AFTERNOON

23 March 2011

Concludes General Debate on Technical Assistance and Capacity Building

 

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training and recommended its adoption by the General Assembly. The Council appointed a Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; members of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice; a member of the Working Group of Experts on people of African descent; members of the Expert Mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples; and elected members of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. The Council also concluded its general debate on technical assistance and capacity building.

In a resolution adopted without a vote, the Council adopted the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training and recommended that the General Assembly adopt it and invite Governments, agencies and organizations of the United Nations system and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to intensify their efforts to disseminate the Declaration and to promote universal respect and understanding thereof.

Morocco introduced the resolution. The United Kingdom spoke in a general comment and the United States spoke in an explanation of the vote before the vote.

The Council appointed Maina Kiai as Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

The following persons were appointed as Members of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and practice: Emma Aouij (Tunisia) Mercedes Barquet (Mexcio), Kamala Chandrakirana (Indonesia), Frances Raday (Israel/United Kingdom), Eleonora Zielinska (Poland).

Appointed as a Member from the Group of Western European and Other States of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent was Mireille Fanon Mendes (France).

The Council appointed the following members of the Expert Mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples: Vital Bambanze (Burundi), Jannie Lasimbang (Malaysia), Anastasia Chukhman (Russian Federation), Jose Carlos Morales Morales (Costa Rica) and Wilton Littlechild (Canada).

Elected as Advisory Committee Members were: Dheerujall Baramlall Seetulsingh and Obiora Chinedu Okafor from the Group of African States, Ahmer Bilal Soofi and Purificacion Quisimbing from the Group of Asian States, Latif Huseynov from the Group of Eastern European States, Anantonia Reyes Prado from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, and Laurence Boisson de Chazournes from the Group of Western European and Other States.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council held a general debate on technical assistance and capacity building. The presentation of the reports by the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights concerning Guatemala, Bolivia, Afghanistan, Nepal, Iran, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Colombia, Sierra Leone, Cyprus and Kyrgyzstan was made in the morning meeting and a summary of the statements can be found in press release HRC/11/48.

Speaking as concerned countries were Cyprus, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Guinea, Iran and Nepal.

In the general debate on technical assistance and capacity building, speakers said that cooperation was an important element in promoting human rights and it should take the form of technical assistance and capacity building programmes for States wishing to improve their human rights records but whose resources were limited. The lack of capacity of States to face and address challenges in the area of human rights was at the core of many violations and was one of the main obstacles to implement the Council’s responsibility to promote and protect human rights worldwide.

In the ensuing interactive debate the following countries spoke: Kyrgyzstan, Hungary on behalf of the European Union, Australia on behalf of a group of 55 countries, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Spain, United Kingdom, United States, Norway, Brazil, China, Cuba, Maldives, Thailand, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Algeria, Turkey, Greece, Germany, Sweden, Italy and Kuwait.

The following non-governmental organizations took the floor: Shirkat Gah, Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, Bischofliches Hilfswerk Misereir e V., Friends World Committee for Consultation, Sudwind, Colombian Commission of Jurists, Human Rights Watch, Indian Council of South America, United Nations Watch, Liberation, Centre independent de Recherches et d’Initiatives pour le Dialogue and Rencontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de l’Homme.

Speaking in right of reply were Turkey, Greece, Cyprus and Colombia.

Ambassador Idriss Jazairy of Algeria also made a statement as Coordinator on overlapping issues in the review process between the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 24 March, when it will continue to take action on draft resolutions and decisions.

Statements by Concerned Countries

ANDREAS HADJICHRYSANTHOU (Cyprus), speaking as a concerned country, said it was regrettable that the 2010 report of the High Commissioner had made no reference to Turkey’s orchestrated policy of colonisation which aimed at altering the demographic character of the areas under its occupation. The general tendency of the report to ignore the root causes of the problem by omitting any reference to foreign occupation and the primary responsibility of the occupying power for the restoration of human rights violations in question did not administer justice but simply facilitated impunity and the continuation of the human rights violations that were under examination. The actual obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights in Cyprus was the persisting illegal occupation which was sustained by the presence of 43,000 heavily armed Turkish troops on the island. Cyprus could not accept that the negotiating process or any confidence building measure could provide or should be projected as an excuse for the continuation of the human rights violations of the Cypriots. Respect for the inalienable human rights should not be made conditional to political considerations or processes and it was therefore vital that political considerations be avoided in drafting the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The 2010 report had not addressed the issue of the illegal construction boom occurring in the occupied areas or the illegal exploitation of properties belonging to Greek Cypriot displaced persons. Absent from the report was also any reference to the unacceptable living conditions of the enclaved Greek Cypriots and Maronites living in the occupied areas whose rights were violated on a daily basis by the occupying regime. As mentioned in the present report, the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of the Ministers’ Deputies of the Council of Europe had repeatedly pointed out Turkey’s failure to effectively investigate the fate of the missing persons; Turkey still had to establish an effective investigation mechanism which should furnish a list of Greek Cypriots prisoners of war who had been transferred to Turkey and detained in Turkish prisons. The right to freedom of religion was an issue directly related to the mandate under which the yearly reports should be prepared. Even in the occasions where religious events were permitted by the occupation regime, the pilgrims were subjected to restrictions, fees and other arbitrary policies. It was regrettable that the report had not included any reference to the devastating conditions of 520 churches and monasteries in the occupied part of Cyprus, which in fact constituted a violation of the cultural rights of all Cypriots.

