Human Rights Council hears statements from 12 dignitaries as it continues its High-Level Segment

Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON

1 March 2011

The Human Rights Council this afternoon continued with its high-level segment, hearing statements from 12 dignitaries who, among other issues, spoke about the human rights situation in Libya and international reactions to the violations of human rights in that country, issues and challenges to the promotion and protection of human rights at the national level and the need for the further strengthening of the Human Rights Council to make it more effective in addressing human rights situations around the world.

Speaking were Salomon Nguema Owono, Vice Prime Minister in charge of Social Affairs and Human Rights of Equatorial Guinea; Vuk Jeremic, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Serbia; Lene Espersen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark; René Castro Salazar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica; Henri Eyebe, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cameroon; Temir Porras Ponce Leon, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Venezuela; Bruno Rodriguez Parilla, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba; Edith Harxhi, Deputy Foreign Minister of Albania; Manuel Domingos Augusto, Secretary of State for External Affairs of Angola; Nebojsa Kalidjerovic, State Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro; and Arman Kriakossian, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Armenia.

Speaking in right of reply were the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Estonia, Latvia, Cuba, Morocco, Japan, Azerbaijan and Armenia. Speaking in second right of reply were the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Azerbaijan and Japan.

During the meeting, many speakers expressed concern about the human rights situation in Libya and commended the Human Rights Council for swiftly responding with its Special Session. Dignitaries welcomed the adoption of a strong resolution calling for the establishment of an independent international commission of inquiry into violations of international human rights law in Libya and expressed their support for the proposed suspension of this country from the Council. Further on the situation in Libya, a speaker expressed hope that a peaceful solution to the situation in Libya could be found without foreign interference and with preserving the integrity of that nation. It was feared that any foreign interference, motivated by the wish for Libya’s oil reserves, would push the agreement further away and would result in greater damage, displacement and misery of the people. Another speaker cautioned that the cause and the origin of the revolutions they were witnessing were the struggle against poverty, misery, sickness, and analphabetism among other problems. Those challenges could only be addressed though genuine and active international solidarity reflected in concrete actions and decisions.

On the effectiveness of the work of the Council it was noted that this forum was starting to yield its first results, as evidenced by its vigorous reaction to the situation in Libya. The Council should build on such progress to act in concert to address urgent situations wherever and whenever required. A number of speakers noted that the political will of a number of Member States had been insufficient or in direct opposition, which resulted in abuse of the membership and obstruction of the actions of the Council. It had affected how the Council conducted its business and had also negatively impacted the review process which had unfortunately not succeeded in improving its working methods. The Universal Periodical Review was one area where Member States had shown the political will to act and it had been an excellent tool to promote human rights through monitoring and dialogue. Other mechanisms and working methods of the Human Rights Council that had contributed to its success over the past five years included Special Sessions, panel discussions and interactive dialogues, which had all helped to create more awareness about specific human rights situation and helped to create pressure.

When the Council reconvenes at 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 2 March, it will continue with its high-level segment. It will hold a panel discussion on the enjoyment of human rights of people of African descent starting 12 p.m.

High-Level Segment

SALOMON NGUEMA OWONO, Vice Prime Minister in charge of Social Affairs and Human Rights of Equatorial Guinea, said that Equatorial Guinea was duty bound to consider the issue of people of African descent, who had given rise to a dynamic culture and economic development of countries in which they had lived. Years of segregation and racial discrimination had not made it possible for them to make their contribution in music, literature and arts widely known. In that sense, Equatorial Guinea wholeheartedly welcomed the efforts and activities of the Working Group on people of African descent. The analysis on the situation of children of African descent was particularly important and Equatorial Guinea would make a particular contribution to this issue. The implementation of the right to development had been very slow in the international discussions, and despite the Declaration on Right to Development the situation had not improved greatly in many countries combating underdevelopment. Many countries needed to give further thought to their obligations to cooperate and eliminate obstacles to development. Economic and social development could be achieved with political commitment and sufficient resources.

