Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Statements Special Procedures
Default title
20 March 1998
Share
54th session of the Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, 20 March 1998
Statement by Mr. Hannu Halinen,
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights
on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories
ITEM 4: QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES, INCLUDING PALESTINE
Check against delivery
Mr. Chairman,
I have been listening to the debate on the Item 4 very carefully. Let me at first make some general comments:
1. On a positive note, I find the statements made across the board more substantive than last year. Almost all of them referred - directly or indirectly - to my report. I am grateful for all the constructive comments.
2. It gives me pleasure to note that the comprehensive approach to Human Rights, which I have been soliciting for a long time - and which now is strongly supported by the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights - received sympathetic attention in some interventions.
3. I am further pleased that the European example of the CSCE process in finding ways to add human dimension in efforts towards lasting peace in the Middle East created interest and support in a few statements.
4. Furthermore, I for one, have been consistently asking for further improvements in the working methods in this Commission. It is invigorating to note that the Chairman and the Bureau have taken in a firm hand in this matter. I particularly appreciated the organizing of the questions and answers session, which I hope contributed to clarify some of the issues, which otherwise would have been felt to be difficult to raise to a more formal setting here in the plenary. I hope this practice would be continued by other Rapporteurs following me.
Mr. Chairman,
The precarious political situation in the Middle East was reflected in the debate, and understandably so. There were constructive calls for revival of the peace process, but bitterness and accusations were also once against heard. I cannot help but refer to views attached to my report in the statement made by the Distinguished Representative of Israel yesterday. Without going into the tone and language of his remarks - which I frankly found surprising from a seasoned diplomat like Ambassador Lamdan - I want to make some specific comments on the points he raised:
1. One could say that the simple reason to the alleged one sidedness of my report is the very none cooperation by the Government of Israel. But let me hasten to add that I don’t accept the sweeping accusation of seeing one side of the story only. The amount of information I am receiving all through the year is quite extensive. I make a point in relying in first hand information whenever possible. This means not only Palestinian but also Israeli and international sources as mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the report. As I said in my introductory statement “those are a statement of facts as reported to me and I stand to be corrected”. Mr. Chairman, no one in this room has suggested any corrections, which is a bit surprising since I am certain that there are bound to be inaccuracies in a number of details. I have asked time and again the opportunity to meet with the distinguished Ambassador here in Geneva as well as well other Representatives of the Government in Israel. I stress in my report that the cooperation with the Government would be clearly be in the interest not only of respect for Human Rights but also of the Government itself. It makes me sad that today our only way of communication appears to be statements make here at the Commission.
2. The Ambassador is not happy that “much” of the report goes beyond my mandate. At the same time he does not mention that in this report, as well as in my earlier reports, I have consistently asked for a wider mandate, to be treated equally with all other country Rapporteurs - a point which so far I have understood to be of interest to Israel, too. Two references were made by him, the General Assembly proceedings and the peace process, were I am claimed to be outside my competence - or ultra vires as they say in Latin. Since this is a UN body, a factual reference to the emergency session of the UNGA on Middle East seemed to me quite appropriate. What comes to the peace process, let me make one thing perfectly clear: I have and never had any hidden agenda, I have no intention whatsoever to introduce myself into the peace process. What should be obvious to anyone who has read my reports or listened to my statements is that I am requesting a discussion and a consideration of the role of human rights in the context of the peace process. This, as I have emphasized, should be conducted, first and for most, between the countries themselves, facilitated, as appropriate, with partners outside. As long as I don’t see any action in this matter I will keep on raising the issue, but only as a catalyst. Listening to the debate I am happy to note that almost all speakers have expressed their concerns about the status of the peace process, many referring also to Human Rights in this context.
3. The attempt to discredit the report of the Special Rapporteur by the government concerned is not new in this forum; that is rather expected particularly from a government refusing to cooperate with the Rapporteur assigned to it. Therefore, to fulfill my task better, I have felt very strongly on the need to accomplish this cooperation. Based on the contents of my reports, the mandate is not and need not to be the obstacle to the cooperation. And if that is the case, let me remind you once again that my voice seems to be among those very few who are asking amendments to the mandate - although in my case from a point of view of overall consistence as well as improved framework for considering Human Rights.
“Facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts”. I could not agree more, Mr. Ambassador. So in the future, why don’t you share with me those facts in advance and let me take them into account in drafting my report, as the Palestinian Authority and others in the international community are doing. I think it is only fair for you and your country. As I said in my report “ Israel also should have the courage to look beyond the mandate, to cooperate fully with the international human rights mechanisms and to participate actively in the substantive debate in this respect”. So, using your words, Mr. Ambassador: lets get serious - but together, in the interest of Israel, in the interest of the Palestinian people, in the interest of Human Rights.