SEBASTIEN MUTOMB MUJING (Democratic Republic of the Congo), speaking as a concerned country, thanked the High Commissioner for her report on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and took this opportunity to condemn any attitudes aiming to focus on isolated cases of human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The report prepared by the Government reflected the situation of a zero tolerance policy against impunity and more than 150 injunctions to procedure to the judiciary had been issued against criminals and the authorities had been carrying out this work through military and civil jurisdiction. All of this showed the will of the Government to fight against impunity and consolidate on a daily basis the rule of law in the country. The mechanism of human rights was in full operation and it was formed by a mixed composition. The liaison unit fully enjoyed international support and the support of civil society. Looking at better partnership between the Government and civil society, the Government had initiated a draft law on the protection of human rights defenders and also a draft law to provide reparation to those who had been victims of sexual violence. In addition, a draft law had been initiated to deal with cases of serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Their delegation once again reminded the Council that the phenomenon of rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo came from the military rule that was imposed on the country in 1994 and these violations had been carried out in the country and the lack of prosecution had led to the intensification of these violations in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They welcomed the commitment of the international community to support the Government in the implementation of an action plan on the recommendations submitted to the country and they asked the High Commissioner to formally include their comments in the report.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking as a concerned country, said Guatemala would like to continue working closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; the recommendations from the High Commissioner’s Office, the Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review provided a guide to press on with the protection of human rights. The Government of Guatemala was concerned with human rights issues related to security and justice, particularly the right to life and the protection of the most vulnerable, women and children and minorities. The report presented the obstacles to implementing the recommendations in full but also highlighted the positive steps in the areas of justice and increased investment in social justice. The Government recognized the important role that United Nations organizations and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights played in involving civil society and other actors in the defense of human rights and the fight against impunity. It was important for the country to continue the work of the Commission Against Impunity. Guatemala said its effort to establish a legislative framework was recognized throughout the United Nations system. In a spirit of cooperation, the delegation said it was aware that some Special Procedures were making urgent appeals with determined deadlines for responding and non-compliance would result in public statements and the Government felt this attitude went against openness and cooperativeness.

MOHAMED CAMARA (Guinea), speaking as a concerned country, said that it was regrettable that the report of the High Commissioner on Guinea had not been translated to French, which prevented Guinea from making comments. Guinea nevertheless reiterated its commitment to cooperating with the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner in the promotion and protection of human rights, which included the opening of the office in the country, the visit of the High Commissioner to Guinea in March and the creation of an independent human rights body just last week. Guinea would spare no efforts in combating impunity and in prosecuting perpetrators of serious human rights violations, especially those that had occurred on 28 September in Conakry. Also, judicial reform, the reform of armed forces and security sector, and the alignment of the national legislation with resolution 1820 of the United Nations Security Council would be addressed. In conclusion, Guinea reiterated the appeal to the international community to provide support to the country that had been weakened by the prolonged instability and difficult transition that had negatively affected the economic situation in the country.

ALI BAHREYNI (Iran), speaking as a concerned country, said that with regard to the report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Iran, they drew the attention of the Council to the fact that General Assembly resolution 65/226 was adopted as a result of political motivations of certain countries and was voted against by a large number of United Nations Member States. The adoption of the resolution was the result of an unfortunate manipulation of the United Nations system. Despite its strong opposition to the resolution, Iran was ready to provide the necessary information to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare an impartial, factual, substantiated and well documented report. The report of the Secretary-General resembled a catalogue of poorly resourced information and allegations and its content was totally misleading and lacked balance. Iran had always manifested their full commitment to promote human rights at the national and international level based on constitutional law and on the commitment to international human rights instruments. The country had worked to realize the rights of the people and to create a society based on justice and social and economic development. The two International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights could easily guide them towards achievements in various aspects of their life. Self monitoring was a key principle in the Iranian system and different monitoring mechanisms had been established to guarantee the correct functioning of the judicial sector. The law on the citizens’ rights was adopted in 2004 and special offices had been established to protect the rights of women and children. Mediation centers were another mechanism to promote the partnership of ordinary people in the administration of justice. Iran had extended invitations to United Nations Special Rapporteurs and they had provided responses to Special Rapporteur’s recommendations and conducted bilateral cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner and with single States to foster international cooperation. Their commitment for the promotion and protection of human rights was deeply rooted in their beliefs and values.