The Government of Equatorial Guinea demonstrated the intention to develop a follow-up framework to the medium-term economic strategy. In that sense, a household survey had been undertaken in 2006 which demonstrated that over 70 per cent of the population were poor. Principal causes of poverty were lack of work, insufficient income and prices of agricultural products, corruption and mismanagement. Based on those findings, the national plan for socio-economic development had been developed which made it possible to design a number of policies, initiatives and programmes to combat poverty and underdevelopment. In the following phase, the priority had been given to infrastructure, including transport and water and sanitation, governance, and upgrading human capital. Diversified energy sector had been another focus of developmental efforts, together with agriculture, in order to guarantee food security.

VUK JEREMIC, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia, said that Serbia had taken many concrete steps to further the peaceful resolution of disputes and the reconciliation of peoples in the Western Balkans. In the last few years, great strides had been made in completing the process of regional reconciliation. Serbian President Boris Tadic had led by example working hard to improve their bilateral relations with Croatia, despite profound differences in their respective assessments of the 1991-1995 conflict. In this light they hoped for progress on key outstanding issues such as the return of expelled Serbs, missing persons, property restitution, tenancy and pension rights. The President’s efforts were also instrumental in ensuring that their National Assembly passed a historic Declaration on Srebrenica this past March. The crime was unequivocally condemned, while condolences and apologies were extended. Mr. Jeremic said that this act of parliament was unprecedented, not only for the Western Balkans, but also for all of Europe, a continent whose long and bloody history had recorded many events requiring contrition. Lastly Serbia would continue its full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Serbia would stay the course until this process was brought to its successful conclusion. The Minister drew the Council’s attention to Serbia’s human and minority rights protection record and highlighted in particular the fact that Serbia had established 19 national minority councils, which were directly elected in 2010. Serbia underscored their efforts to promote the inclusion and empowerment of Roma, one of the most vulnerable groups in Europe. In late February, Serbia presented their initial report on the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Mr. Jeremic said that Serbia was a country of tolerance, in which close to 30 ethnic and religious communities lived harmoniously together, not just side by side. Unfortunately there was one area within the constitutional borders of Serbia where human rights standards were not adequately observed: Kosovo and Metohija. On the basis of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 adopted in June 1999, their southern province had been under the international interim administration. Standing in stark contrast to the rest of Serbia, the state of human rights there was dismal, especially with regards to the non Albanian communities. When Serbia addressed the United Nations Human Rights Council last March, it had drawn attention to allegations that leading Kosovo Albanian public figures had been involved in harvesting and sale of human organs before, during and after the 1999 conflict. Earlier this year, a Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly report entitled “Inhuman Treatment of People and Illicit Trafficking in Human Organs in Kosovo”, had reasserted these dreadful contentions, which had shocked the conscience of the world. The report stated that the so-called “Kosovo Liberation Army Drenica Group” engaged in money laundering, smuggling of drugs, cigarettes and weapons, as well as human trafficking, and that it bore primarily responsibility for the fate of many hundreds of kidnapped civilians. Serbia affirmed that the international community had to insist on a credible and transparent criminal investigation to ascertain the veracity of those unconscionable allegations. The alleged criminal trail led not only to a number of European countries, but also into parts of Africa, Asia and Middle East. This was a highly complex case that needed to be handled with extraordinary attention. A single authority must ultimately coordinate the investigation process, manage the jurisdictional issues, and ensure the proper administration of justice. In conclusion, Serbia emphasized that the requirement to uncover the truth about these serious allegations, whichever side the actors belonged to and irrespective of their ethnicity or function, had to be neither politicized, nor linked to diplomatic disagreements over Kosovo.

LENE ESPERSEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs Denmark, said that Denmark was concerned about the human rights situation in Libya where indiscriminate armed attacks had occurred against civilians and it had expressed concern about the reports of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, detention, torture of peaceful demonstrators and the use of mercenaries against civilians. Denmark commended the Human Rights Council for swiftly responding to the grave and systematic human rights violations in Libya at the Special Session called for by the European Union on Friday and welcomed the adoption of a strong resolution, which called for the establishment of an independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law in Libya.

