人权理事会讨论防止种族灭绝问题（部分翻译）

中午 / 下午

2014年3月7日

人权理事会今天讨论了防止种族灭绝问题，举行了纪念《防止和惩治灭绝种族罪公约》通过六十五周年的高级别小组讨论，并与联合国秘书长防止灭绝种族问题特别顾问阿达马·迪昂（Adama Dieng）进行互动对话。

联合国人权事务高级专员纳维·皮莱在小组讨论开场致辞中表示，种族灭绝和其他大规模暴行从不会毫无征兆地产生，而是长期人权侵犯的结果。她强调了问责制和威慑的重要性，并呼吁各国采取措施对种族灭绝的肇事者进行调查、起诉和惩罚。

亚美尼亚外交部长爱德华·纳尔班江（Edward Nalbandian）在开幕致辞中提及了防止种族灭绝的三大支柱：早期预警、保护人权及公众教育和宣传活动。否认和有罪不罚将为新的危害人类罪铺平道路，各方都必须对过去的种族灭绝行为作出承认、谴责和惩罚。

今天的讨论小组成员有社会学家、作家和卢旺达种族灭绝幸存者埃斯特·穆哈瓦约（Esther Mujawayo）; 联合国秘书长防止灭绝种族问题特别顾问阿达马·迪昂（Adama Dieng）;瑞士联邦外交部处理历史事务与预防暴行问题工作队高级顾问乔纳丹·西森（Jonathan Sisson）。

穆哈瓦约女士回忆起1994年4月7日发生的悲惨事件以及造成100万图西族人丧生的卢旺达大屠杀。她分享了作为幸存者的悲惨证词及其愧疚和伤痛。只有当所有社会价值沦丧，男女老少都参与杀戮时才能犯下这场在100天内屠杀100万人的种族灭绝。

迪昂先生表示，种族灭绝和危害人类罪都不是在一夜之间发生，而是需要计划预谋并经历多个阶段的过程。目前缺乏监管《公约》落实情况的专门机构可能会驱使一些国家无视其在《公约》下承担的责任，包括预防的责任。

西森先生表示，虽然《公约》为种族灭绝后的问责提供了重要框架，证明种族灭绝意图的困难与缺乏防止种族灭绝的及时政治决定仍是面临的挑战。应对过去是预防的先决条件，而应对过去方面的共同努力可有助于化解根本的不满并在公共机构中建立信任。

发言者在随后的讨论中强调，《公约》为种族灭绝提供了一项明确定义。这次周年纪念活动是一个反思今后打击有罪不罚现象方面的步骤和如何进一步预防种族灭绝罪的契机。一名发言者建议，明确预防和应对之间的区别可以促进消除种族灭绝，而其他一些发言者则强调：提高意识和交流学到的经验是预防和惩治种族灭绝罪行方面的国内和国际努力获得成功的关键。一些代表团表示，种族灭绝的特殊之处在于之前会出现探测信号，这为及时响应提供了机会。

在小组讨论中发言的有：塞拉利昂、欧盟、埃塞俄比亚（代表非洲集团）、古巴（代表观点相同集团）、阿根廷、爱沙尼亚、智利、土耳其、澳大利亚、黑山、葡萄牙、哥斯达黎加（代表拉美和加勒比国家共同体）、新西兰、埃及、卢旺达、摩洛哥、阿塞拜疆、国际红十字委员会、波兰、委内瑞拉、斯洛文尼亚、荷兰、西班牙、阿尔及利亚、美利坚合众国、列支敦士登、比利时、苏丹、马达加斯加和匈牙利。

以下非政府组织也在会上发言：南美印第安人理事会、世界环保理事会、欧洲公共关系联盟、犹太律师和法学家全国协会和消除一切形式歧视国际组织。

人权理事会之后开始了有关促进和保护人权，以及包括发展权在内的公民、政治，经济、社会和文化权利的议程项目，并与秘书长防止灭绝种族问题特别顾问阿达马·迪昂进行互动对话。

迪昂先生在开场致辞中表示，10年前其任务设立的原因是未能成功预防卢旺达和斯雷布雷尼察大屠杀。自此之后，各方不断强调预防暴行罪的重要性，但仍面临着显著的挑战。在种族灭绝危险迫在眉睫的中非共和国，以及暴行罪肆虐的叙利亚等地，必须重点致力于早期预防而非仅限于应对已有情况。一旦这些国家的情况被列入安理会日程，就说明世界未能履行其预防的职责，在叙利亚的例子中，国际社会就已经辜负了叙利亚人民。

发言者在随后与迪昂先生的互动对话中强调，预防大规模暴行并不局限于落实《公约》规定，还应包括使用工具来识别早期预警信号和标志。一名发言者表示，“保护的责任”是预防种族灭绝方面最重要的进展，并强调主要挑战是如何将这一原则付诸实践并确保其实现。代表团们警告说，如果国际社会不采取重要措施，目前世界上多处都可能堕入种族灭绝的深渊。

在与灭绝种族问题特别顾问的互动对话中发言的有：欧盟、摩洛哥、埃塞俄比亚（代表非洲集团）、美国、中国、澳大利亚、墨西哥、孟加拉国、亚美尼亚、爱尔兰、厄瓜多尔和土耳其。

以下非政府组织也在互动对话中发言：绿化母国基金会（Pasumai Thaayagam Foundation）、法国自由基金会和消除一切形式歧视国际组织。

伊拉克在会议最后行使答辩权发言。

人权理事会将于3月10日星期一上午9点举行会议，届时将与酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚问题特别报告员和人权维护者问题特别报告员进行集体互动对话。