SHRIGU DHUNGANA (Nepal), speaking as a concerned country, said that with democratic pluralism and human rights as core principles, Nepal was working hard to bring the peace process to a successful conclusion and had written a new democratic constitution through the elected and most inclusive Constituent Assembly. A mandated Special Committee had taken over the former Maoist combatants and assumed responsibility for their integration, supervision and rehabilitation. Nepal said that the report of the High Commissioner could have been more constructive and meaningful and truly representative of the situation in the country. The Government was fully committed to ending impunity by addressing the past as well as maintaining effective law and order. The Government had tabled two Bills in the Legislature for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a Commission on Disappearance which were prepared following extensive consultations with victims, civil society and national and international stakeholders. The Government of Nepal said that strong security and law enforcement measures were prerequisites to ending impunity and a Special Programme had been adopted for improving the law and order situation and to protect human rights and end impunity. A three year Human Rights National Action Plan (2010-13) focused on realizing the concept of the rule of law by ending impunity and corruption. The Government had a zero tolerance policy for any violations of human rights and a number of security personnel had faced departmental and other actions in accordance with the Military Act and Police Act. The Government was currently drafting a penal code, sentencing legislation and criminal procedure code which would address wide ranging violations including torture, enforced disappearances and crimes against humanity. The constitution and laws of Nepal prohibited any type of discrimination against any citizen or community on any ground including caste. The Government of Nepal remained engaged with the human rights machinery.

GULNARA ISKAKOVA (Kyrgyzstan) thanked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the technical assistance provided to Kyrgyzstan, which still needed to overcome the challenges from the June 2010 violence. Several commissions had been established in order to investigate the events that had taken place. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had identified several critical human rights issues and had assisted the Government in addressing them. The Government did share the concern of the Office regarding the state of the judicial process, fair trial and due process. Kyrgyzstan was currently implementing a number of changes in its legislation according to the new constitution and was doing its best to address the causes and consequences of the 2010 violence. In closing, Kyrgyzstan emphasised that the country was open to change in order to guarantee the human rights of its citizens.

General Debate on Technical Assistance and Capacity Building

ISTVAN LAKATOS (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that all States were required to respect, protect and promote human rights. That was a universal obligation to which there could not be exception. However, not all States had the same resources to enable them to achieve this objective. The European Union was therefore convinced that cooperation could be an important element in promoting human rights, as well as in preventing and redressing human rights violations. Such cooperation had to take the form of technical assistance and capacity building programmes for States wishing to improve their human rights records but whose resources were limited. The European Union wished to pay tribute to the work achieved by the Special Procedures, technical assistance and capacity building procedures, primarily by the country mandate-holders, but also by the thematic mandate-holders who carried out country visits, an approach that they warmly encouraged. The European Union regretted that the interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on Burundi had been postponed for the third time. The European Union welcomed the adoption of the law on the Independent National Human Rights Commission. It was now important to effectively put in place the Commission and to take all appropriate measures to ensure its work, in line with the Paris Principles.

The European Union was fully aware of the commitments made by the Democratic Republic of the Congo to strengthen its policy on human rights. They recognized the considerable challenges ahead regarding the full implementation of recommendations set out by the United Nations human rights system. The report on Guinea Conakry covered the situation until December 2010. Since then, some progress had been made, but important challenges remained, in particular with regard to accountability and the fight against impunity. As highlighted in the report, it was critical that Guinea promptly called for an inclusive national consultation with a view to creating a Commission on Truth, Justice and Reconciliation. The European Union noted some progress in Nepal, also thanks to the collaboration by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with national bodies to support the Constitution-drafting, preparation of transitional justice legislation and the establishment of a witness protection mechanism. Finally the European Union wished to express concern on the human rights situation in Afghanistan and they encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner to continue working to reduce human rights violations in this country.

PETER WOOLCOTT (Australia), speaking in a joint statement on behalf of a group of 55 States, said that the task of the Human Rights Council was to support the practical implementation of the 2005 World Summit commitment to ensure that genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity never took place again. Member States should work with the High Commissioner to support long-term measures that helped States exercise their responsibility to protect, such as institution building, strengthening the rule of law and technical cooperation to promote respect for human rights and to prevent and address human rights violations. The Council also had a role in working with States to help build capacities and share best practices that reduced social tensions and contributed to conflict prevention. Australia reaffirmed support for the mandates of the Special Advisers to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and on the Responsibility to Protect. Australia urged all States to implement their responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and called on the international community to continue to provide international assistance and capacity building to help States in this regard.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said with regard to the report on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the African Group commended the commitment of the Government of this country to undertake initiatives in cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to protect and promote human rights. The African Group recognised that the Democratic Republic of the Congo had fully accepted and undertaken all measures to stop human rights violations. The African Group encouraged the Office and international community to fully support the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo toward the implementation of the national action plan. The High Commissioner had not kept to the discussions held during the last session of the Council when it was said that the issue of the Mapping Report should not have been introduced through the back door. The references made on that report not only about the Democratic Republic of the Congo but other countries as well were deeply flawed and the compilation of the report had been carried out in a secretive manner by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Therefore, the Mapping Report had no standing in this forum. The African Group had also pointed out that the report had been released to the media even before the countries concerned had a chance to comment on it. The African Group very strongly rejected this issue.