The Libyan people should decide who their leader should be, not the international community, however because of the brutal use of violence against civilians and peaceful protestors the international community should state clearly that the present regime in Libya had lost all its legitimacy. Denmark supported the move of the General Assembly to suspend Libya’s membership in the Human Rights Council. Denmark deeply regretted the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators and deplored the loss of life. The international community had a responsibility to support the aspirations of the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya who had sought genuine political reforms and democracy.

Denmark, since the founding of the Human Rights Council in 2006, had been increasingly concerned about the way the Council had conducted its business; many times the political will of a number of Council members had been insufficient or in direct opposition to the duties which the Council was established to perform resulting in some countries having abused their membership to frustrate or even obstruct the actions of the Council. These same problems had been manifested in the Council review process which had unfortunately not succeeded in improving the working methods of the Council. Nevertheless, the Council had shown its ability to act and make a difference at the Special Session on Libya and the Council should build on such progress to act in concert to address urgent situations wherever and whenever required.

The Universal Periodical Review was one area where the Member States had shown the political will to act and it was an excellent tool to promote human rights through monitoring and dialogue. This tool should be strengthened by working to ensure an efficient follow-up to the recommendations made during the review process. Member States should take an honest look at their own track record in terms of human rights and should be frank and unsentimental in assessing their own performance. Denmark would table a draft resolution to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture, and with the European Union would table a resolution on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief at the current session and hoped it would be adopted by consensus.

RENE CASTRO SALAZAR, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, said that the Human Rights Council was starting to yield the first results on effecting the promotion and protection of human rights, based on its vigorous action on the human rights and humanitarian situation in Libya. Costa Rica was convinced that all members of this Council must focus on the protection of victims and not on their individual political interests. The approach of Costa Rica was based on fundamental principles and values. Human rights were essential in formulating public policies and in protecting marginalised groups. Legislation had been adopted defining the participation of women in political life and last year for the first time a woman had been elected as president. The Government tackled with conviction the issue of gender equality and the combating of poverty. Moreover, as part of activities under the International Year of People of African Descent, Costa Rica was developing a National Plan to Combat Discrimination. One year ago, Costa Rica had undergone its Universal Periodic Review and now was making efforts to set up an inter-institutional body to follow up on the recommendations arising from this process.

The candidacy of Costa Rica to the Human Rights Council was a priority for its foreign policy. If elected, Costa Rica would work for universal and interdependent human rights and would work for all human beings without discrimination and politicization. In addition, the delegation would be presenting a document on the link between human rights and the environment and hoped the Council would give it due attention. Costa Rica would not allow this Council to ignore and close its eyes in front of situations that required its attention. The Human Rights Council must not become a non-operational body in the United Nations’ universe. Several years ago the violation of its national sovereignty by the neighbour in the north had tested Costa Rica’s resolve and commitment to the rules and principles of the international law. An effective multilateral system was needed to provide protection to countries against transgression by other countries, Costa Rica concluded.

HENRI EYEBE AYISSI, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cameroon, said that the present session of the Human Rights Council was taking place at a particular moment of the Human Rights Council’s life. Indeed, the deep change encouraged by the General Assembly resolution 60/251 towards a reform of the human rights system and a better framing of the promotion and protection of human rights was concretely reflected by an intense and profound discussion about the work, functioning and effectiveness of the Council. The work of the sixteenth session of the Human Rights Council was taking place against a background of political and social turbulence that affected particularly North Africa and also the Middle East with whom Cameroon shared many common values. Cameroon for its part considered that the struggle against poverty, misery, and sickness, analphabetism and the inequality of epiphenomenon were triggering all the revolutions. These challenges in fact could only be resolved though genuine and active international solidarity reflected in concrete actions and decisions. Cameroon had always been devoted to resolving urgent problems and that was why Cameroon had established a judicial and socio-economic frame particularly propitious for the growing of competences in order to make Cameroon a State party of the emerging economies and societies. Cameroon was a country where the rule of law prevailed and it was party to all human rights conventions; furthermore a national independent Commission of Human Rights and Freedoms was in charge of supervising the respect and strict implementation of these values and ideals in perfect compliance with the Paris Principles. The celebration this year of the tenth anniversary of the Centre of Human Rights in Yaounde would allow the country to strengthen this collaboration in the future.

