherwise it would be as though it was an accomplice to the events.

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Sub-Commission Expert, said it was a question of the matter needing to be addressed on the first day.

MARILIA SARDENBERG ZELNER GONCALVES, Sub-Commission Expert, said it was time for the Sub-Commission to take a stand on the current conflict. It was a matter of the mandate of the Sub-Commission before a grave human rights violation. She supported the statement by Mr. Sattar.

Lalaina RAKOTOARISOA, Sub-Commission Expert, said what was taking place was a flagrant violation of human rights, and the Sub-Commission could not remain indifferent, and should endorse the decision.

Mohamed Habib CHERIF, Sub-Commission Expert, said a statement was prepared with respect to the aggression in Lebanon, and this was an urgent and flagrant situation which should be denounced as should that in Palestine and Iraq. The future of the Sub-Commission was at stake.

YOZO YOKOTA, Sub-Commission Expert, said there were very many relevant issues related to the United Nations Charter and international law in this case, and it should perhaps be included in the text.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said she had given Mr. Sattar a short list of suggested changes, and she clarified these and the reasons for them.

JANIO IVAN TUNON VEILLES, Sub-Commission Expert, said the document presented by Mr. Sattar was delicate, but the text was acceptable.

KALLIOPI KOUFA, Sub-Commission Expert, said she supported the proposal, and congratulated Mr. Sattar for his proposal.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Sub-Commission Expert, said she could only go along with the last amendment suggested by Ms. Hampson regarding humanitarian corridors for bringing in humanitarian aid.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Sub-Commission Expert, said the last proposal of Ms. Hampson should be taken, along with the last proposal by Mr. Yokota. There was a huge disproportionality, and there was a need to respond to the situation.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Sub-Commission Expert, said he endorsed the text presented by Mr. Sattar. The way in which the text was worded was questionable. However, the savage nature of the events unfolding on Lebanon was worth the statement proposed by Mr. Sattar. He supported the text with the amendments suggested to it.

JOSE BENGOA, Sub-Commission Expert, said he had said this morning that he supported the text, and agreed with the amendment proposed and supported by Ms. Warzazi, Mr. Salama and Mr. Yokota. If what was happening in Lebanon was not a war, then what was, he asked. He asked for a roll-call vote, with the document to be adopted, and if it were to be rejected, he proposed submitting it as a Chairperson’s Letter, under item 2, given that the agenda had been adopted.

SOLI JEHANGIR SORABJEE, Sub-Commission Expert, said that nobody could object to the amendment on humanitarian aid. The suggestion by Mr. Yokota was also supported. This was not a legal document, but an expression of the feelings of the Sub-Commission, and if it could not even do so in the modified terms of the statement, this would proclaim the body’s ineffectiveness to the world.

VLADIMIR KATARSHKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said he could not agree with the last statement, and it was not a legal document, but since the Sub-Commission members were lawyers, it had to be beyond reproach from a legal point of view. He agreed with the document, but had doubts with regards to what was war and what were hostilities, as these were wordings that were not generally accepted by the international community. Maybe the words “armed conflict” should be inserted.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said she supported the statement made by the previous speaker and she insisted on the suggestions she already made in her previous intervention, particularly not to refer to the situation as “war”.

ABDUL SATTAR, Sub-Commission Expert, said he trusted all present were listening to newscasts by the global media. Everyone he had heard called the events “war”, and he had yet to hear any news programme that did not do so when referring to the tragedy. One of the reasons that Lebanon had not declared war was because it was a weak state that had no comparable armed forces to the most powerful State in the Middle East. He agreed with those colleagues who were in favour of retaining the term “war”, as legal language should be used to clarify and not obfuscate, or diminish the gravity of an issue. A number of colleagues had accepted a number of proposals, and these should be added. The debate should not be prolonged, but the Sub-Commission should move in the spirit of compassion and sadness that moved all those following the situation. Stronger language had not been used as there was a need for consensus. In the world there was a difference, and there were members of the Security Council who wielded their veto to impede resolutions, and this should not be done here. Consensus did not mean unanimity: it meant that if there was a minority view-point, then it should be accommodated to the maximum possible extent agreeable to the large majority, but it did not give the minority a veto over the proposition. This was not a resolution: it was a proposal by some of the Sub-Commission members for a statement by the Chair, and nowhere did the wording suggest that the Sub-Commission had resolved, nor that it had been decided by the Sub-Commission. The Chair was being requested to kindly issue a statement on an issue that was a terrible tragedy. He appealed to all to facilitate the task of the adoption of the proposal, and let the statement be issued by the Chair on the behalf of the body and in its name.

MOHAMED HABIB CHERIF, Sub-Commission Expert, said he agreed with the suggestion of Ms. Hampton not to call the situation as war. The conflict was not a war between two States. The word aggression was most appropriate to be used in the statement. He also agreed with the proposal she made on providing humanitarian assistance to the victims.

GASPAR BÍRÓ, Sub-Commission Expert, said the message was what was important, not the precise wording, and a debate on what terminology to use was not precisely relevant. The original draft was acceptable, and what had been said at the beginning on the second operative paragraph, in extending condolences to all victims, was fair. The proposal to make reference to displacement and violations in other areas of the region was not relevant. The text as it was could be accepted.

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Sub-Commission Expert, said the term war created an implication that this was not of an international nature. The idea of adding displacements elsewhere to the text was not relevant, as this was not the place. All should consider Mr. Sattar’s appeal to consider the text as it was supported.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said she strongly disagreed with what had just been said, as it was problematic to describe something as war. In a spirit of compromise, however, she was prepared to accept this, as long as the other two additions she had suggested were also accepted.

ABDUL SATTAR, Sub-Commission Expert, said he wanted to know a place in the region where at least ten per cent of the population was displaced.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said she had shown a lot of flexibility, although the text was legally problematic, and she thought it was going to cause problems for the Red Cross. With regard to the last paragraph, there was a grammatical error. But the reason for insisting on “other areas in the region” was so that the text would refer to all the innocent people who had been displaced from the beginning of July on account of the events in the region. The last phrase should be from their homes in Lebanon and in the region. Some had been displaced in Gaza and other areas.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Sub-Commission Expert, said she was tired of the discussion, which was going around in circles. If Ms. Hampson was showing her concern for the Gaza Strip, then the text should mention the area specifically, otherwise, the text should remain as it was.

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