JUAN VILLAR (Spain) said that Spain attached importance to human rights protection and to technical assistance and these were universal obligations. Spain was actively committed to overcome the challenges faced by countries which Spain collaborated with. The Spanish cooperation plan included cross cutting priorities that had a clear impact on human rights such as gender equality and taking into consideration the cultural dimension. Spain’s cooperation identified a number of priorities such as promoting the quality of democracy and the respect for human rights. Other priorities included the fight against hunger, poverty reduction, education, health, water, gender equality and action for people of African descent. Spain devoted resources to this multilateral cooperation and they were one of the main donors of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The international community had to support the legitimate requests of populations in Northern Africa. It also had to support the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s authorities when they faced huge challenges in terms of justice and reparation reforms. Spain thanked the High Commissioner for the reports that had been submitted and took note of the commitment of the Government of Colombia to promote human rights and they welcomed the renewal of the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner in Colombia. Spain thanked Guatemala for extending the International Committee against Impunity and encouraged them to renew the Office of the High Commissioner’s mandate that expired next September. Spain also supported the Office of the High Commissioner in Afghanistan and said that the promotion of gender equality and the elimination of violence against women had to represent one the main priority action areas.

PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom was pleased to see that in Tunisia a commitment from the Government to work with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was part of the transition process which was an important step but the expectations of the Tunisian people were high and momentum needed to continue. On Côte d’Ivoire, the United Kingdom remained deeply concerned about the deteriorating security situation and reports of increasing fatalities and deliberate campaigns of intimidation and provocation. The United Kingdom strongly supported the Council’s focus on both Tunisia and Côte d’Ivoire. The United Kingdom was pleased to see the renewal of the Office’s mandate in Colombia and would like to congratulate the Government of Colombia on its approach to human rights and to urge the Government to match their political will with the necessary resources and commitment to build the capacity of national mechanisms and enact reform of the justice system. The end of open conflict in Nepal and the political transition was welcome but the United Kingdom agreed that issues remained, particularly the lawless behaviour of armed groups, weak rule of law, systematic issues of caste-based discrimination, gender based violence and access to basic services. The United Kingdom strongly believed that it was important that the Office’s mandate be extended this June.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States) said that the Human Rights Council had numerous mechanisms for addressing the daunting challenges posed by human rights violations around the world and technical assistance and capacity building were an important tool for addressing urgent country situations. Through this agenda item, the Council could identify country specific issues, appoint Special Procedures, hold dialogues, panels, briefings and use resources of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to address situations. The work of the High Commissioner and her Office was integral to the Council and Ms. Pillay had spoken out on many difficult country situations over the past three years. For countries in transition technical assistance was often significant in holding free and fair elections, undertaking constitutional reforms, dialogues with civil society, instituting improvements in accountability and legislation and conducting ongoing human rights monitoring. The United Nations could continue to help countries in transition by encouraging them to scrutinise their human rights records, include women and minorities in the decision making and strengthen the rule of law. The United States had demonstrated its commitment to working with others in this Council to bring attention to situations that required assistance. Some situations needed to be more fully addressed, including Afghanistan and Cambodia. The United States fully supported a collaborative approach that assisted countries where appropriate and believed that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights must expand its field presence in order to carry out its job to the fullest.

BEATE STIRO (Norway) said Norway would comment on two reports, namely the report of the Secretary-General on the human rights situation in Iran and the report of the High Commissioner on the human rights situation in Afghanistan. Norway recognized the findings presented in the report of the Secretary-General on Iran, and they wished to reiterate their deep distress at the general deterioration in the human rights situation in the country. The report confirmed that human rights violation were systemic and included repression of political religious and other minorities. Norway was particularly concerned by the worsening situation of human rights defenders, and they voiced their deep concern at the treatment of the lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, who was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison and barred from leaving the country for 20 years. The increasing number of persons being executed was very worrying. Norway appreciated that Iran engaged in debate on the human rights situation in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review and urged continued discussion of these issues. Norway joined the call for the establishment by the Human Rights Council of a special procedure on Iran, aiming to efficiently address the serious and deteriorating human rights situation in the country.

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil) said the lack of capacity of States to face and address challenges in the area of human rights was at the core of many violations and was one of the main obstacles to implement the Council’s responsibility to promote and protect human rights worldwide. Brazil advocated for the strengthening of the capacity of the Council in the area of technical assistance and capacity building and had signed a Memorandum of Intent with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and expressed its willingness to cooperate with interested States. Brazil had suggested several ideas for the enhancement of cooperation activities in all mechanisms which were reflected in the supplement adopted by the Working Group in the areas of Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review. Reactions were skeptical to proposals to mainstream technical assistance and capacity building in day to day activities. Initiatives aimed at preventing violations by building capacity in States should encompass all human rights: civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights. The causes of violations were related to the lack of opportunities available to the population, particularly young sectors of society, social exclusion, hunger and extreme poverty. Brazil asked how many of almost 40 draft resolutions to be submitted in this session had at least one paragraph or reference to technical assistance to promote and protect human rights. Brazil strongly encouraged those delegations that had renewed their interest in technical assistance to make use of the mechanisms in existence in the Council to provide support for interested countries.