Mr. Ayissi said that Cameron had no less that 400 newspapers and TV stations. On the economic and social level Cameron had pursued its role for a better future, which included, among other factors, sustainable development and a contained inflation. Unemployment remained a major concern for the Government, particularly youth unemployment. The Government had always considered this as a major concern and that was why 25,000 new jobs in the public sector had been created. The agro-pastoral sector was also important because it provided jobs for young people. The Government and people of Cameroon could count on the support of the international community to help the country progress in peace and stability in a world which itself was undergoing rapid changes. In a search for economic growth inferred by the promotion of public and private investments it remained a constant that the stability of the political institutions and the perseverance in the implementation of judicial and economic policies were essential factors and Cameroon would continue to work and confirm its imagine as a country with experience in global development and the promotion of various partnerships.

TEMIR PORRAS PONCE LEON, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, said that three days ago Venezuela had commemorated the Massacre of Caracazo in 1989 where thousands of civilians were killed by the Government of the time because people took to the street to protest against the International Monetary Fund’s policies and to ask for their basic human rights. At that time no regional or international organizations had made pronouncements or declarations against the Government and that was perhaps why, 10 years later in 1999, Venezuela had created a new Government and carved in stone in its new constitution a mandate for an absolute guarantee of human rights for all citizens. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had followed the Simon Bolivar plan for the past ten years which had made it possible for all citizens to exercise their freedoms through the rule of law. Mr. Leon said he himself had been a representative of the Venezuela indigenous people whose political representation had been enshrined in the constitution along with the cross cutting gender approach for gender equality which had resulted in many women currently occupying important positions of power in the Government, including the Attorney General, the Prosecutor General and the President of the Supreme Court.

Between 1999 and 2010 the percentage of the poor in Venezuela had been halved due to the Government’s commitment to human rights for all and particularly for the poorest. The Genie Index identified Venezuela as having reduced income inequality through policies of wealth redistribution and by ensuring that human rights for education, health and food applied to all. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization declared that Venezuela was a country free of illiteracy. This year the Government would submit to the Universal Periodical Review and the grass roots organizations and government bodies had been working hard on this. Venezuela had accomplished much and had a clear strategy for the future and would like now to voice, in a critical yet constructive manner, some of its concerns notably on the Council’s policy of double standards, pointing fingers at some governments while ignoring the powerful countries; this should be changed. Venezuela looked forward to the day when this Council would investigate the actions of the occupying powers against the peoples of Iraq or Palestine and impose sanctions on the power that bombarded Gaza in 2009.

President Hugo Chavez had been one of the first world leaders to respond to the crisis in Libya and had called for the setting up of an international good will commission to open up a dialogue. The participation of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the Human Right’s Council would continue to be inspired by the flame of rebellion which had encouraged the people of the south who have often been mentioned at this podium and then forgotten.

BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARILLA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba, said that Cuba fully shared the concerns of the world about the deaths in Libya and hoped that peaceful solutions to the civil war there were found without foreign interference and while preserving the integrity of that nation. Cuba was opposed to any foreign interference which would further push agreement away and result in greater damage, displacement and misery. It was clear that the wish for Libya’s oil reserves was driving the call of some countries for a NATO intervention in this country. In the face of the enormity of the events in the Middle East and in light of the global crises, responsibility and long-term view should prevail on the part of governments of developed countries. Foreign intervention would bring about war and bring misfortune for the poor from around the world. The roots of the troubles in the Middle East lay in the plundering policies of the United States and its European allies in the region. Food prices had tripled, water resources were dwindling, and deserts were expanding and with it went an offensive social inequality and exclusion despite the opulent oil wealth of the region. During the last decade international humanitarian law had been trampled underfoot in Guantanamo Bay. The global number of refugees caused by wars had increased by over 30 per cent and global spending on war and weapons had climbed by 49 per cent in the past decade. Each year, 740,000 people died from armed violence associated with organised crime and not only conflicts.