Statement by Mr. Hannu Halinen,
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights
on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories
ITEM 4: QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES, INCLUDING PALESTINE
Check against delivery
Mr. Chairman,
I have been listening to the debate on the Item 4 very carefully. Let me at first make some general comments:
1. On a positive note, I find the statements made across the board more substantive than last year. Almost all of them referred - directly or indirectly - to my report. I am grateful for all the constructive comments.
2. It gives me pleasure to note that the comprehensive approach to Human Rights, which I have been soliciting for a long time - and which now is strongly supported by the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights - received sympathetic attention in some interventions.
3. I am further pleased that the European example of the CSCE process in finding ways to add human dimension in efforts towards lasting peace in the Middle East created interest and support in a few statements.
4. Furthermore, I for one, have been consistently asking for further improvements in the working methods in this Commission. It is invigorating to note that the Chairman and the Bureau have taken in a firm hand in this matter. I particularly appreciated the organizing of the questions and answers session, which I hope contributed to clarify some of the issues, which otherwise would have been felt to be difficult to raise to a more formal setting here in the plenary. I hope this practice would be continued by other Rapporteurs following me.
Mr. Chairman,
The precarious political situation in the Middle East was reflected in the debate, and understandably so. There were constructive calls for revival of the peace process, but bitterness and accusations were also once against heard. I cannot help but refer to views attached to my report in the statement made by the Distinguished Representative of Israel yesterday. Without going into the tone and language of his remarks - which I frankly found surprising from a seasoned diplomat like Ambassador Lamdan - I want to make some specific comments on the points he raised:
1. One could say that the simple reason to the alleged one sidedness of my report is the very none cooperation by the Government of Israel. But let me hasten to add that I don’t accept the sweeping accusation of seeing one side of the story only. The amount of information I am receiving all through the year is quite extensive. I make a point in relying in first hand information whenever possible. This means not only Palestinian but also Israeli and international sources as mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the report. As I said in my introductory statement “those are a statement of facts as reported to me and I stand to be corrected”. Mr. Chairman, no one in this room has suggested any corrections, which is a bit surprising since I am certain that there are bound to be inaccuracies in a number of details. I have asked time and again the opportunity to meet with the distinguished Ambassador here in Geneva as well as well other Representatives of the Government in Israel. I stress in my report that the cooperation with the Government would be clearly be in the interest not only of respect for Human Rights but also of the Government itself. It makes me sad that today our only way of communication appears to be statements make here at the Commission.
2. The Ambassador is not happy that “much” of the report goes beyond my mandate. At the same time he does not mention that in this report, as well as in my earlier reports, I have consistently asked for a wider mandate, to be treated equally with all other country Rapporteurs - a point which so far I have understood to be of interest to Israel, too. Two references were made by him, the General Assembly proceedings and the peace process, were I am claimed to be outside my competence - or ultra vires as they say in Latin. Since this is a UN body, a factual reference to the emergency session of the UNGA on Middle East seemed to me quite appropriate. What comes to the peace process, let me make one thing perfectly clear: I have and never had any hidden agenda, I have no intention whatsoever to introduce myself into the peace process. What should be obvious to anyone who has read my reports or listened to my statements is that I am requesting a discussion and a consideration of the role of human rights in the context of the peace process. This, as I have emphasized, should be conducted, first and for most, between the countries themselves, facilitated, as appropriate, with partners outside. As long as I don’t see any action in this matter I will keep on raising the issue, but only as a catalyst. Listening to the debate I am happy to note that almost all speakers have expressed their concerns about the status of the peace process, many referring also to Human Rights in this context.
3. The attempt to discredit the report of the Special Rapporteur by the government concerned is not new in this forum; that is rather expected particularly from a government refusing to cooperate with the Rapporteur assigned to it. Therefore, to fulfill my task better, I have felt very strongly on the need to accomplish this cooperation. Based on the contents of my reports, the mandate is not and need not to be the obstacle to the cooperation. And if that is the case, let me remind you once again that my voice seems to be among those very few who are asking amendments to the mandate - although in my case from a point of view of overall consistence as well as improved framework for considering Human Rights.
“Facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts”. I could not agree more, Mr. Ambassador. So in the future, why don’t you share with me those facts in advance and let me take them into account in drafting my report, as the Palestinian Authority and others in the international community are doing. I think it is only fair for you and your country. As I said in my report “ Israel also should have the courage to look beyond the mandate, to cooperate fully with the international human rights mechanisms and to participate actively in the substantive debate in this respect”. So, using your words, Mr. Ambassador: lets get serious - but together, in the interest of Israel, in the interest of the Palestinian people, in the interest of Human Rights.