XIA JINGGE (China) said China took note of the report on technical assistance to countries and the report of the Secretary-General. China appreciated the efforts of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to bring technical assistance to countries in need and China hoped that the Office could take practical steps to provide technical and financial assistance to countries. The Office should work together with other United Nations agencies and mechanisms. China took note of statements of responsibility to protect and was aware that this concept touched on the sensitive issues of national sovereignty. All governments bore the primary responsibility to protect their citizens and therefore the responsibility to protect should not be in conflict with the respect for national sovereignty and the principle of non-interference. Responsibility to protect should apply only in grave human rights violations including war crimes, crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. When those crimes took place, the actions taken must be in strict conformity with the United Nations Charter and in respect of views of regional organizations. The concept of responsibility to protect was a concept only and did not constitute international legal rule and should not be used to interfere in internal affairs of other countries. The operational possibilities of the concept of responsibility to protect should be discussed in the General Assembly and not in the Human Rights Council, concluded China.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that the Human Rights Council just like the rest of the human rights machinery was already working to protect the human rights of all and there was no need to establish new mandates or mechanisms. The main shortcomings of the Human Rights Council were the lack of political will for genuine dialogue and the claim of a few industrialized powers to impose their hegemony and assist countries situated in geo-strategic military positions or that had energy recourses. The so-called “responsibly to protect” had been manipulated and intervention forces were responsible for the death of many people and the practices of torture and extrajudicial detention were also committed under the alleged responsibility to protect. Some countries were hard workers to promote their interests even through nuclear weapons. Cuba asked the Council why the northern powers did not equally promote and protect the Palestinian population. When the General Assembly agreed on the concept of responsibly to protect, Cuba was among the first to defend its application and they would continue to work for peace, justice and development. Sovereignty and non interference in domestic affairs were inalienable principles and they would oppose the imposition of any matter which would constitute a threat to them.

AISHATH LIUSHA ZAHIR (Maldives) said the Maldives had extended its full support to the work of the Office of the High Commissioner in providing technical assistance to the Government of Afghanistan in the field of human rights. The Maldives recognized the challenges faced by the Government of Afghanistan and called on international partners to step up their financial and technical assistance towards these efforts, more specifically to render urgent assistance to legislative initiatives such as the drafting and implementation of the Bill on the Elimination of Violence against Women and to stay engaged with the Afghan Government. The Maldives strongly supported the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture. The grants provided by the Fund provided vital medical, psychological, social, financial, legal and humanitarian assistance to victims of torture and their relatives. The Maldives was deeply concerned by the marked shortfall in the Fund and urged governments to maintain their support for the Fund Board. Regarding the Universal Periodic Review Trust Funds, the Maldives considered these were vital mechanisms to support the universal nature of the review process especially for small island developing states and least developed countries.

EKSIRI PINTARUCHI (Thailand) said Thailand shared the concerns of the High Commissioner on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and saw the need to promptly address the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and sexual violence which continued to exist in that country. Thailand recognised the commitment of the Government to implement recommendations it had received and urged the Government to step up its efforts to implement the national plan of action. The High Commissioner should assist the Government in those efforts, in particular in implementing structural reforms to ensure sustainable changes. Thailand urged the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to take all measures to eliminate all forms of violence against women and to establish and promote effective mechanisms to receive and investigate complaints of sexual violence. Thailand would like to see greater attention given to the Universal Periodic Review, as the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review recommendations would help States in addressing the situation of human rights violations on the ground and in advancing the promotion and protection of human rights. Thailand therefore supported the strengthening of the Universal Periodic Review Voluntary Fund which would enable States to take an active part in the Universal Periodic Review and in the follow up of recommendations.

ASIM VETIKHAR AHMAD (Pakistan) thanked the High Commissioner for the report on the human rights situation in Afghanistan and they supported the efforts of this country to overcome their challenges. Human rights could best be promoted in an environment of peace and rule of law had to be upheld at the international level. It was imperative to devote more resources to promote international dialogue and development. A group of States had raised the issue of the responsibility to protect and they considered it appropriate to clarify some aspects of this issue. The concept of the responsibility to protect populations from crimes against humanity covered a wide range of issues which required a comprehensive discussion. Pakistan acknowledged the complexity and sensibility of the issue and stressed the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of this issue. The General Assembly had continued to discuss this topic and the responsibility to protect encompassed all aspects of the United Nations. They recalled that today the only guideline on this issue was a delegate compromise and it was important to find convergence in order to preserve consensus. Any approaches had to respect the sovereignty of States and support capacity building. They expected all Member States to facilitate this discussion.