The Council had shown its capacity to address the human rights situations in the world, including those of an urgent nature. The usefulness of the Universal Periodic Review had been confirmed as a basis for international cooperation, to assess performance of all countries without distinction. Cuba expected that the Human Rights Council would continue to build on those advances for the full exercise of its mandate. It would be very negative if pressures were exercised at this important juncture and precedents were set that would modify already reached agreements. Was the Council ready to suspend a membership of a country that unleashed a war, Cuba asked? What did the Council intend to do to address the main threat to humans – nuclear weapons? Would a thematic procedure on climate change and human rights be established and would the right to a healthy environment be proclaimed? Cuba also asked what would happen to a Member State that accepted in its territory secret illegal prisons and if the Council would adopt a programme of action and concrete commitments to ensure the right to food, address soaring food prices and the use of cereals for biofuel consumption.

DORU COSTEA, State Secretary for Global Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania, said that the international community had reached maturity and it was time to assess, with due openness, the strengths and weaknesses of the Council and of its toolbox, according to the mandate entrusted by the General Assembly. Mr. Costea considered first the Universal Periodic Review and said that it had been by far a most comprehensive exercise conducted in a universal, objective and non-selective manner. All States examined so far enjoyed equal treatment from the floor and no country was spared critical remarks as to various concerns raised by delegations in the room. The Special Procedures continued to play a critical role in shedding light on how States complied with human rights norms and standards and how to better respond to the specific challenges emerging in their societies. In order to benefit from their valuable work, and to make it as comprehensive as possible, Romania encouraged States to rely on their expertise and cooperate with mandate holders in complete faith. Romania said that the Council should be able to better address urgent situations as they appeared, otherwise it would become irrelevant and would lack credibility. The State Secretary said that it was not about naming and shaming, it was about keeping promises that were determined to carry out the work of the Council, in order to redress each situation and to show their solidarity to all peoples and States.

Mr. Costea said that the international community had to work together to enhance the role of the Council as an early warning mechanism in situations of grave and massive human rights violations and that they could not advance peace and development, while ignoring democracy and respect of their human rights. The State Secretary presented some of Romania’s latest achievements and recalled that five years ago, Romania was entrusted with a first mandate of two years in the Human Rights Council and that it had undertaken with great responsibility its membership, at the very outset of its functioning. On the national level, Romania’s Universal Periodic Review exercise (in May 2008) was proof of the open and constructive manner in which the country approached human rights and soon after that exercise Romania had announced measures taken as a follow-up to recommendations received during the process. A mid-term report on the implementation of the recommendations was presented during the Human Rights Council session in September 2010. Romania was among the countries that had issued a standing invitation to the Special Procedures and cooperated with the special mandates interested in human rights’ developments in the country. Romania also closely cooperated with the treaty bodies and they had accelerated the preparation of their national periodic reports. In order to be meaningful, Romania’s actions needed a sustained dialogue and engagement with civil society. In conclusion, Romania said that one lesson that they had learnt from their democratic transition was that they had to pay attention to their concerns when drafting policies. For this reason, Romania had constantly supported a meaningful participation of non-governmental organizations in the activities of the Human Rights Council.

EDITH HARXHI, Deputy Foreign Minister of Albania, said that Albania joined today the rest of the international community, the Security Council and the European Union strongly condemning the violation of human rights in Libya. As a country that only 20 years ago emerged from the iron curtain and dictatorship where the most elementary human rights were totally violated and where the communist regime condemned and punished any initiative of the people for democracy, Albanians fully understood the dire situation of the total denial of human rights in Libya. The international community should take an active role and Albania fully supported the right of the people of Libya to stand for democracy and freedom and appealed to the Government of Libya to immediately withdraw the use of force and violence against innocent civilians and allow for an immediate democratic solution to the crisis in the country.