OLEG MALGINOV, (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation believed that when various aspects of the right to protect were discussed that the guidelines of the World Summit Outcome document should be followed. In this document, the right to protect was limited to four categories: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and should not be extended beyond these categories. The Russian Federation said expanding the term of the right to protect should be discussed only in the General Assembly.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said Algeria welcomed the discussions on agenda item 10 which was not on the responsibility to protect, but on international cooperation, technical assistance and capacity building in the promotion and protection of human rights. Algeria said that the Voluntary Fund was an important tool for technical assistance in the field of human rights and despite the economic crisis the level of contributions had been maintained. It was important that the proportion of non-earmarked contributions be increased. Algeria supported the two Universal Periodic Review funds and reiterated the call for rationalisation of their work. Algeria also reiterated the need for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide technical assistance and capacity building at the request of concerned States which corresponded to the priorities set by those States.

FERIDUN KEMAL FERIDUM (Turkey) said that the report on the situation of human rights in Cyprus did not accurately reflect the situation. The report did not respond adequately to the question of economic rights, while economic discrimination suffered by Turkish Cypriots on the island was among the most flagrant violations of human rights on the island. Turkey also regretted that the report was silent on the cases of abuses, discrimination and racism perpetrated against the Turks. Regarding the issue of property, they recalled the position given by the European Court of Human Rights.

GEORGES J. KAKLIKIS (Greece) said the report by the High Commissioner had overlooked the roots of the problem that had led to the adoption of the mandate. In 1975 the human rights of the Cypriot people were violated based on the illegal invasion and occupation by Turkey. The European Union concluded that Turkey should investigate the citizens who disappeared in 1974 and this process should be accelerated by giving access to military zones where mass graves were reported. Greece hoped that in the future the Office of the High Commissioner would prepare a more accurate report on the Island of Cyprus which reflected why the mandate was implemented.

REINHARD SCHWEPPE (Germany) said Germany welcomed the mission of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to Tunisia and the recommendations presented to the Government of Tunisia and to the Human Rights Council. Germany called upon Tunisia to engage in a dialogue with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Tunisia was undergoing a phase of profound transformation initiated by a peaceful revolution. The transition was far from over and Germany welcomed the standing invitation to the Special Procedures and the ongoing discussions on the abolition of the death penalty. Germany welcomed the general amnesty and release of prisoners ordered by the Transitional Government. It was important that the Transitional Government did not hesitate in implementing a comprehensive reform of the judicial system and of the security sector thereby strengthening the rule of law and respect for human rights. Germany also mentioned the reforms that the King of Morocco had announced recently, including the establishment of a consultative committee to prepare a revision of the constitution to be submitted for the approval by the Moroccan people.

IRINA SCHOULGIN NYONI (Sweden) thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the wide range of comprehensive reports presented. Sweden noted with satisfaction the improved cooperation between the Colombian Government and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia. Sweden recognized the progress made by the new Government under President Santos in the expressed commitment in terms of respect for human rights. The draft legislation presented by the Government related to victims’ rights and land restitution was particularly important. Sweden noted with satisfaction that the number of known extrajudicial executions had been reduced, but was concerned about the large number of cases of extrajudicial executions that were still handled by the military judicial system.

PAOLO CUCULI (Italy) said Italy appreciated the statement by the Minister of State and National Human Rights in Somalia under Agenda item 10. Italy encouraged the Transitional Federal Government in its endeavours to achieve peace and stability in Somalia and to foster, with the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the promotion and protection of human rights. Italy would continue to support the authorities of Somalia through cooperation with United Nations agencies, international organizations and relevant stakeholders including through the Geneva Friends of Somalia.

RANIA ALMULIFIY (Kuwait) said Kuwait took good note of the report on Afghanistan and the progress made in that country. The relationship between Kuwait and Afghanistan went far back and Kuwait had signed an agreement with the United Nations last year to establish a logistical assistance unit to help restore stability in Afghanistan. The Dubai Conference of last year had stressed the importance of stability and the creation of investment possibilities in various sectors, which would lead to the creation of 500,000 jobs. Kuwait urged the United Nations to provide technical assistance to Afghanistan, notably in the human rights field. Kuwait would continue to provide support in a bid to ensure that peace and lasting security prevailed in Afghanistan.

SHEHEREZADE KARA, of Shirkat Gah, Women's Resource Centre, said it supported the recommendations of the High Commissioner to address the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan. The threats and reprisals against women who run independent shelters were an issue of concern. Reports by human rights defenders showed that these women faced constant death threats from families demanding the return of women and girls under their care. The positive impact of their work made them an easy target of attacks by hard-line conservative religious forces in the country. They protected girls and women who had fled violence committed by their own families and community. Afghanistan had an obligation to support the work of independent shelters and to ensure the safety of their personnel.

ADRIE VAN DE STREEK, of Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, in a joint statement with International Commission of Jurists, called upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights to recommend that Colombia abide by the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers so that they could fulfil their critical role of defending rights and the rule of law without risk to their personal and professional safety. It was regrettable that the report of the High Commissioner had not contained reference to the many lawyers who had been killed and those who continued to be at risk because of their human rights advocacy. The “International Caravana of Jurists”, comprised of 57 lawyers from 15 countries, had visited Colombia in August 2010 to asses these grave issues. Lawyers Rights Watch Canada welcomed the land restitution policy, but feared that many lawyers who worked on implementing this policy would become victims of grave attacks.

VINCENT VALLIES, of Bischofliches Hilfswerk Misereor, said that the international office of Human Rights Action Colombia welcomed the presentation of the Office of the High Commissioner on the human rights situation in Colombia and efforts needed to be strengthened to allow long lasting solutions. They were concerned by the violence exercised by paramilitary groups whose existence was not recognized. The denial of paramilitary groups’ existence was particularly serious for the accountability and the responsibility that the Colombian government had for these groups. They were concerned at the removal of the right to vote in Colombia and at the lack of implementation of the recommendations for the early warning system. The Council should review the extent of the implementation of the recommendations of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

RACHEL BRETT, of Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers), referred to paragraph 90 of the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia, which stated that during 2010 the High Commissioner’s office in Colombia “observed irregular, and in some cases clearly illegal practices in the military recruitment process” and recommended that “these practices should be discontinued as soon as possible. Rapid development of mechanisms to regulate military service, including conscientious objection, with full respect for human rights, was urged.” Their contacts in Colombia informed them that a large proportion of military recruitment continued to take the form of what were known as batidas, in which young men were systematically stopped in public places.

HASSAN NAYEB HASHEM, of Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, said it was concerned by the new wave of demonstrations in Iran with fresh attacks and brutal measures used by Iranian authorities in order to spread fear and suppress the peaceful movement. Despite Iran’s promise to stop executions of children and the practice of stoning, there were still more than ten pending cases of stoning and at least a hundred juveniles on death row. Sudwind fully supported resolution L.25 on the Islamic Republic of Iran which was signed by 50 Member States, including 13 of the Human Rights Council, and looked forward to its unanimous approval.

ANA MARIA RODRIGUEZ, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, said the annual report on Colombia indicated to what extent the internal conflict had violated human rights. Between 2007 and 2010, 1,000 displaced persons were murdered. Protection policies and protection programs should be instituted as part of the land restitution process. Guarantees should be included in the land restitution process. The report concluded that previous measures had not been implemented and the High Commissioner urged the Government of Colombia to comply with recommendations as the best means of addressing the needs of victims.

JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said that Guinea had undergone important transformation, but numerous challenges and concerns remained. There was an urgent need to end impunity for the perpetrators of serious past human rights abuses and the numerous human rights violations committed during the electoral process. Corruption on the part of Guinea’s past rulers resulted in the fact that, despite the abundance of its natural resources, it was among the poorest nations in the world. Human Rights Watch urged the Office of the High Commissioner to continue to monitor and report on ongoing human rights abuses and ensure that the findings were made public; provide security services personnel with adequate training; advise the Government on the establishment of an independent national human rights institution; provide technical assistance to enhance the expertise of national authorities including judges, prosecutors and lawyers; and provide technical assistance for the establishment of a witness protection unit and to develop forensic experience.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, said there were several countries in the Western Hemisphere that had been colonised and refused to address the rights of indigenous peoples. The imposition of sovereignty over the territory and nation of indigenous peoples had left a legacy of completely disappeared nations and peoples and loss of language, territory and resources that were necessary for their survival. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could play an instrumental role in addressing the denial of the right of recognition of indigenous peoples as nations and peoples who had been systematically stripped of territory and sovereignty since the Christian religion had been imposed upon them. This resulted in institutional discrimination at the international level where indigenous people were denied their equal right to self-determination.

ABIGAIL CHERNICK, of United Nations Watch, was gravely concerned by the dire human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as documented in the joint report today by the seven human rights experts. Human rights violations continued unabated in the Democratic Republic of Congo, including arbitrary detentions, torture, sexual violence, and repression of human rights defenders and journalists. They therefore urged the Council to respond quickly and favorably to the experts’ call for the establishment of a special mandate to monitor this situation.

SAEED MOKBIL, of Liberation, said that human rights efforts in Somalia were impacted by several constraints and any further efforts should be carried out in cooperation with non-governmental organizations as key actors in the protection of human rights, taking into account the non-governmental organizations’ ability to participate in conflict prevention and post-conflict peace-building and to operate effectively under repressive conditions. Liberation believed that technical cooperation programmes of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be designed to address the requirements of the changes in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa.

ALFRED GONDO, of Centre indépendant de recherches et d'initiatives pour le Dialogue (CIRID), said it drew the Council’s attention to the Great Lakes Region and the double standards approach in the region. The World Organization against Torture had recognized and confirmed the genocide that occurred in Burundi. Since 2001 corruption had spread in Burundi and the review of Burundi would be a significant step forward.