The constitution of Albania began with a clear statement on human rights: the right to life, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right to information, freedom of conscience and religion, personal freedom, the right to privacy. Albania had
joined the group of countries which had ratified Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights by removing the death penalty from criminal legislation in any circumstance in war or in peace. Albania was a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and had ratified almost all the conventions on human rights within the United Nations and those of the Council of Europe. Of the institutions that had operated in the fields of human rights, the Constitutional Court had played a special role in the protection of human rights by providing in its jurisdiction the examination of individual complaints for the protection of constitutional rights. The institution of the Ombudsman continued to confirm its role as an essential element of human rights infrastructure, and as a mediator between the administration and individuals. Increased participation of women in politics and public life was a top priority for Albania. Gender and social issues were an integral part of the National Strategy on Development and Integration along with the adoption and implementation of the National Strategy on Gender Equality and Domestic Violence, 2007 to 2010. In 2010 the Albanian Parliament enacted a law against discrimination which bridged a significant gap in the existing domestic law by abolishing any discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and other grounds. The institution of the Special Rapporteur against discrimination was set up with the aim of implementing the laws as well as monitoring the situation of human rights in the country and recording possible violations.

Albania noted that by the end of 2010, 143 out of 192 Member States had been reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and that a broad range of recommendations to all areas of human rights had been made. Albania had extended a standing invitation to the Special Procedures and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions had visited Albania last year; this year Albania was preparing for the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of migrants.

Regional reconciliation was a priority for Albania and part of this process should be an acceptance of guilt and seeking forgiveness for the abuses of human rights, genocide and torture; unfortunately this had not happened in the case of Kosovo where the aggressor had not accepted its guilt. Ten years after the end of the Balkans war forgiveness had not been asked for by Kosovo for all those killed, persecuted, expelled, exterminated and that remained missing until today. Albania would like all violations of human rights in the Balkans to be investigated and the perpetrators who were still at large in the Balkan countries to be handed in and prosecuted. Albania voted in favour of the resolution, in the Dick Marty Report of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, to demand that all the allegations put forward by the Rapporteur and repeated by Serbian politicians, including the Minster of Foreign Affairs of Serbia, should be investigated thoroughly.

MANUEL DOMINGOS AUGUSTO, Secretary of State for External Affairs of Angola, said that it was only through concerted efforts of important institutions and the assistance of the international community working in a transparent manner that there could be certainty of the world where human beings and all their rights were respected and promoted. The absence of strong policies on economic, social and cultural rights could be a driving force behind revolutions, as the world was witnessing in North Africa and the Middle East. In Libya, a nation that once had been the strongest economic nation in the region, the country found itself in the middle of protests caused by the poor socio-economic situation of its people. The Council was to be commended for its swift reaction to this country’s situation, as was the condemnation issued by the African Union. Angola called on the international community to join hands with Libya to restore peace and sanity and to preserve its national integrity and territorial unity. Angola congratulated the Council on all its achievements over the past five years, including action on serious human rights situations, mostly though its Special Session mechanism. The Universal Periodic Review was also an important mechanism which would prevent any country from concealing human rights abuses within its borders from the eyes of the international community. Panel discussions, interactive dialogues and other Council working methods helped create more awareness and pressure.

Being a new institution, the Council was not without failings. It was not able to predict human rights crises nor was it able to eradicate human rights abuses and that was why the Government of Angola welcomed the review process of the Human Rights Council. Any new mechanism must have safeguards from politicization and the Council must adopt ways of working that would keep it in touch with victims of violations and would enable it to respond more effectively to violations everywhere. States must continue to examine carefully all processes, not only the ones that yielded results with the aim of fine tuning them, but also to find ways to improve the weak ones in order to make them more effective. Angola had undergone the Universal Periodic Review in 2010 and the implementation of recommendations would be reviewed again in a few years time. The Government of Angola had already started addressing concerns raised during the review, which included ensuring wider healthcare coverage, revamping of prison conditions, construction of a million homes to improve the housing situation in the suburban areas and others. Also, Angola was working hard to accede to other key international instruments such as on torture, against racism and racial discrimination, on migrant workers and others.