ROMAIN MORIAUD, of Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l'homme, said that the High Commissioner’s efforts in the countries of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and Guinea were welcomed. Rencontre Africaine was concerned by the inhumane conditions of detention in prisons in the Democratic Republic of Congo and hoped there would be a credible and transparent investigation into the assassination of Floribert Chebeya. The criminal code in Burundi still contained gaps regarding the definition of rape and sexual harassment. It was critical for the international community to provide assistance to Guinea to fight drug trafficking and violence against women and Rencontre Africaine urged the Government to pursue reform of the army and the justice sector.

Right of Reply

YAPRAK ALP (Turkey), speaking in a right of reply, said that the Cyprus question had started in 1963 and United Nations troops had been sent to the island to appease the situation. Nevertheless, the Greek Cypriots continued to strike with the aim of cleansing the island of Turks. Turkey, according to its international obligations, had to intervene in order to protect Turkish Cypriots.

ALEXIOS MARIOS LYBEROPOULOS (Greece), speaking in a right of reply, said that Greece wished to remind them that in 1975 it had been Turkey which had invaded Cyprus, not Greece. Even today, there were United Nations forces on the island, as well as Turkish army forces.

MARIA MICHAEL (Cyprus), speaking in a right of reply, said that the Cyprus problem had started in 1974 with the Turkish invasion and occupation that continued even today. In fact, the report that was heard today was mandated against the backdrop of the Turkish invasion.

YAPRAK ALP (Turkey), speaking in a second right of reply, said that the statements of Greece and Cyprus were far from reality and a peaceful and comprehensive settlement plan. The Annan plan did address these issues and if it had not been rejected by the Greek Cypriots, the Turkish army would have been withdrawn from the island.

ALICIA VICTORIA ARANGO OLMOS (Colombia), speaking in a right of reply, said it thanked the European Union for its comments, but it wanted to clarify that the figures for violence in Colombia had not gone up; in fact there had been a drastic reduction in violence in Colombia. There was no doubt that Colombia had a problem with armed groups, including demobilized paramilitaries, but the violence figures had gone down.

Statement on the Review Process of the Council

IDRISS JAZAIRY, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Algeria, said that the President of the Council and himself in his capacity as Coordinator on overlapping issues in the review process between the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly attended the fifth open-ended plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 17 March. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the relationship between the two bodies in the context of the review exercise. There ensued a discussion from which there was an emerging consensus in several areas. Firstly, there was broad support alignment for the Human Rights Council cycle with the calendar year. The second aspect was related to the consideration of the Annual Report of the Human Rights Council. Views differed on whether recommendations to the General Assembly should continue to be presented by the Member States that sponsored them in the Human Rights Council or be considered in toto. Thirdly, with regard to the consideration of financial implications of Human Rights Council decisions, there was general agreement on suggestion number 3 of his update of 16 February 2011 on converting into standard practice the exceptional arrangement made in 2010 whereby ACABQ/5th Committee accepted to consider the financial implications of these annual sessions of the Human Rights Council including the September session at the main session of the General Assembly. Fourthly, there was an emerging consensus on the contingency for unforeseen and extraordinary expenses. The discussion of suggestion number 5 of his update was not concluded, but left for further consideration by ACABQ/5th Committee.

Action on Resolution Under Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/16/L.1) regarding the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, adopted without a vote, the Council adopts the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training as contained in the annex to the present resolution and recommends that the General Assembly, in accordance with paragraph 5 (c) of its resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, adopt the following draft resolution: “The General Assembly, welcoming the adoption by the Human Rights Council, through its resolution of 23 March 2011, of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, adopts the United Nations declaration on human rights education and training as contained in the annex to the present resolution and invites Governments, agencies and organizations of the United Nations system and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to intensify their efforts to disseminate the Declaration and to promote universal respect and understanding thereof, and requests the Secretary-General to include the text of the Declaration in the next edition of Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments.”

OMAR HILLALE (Morocco), introducing the draft resolution L.1, said that the draft was purely procedural so they decided to have two operative paragraphs recommending that the General Assembly adopt the resolution and urging States to step up efforts to disseminate its content. Since the launching of this initiative in September 2009 there had been great support from non-governmental organizations and experts who worked alongside the Council’s members and they thanked them and expressed their gratitude to all partners for their commitment and collective efforts. Morocco said there were 69 additional co-sponsors of the resolution, bringing the total number of co-sponsors to 86.

CHRISTOPHER LOMAX (United Kingdom), speaking in a general comment, said that the United Kingdom believed that human rights education and training were essential for the protection and enjoyment of human rights throughout the world. The United Kingdom did not believe that there was a basis in international law to recognise human rights education and training as a human right. This Declaration did not recognise human rights education and training as a human right, but was an expression of commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights. The United Kingdom would continue to promote human rights education and training wherever possible and as events around the world demonstrated, it was essential that people enjoyed their rights.

MARK J. CASSAYRE (United States), in an explanation of a vote before a vote, said it welcomed the text on the declaration on human rights education and training. There was a debate among countries about whether or not there was a right to education in human rights and although this right did not exist in the United States and the Government would not want this as a requirement in the text, this should not impact other countries’ belief in this right.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record