NEBOJSA KALUDEROVIC, State Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of Montenegro, said that Montenegro considered that the restriction of human rights, suppression and the use of force against civilians represented a serious violation of international human rights law and generally accepted principles of international law. All these violations required an immediate and adequate response from the international community without distinction of any kind. Montenegro shared the grave concern about the situation in Libya and fully supported the efforts and decisions made by the Security Council and the Human Rights Council last week. Montenegro had founded its policy of human rights protection on the basis of international legal documents and respect of the highest standards of the United Nations, the European Union and the Council of Europe. As a candidate country for membership in the European Union, Montenegro had carried out a full reform of activities aimed at establishing a legislative framework for the full implementation of all human rights: civil and political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, and effective and transparent monitoring of their implementation. Montenegro had achieved significant cooperation with Special Rapporteurs on the promotion and protection of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, the situation of human rights defenders as well as with the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, thus dealing with some very sensitive issues. Montenegro had extended a standing invitation to all thematic Special Procedures and called on other countries to do the same. Montenegro approached its commitments responsibly through a number of conventions to which it acceded after the restoration of its independence. Effective implementation of international human rights instruments, monitoring and fulfilling recommendations of the contracting bodies were priorities of their work on improving and strengthening the system of human rights protection.

Mr. Kaluderovic said Montenegro was confident that the results of its work, achieved in less that five years from the restoration of its independence, were solid recommendations for obtaining support to become a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Montenegro passed an experience of a successful multicultural and multi-religious society that inherited a tradition of harmonious coexistence and tolerance, and building on these grounds, was able to face contemporary integration streams and cooperation at the regional and global level. Montenegro was confident that these facts stood as a guarantee of the commitment of the Government if Montenegro to fully devote its mandate as a Human Rights Council Member State to further affirmation of universal values of human rights.

ARMAN KIRAKOSSIAN, Deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia, said that Armenia gained its independence in 1991 amid the democratization process in the Eastern Block countries. Armenia shared the vision of independent statehood and a society respecting human rights with other countries in the region and since then it had worked to enshrine these aspirations and intentions into legislation, institutions and policies.

In 2006, Armenia had issued a standing invitation to Special Procedures and accommodated all requests for country visits. Last year, three Special Procedures visited Armenia and two of them were presenting their reports in the current session. Armenia was able to accept 95 per cent of all recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review; this successful performance had to do not only with the openness and determination of Armenia but also was due to effective information sharing modalities such as compilation reports providing good guidance to the peers.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had the challenge to reach people in all corners of the world regardless of the legal status of their territories. Armenia would like outreach to be enhanced, thereby creating conditions for the universal human rights holders to address their basic rights and fundamental freedoms. Armenia had recently held an international conference on genocide prevention and shared a rich exchange of views on how to enhance and institutionalize the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities.

Human rights should be respected by addressing the aspirations of individuals and groups through dialogue. It had often been the case that after decades of conflict parties had been compelled to return to the very beginning and focus on the right of self-determination and this had been Armenia’s stance on the conflict of Nagorno Kararabakh. Armenia would like to mention that this understanding was shared by mediators and hoped that it would soon gain more understanding from all parties involved.

Right of Reply

SO SE PYONG (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, rejected accusations made by some delegations against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which it saw as seeking confrontation. The Republic of Korea must be held accountable for its accusations, the delegation said. With regard to the Japanese abduction case, it had been completely resolved in full compliance with the declaration. The only outstanding case was the moral obligation of Japan to address its abuse of human rights during World War Two. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had serious reservations as to the position of the United States, which itself had failed to recognise its own responsibility for human rights violation in Iraq and elsewhere. Finally, the delegation categorically rejected the name calling of other countries.

JURI SEILENTHAL (Estonia), speaking in a right of reply, clarified some issues in the statement made earlier by the Russian Federation’s Foreign Minister that made a mistake about Estonia’s citizenship policy. The number of persons with undetermined citizenship had decreased and Estonia encouraged those people to apply for Estonian citizenship. The persons with undetermined citizenship had travel documents and Estonia was one of the few countries where persons with undetermined citizenship had the rights to vote. Estonia hoped that these clarifications would give to the Russian Federation sufficient information.

JANIS MAZEIKS (Latvia), speaking in a right of reply, said Latvia would like to respond to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia on the question of Latvian citizenship. Latvian non-citizens enjoyed almost the same rights as citizens, and could obtain citizenship by a simple process of naturalization as thousands of them did every year.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba), speaking in a right of reply, said that Sweden did not have any authority to judge any country on their human rights record. Cuba was still awaiting the response to the request for information on Swedish implication in CIA secret flights. Together with the United States, Sweden had participated in the trials of the founder of Wikileaks.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco), speaking in a right of reply, regretted that Algeria had not respected the code of the high-level segment and had shown a lack of understanding of history. It would have been better to deal with human rights in their own countries. On the Western Sahara, Morocco said it only existed in the imagination of Algerian diplomacy. Morocco denounced Algeria’s use of the Palestinian case to illustrate the situation in the Western Sahara. Morocco said that Algeria had a decade-long state of emergency and had no legitimacy to talk about human rights. Morocco asked if Algeria had respected the will of their people to self-determination.

KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan), speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said that what was said by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was in contradiction with the agreement which was signed in August 2008 upon the overall modalities of the reinvestigation on the abduction issues. On the remaining issues, the Government of Japan remained committed to normalize their relationship with the Democratic People’s Republic Korea and had been engaging in the process of normalization of bilateral relationship and would continue to do so and take concrete actions to resolve this issue of concern.

ISMAYEL ASADOV (Azerbaijan), speaking in a right of reply to the statement by Armenia, said the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan was an inalienable and integral part of the Republic. This fact was well documented in the numerous resolutions and reports of the international organizations. Thus the delegation of Armenia should not have touched upon the issues of the Nagorno Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. They should have focused on the situation concerning human rights in Armenia and measures undertaken by the Government to improve the situation. It was a well-known fact that Azerbaijan had continued to suffer from Armenian aggression during the last 20 years. As a result of the Armenian aggression and ethnic cleansing carried out against the Azerbaijani population of Nagorno Karabakh, 20 per cent of the territory of Azerbaijan remained under Armenian occupation. Armenia should cease its destructive policy of annexation and ethnic cleansing and ensure that the occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan ended.

VAHEH GEVORGYAN (Armenia) speaking in a right of reply, said that it disagreed with what was said about it not being able to discuss the right of self-determination of Nagorno Kararabakh in its statement to the Council. Azerbaijan had been negotiating with Armenia on Nagorno Kararabakh and self-determination had been part of these negotiations. So now how could it be that Armenia had no right to speak on self-determination of Nagorno Kararabakh when declarations had been signed and the issue of self-determination had been discussed along with the option to not use force and to respect territorial integrity.

SO SE PYONG (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said that its delegation rejected the Japanese delegation’s statement. First, the Japanese abduction case had been resolved; five survivors had returned to Japan and the remains of eight had been found. Japan was only continuing with this discussion as it was motivated by a political agenda against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea which would like to note that the crimes against humanity that had been committed by Japan in Korea had not been acknowledged by Japan although there was no statue of limitations on such issues. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea urged the Japanese authorities to cease to discuss the abduction cases.

ISMAYEL ASADOV (Azerbaijan), speaking in a second right of reply concerning the remarks by the Armenian delegation, said that the exercise of the right to self-determination needed to be done according to the Security Council and United Nations General Assembly principles, and the inhabitants of those territories were entitled to full protection. Instead of making those kind of abusive statements, Armenia should study the relevant United Nations and other international organizations resolutions on the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan), speaking in a second right of reply, said it wished that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had responded to the concrete actions requested by the international community. The issue of abduction was not only the issue of Japan, but was of concern to many other States and non-governmental organizations. Japan was concerned about the will of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to protect the right to life of its citizens and its Government should take concrete measures to improve the current dire situation in that country.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record