纪念《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》通过六十五周年的高级别小组讨论

开场致辞

联合国人权事务高级专员纳维·皮莱表示，1948年通过的《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》是联合国通过的首个人权条约。皮莱还表示，该公约目前仍是一份严峻而紧急的文件，呼吁尚未加入的国家尽快加入并确保其普遍落实。禁止种族灭绝在国际法中并非一般规则，而是一项强制性法规和基本原则。各国必须确保其机构和官员不犯下种族灭绝行为。它们还有极尽所能预防种族灭绝的法律义务。谈及其根源，皮莱女士表示，种族灭绝和其他大规模暴行从来都不会毫无征兆，而是对公民、文化、经济、政治或社会等人权长期侵犯的结果。歧视为暴力和迫害、对整个社区的去人性化以及最终的种族灭绝奠定基础。消除种族歧视委员会已明确了可能导致种族灭绝和需要立即作出响应的关键因素。

人权机制和联合国实体可在监控表明歧视和暴力已充斥社会的迹象以及聚焦国际社会的关注等方面发挥作用。高级专员表示，秘书长的“人权先行（Rights Up Front）举措如果得到全面落实，可协助国际社会履行其预防种族灭绝和其他大规模暴行罪方面的神圣职责。论及打击有罪不罚现象及其在预防种族灭绝中的作用，皮莱女士表示，问责制对确保受害者获得有效补救的权利至关重要， 已设立国际法庭和混合法庭,尤其是国际法院以确保问责和威慑。然而国际司法应被视为最后的解决措施并应避免政治化。各国应采取措施调查、起诉和惩罚种族灭绝的肇事者。种族灭绝是最严重的罪行，国际社会应保护人权、民主和法制以防止其发生。

亚美尼亚外交部长爱德华·纳尔班江表示，亚美尼亚作为经历过二十世纪第一次种族灭绝的国家，感到了为预防危害人类罪的国际努力做贡献的重大道德责任。虽然《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》早在1948年就已通过，新的种族灭绝和危害人类罪行却仍然层出不穷。从柬埔寨、卢旺达到达尔富尔，种族灭绝的骇人现象仍在继续。种族灭绝是是一个复杂的现象，其预防必须基于对种族灭绝历史的准确理解和从过去的失败中汲取经验的决心。预防种族灭绝需要采取强制和预防措施。种族灭绝肇事者必须被绳之以法。人权理事会2013年3月22日的决议提出所有预防性措施都与防止种族灭绝的三大支柱有关，即早期预警、人权保护和公众教育和宣传活动。承认和谴责已犯下的种族灭绝是预防其在未来再次发生的最有效手段之一。否认和有罪不罚则将为新的危害人类罪铺平道路。国际社会必须一致承认、谴责和惩罚过去的种族灭绝行为。

小组成员的声明

社会学家、作家和卢旺达大屠杀幸存者埃斯特·穆哈瓦约表示，今年4月将是开始于复活节星期日的卢旺达种族灭绝20周年纪念。穆哈瓦约女士在令人动容的证词中回忆了种族灭绝的导火索，说在几个月之前就感到了局势的紧张，电台中不断播放着号召将图西人赶尽杀绝的宣传歌。 杀戮从4月7日开始蔓延，图西族没有任何安全的容身之地。穆哈瓦约举起了她的大家庭照片，其中只有她和她的侄女幸存，所有其他人都惨遭杀戮。 她说她虽然活了下来，但失去了所有亲友，生活又该怎样继续？穆哈瓦约女士说，她保留了家庭的照片以提醒自己她是唯一的幸存者。 她仍然生活在真空中，虽然得以幸存但如同行尸走肉。穆哈瓦约女士表示：作为幸存者她充满愧疚，不能埋葬她所爱的人使这种情绪尤为强烈。. 只有当所有社会价值沦丧，男女老少都参与杀戮时才能犯下这场在100天内屠杀100万人的种族灭绝。就连教堂和传统避难所都变成了屠宰场。上帝抛弃了他们。卢旺达社会彻底分崩离析，一切都发生了变化。《公约》生效四十五年之后，卢旺达种族灭绝却发生了。穆哈瓦约女士要求理事会说明恢复正义的措施。

秘书长防止灭绝种族问题特别顾问阿达马·迪昂表示，《公约》通过65年之后，我们仍不幸地看到其重要性。如何更好地预防种族灭绝和其他暴行的问题应是我们从未能预防或制止卢旺达和斯雷布雷尼察种族灭绝的失败中吸取的核心教训。秘书长于2004年发布了一份有关预防种族灭绝的行动计划，并任命了防止灭绝种族问题特别顾问作为早期预警机制。2005年，各成员国在联合国世界首脑峰会上达成了一项具有里程碑意义的承诺，声明其通过预防种族灭绝、战争罪、种族清洗和危害人类罪以落实保护人民的责任。人权理事会在预防方面具有重要作用。理事会应努力预见暴行罪的风险，并在早期提前制止紧张局势升级为潜在的种族灭绝暴力。迪昂先生邀请理事会通过其办事处制订的分析暴行罪风险的分析框架。种族灭绝、战争罪和危害人类罪都不是在一夜之间发生的单独事件，而是需要计划预谋并经历多个阶段的过程。上述框架明确了与评估种族灭绝和其他暴行罪相关的风险因素，并为制订有效的预防战略提供了契机。迪昂先生还鼓励理事会探讨如何更好地监督《公约》的落实情况。目前尚无监管《公约》落实情况的专门机构，这可能会驱使一些国家无视其在《公约》下承担的责任，包括预防种族灭绝的责任。

瑞士联邦外交部处理历史事务与预防暴行问题工作队高级顾问乔纳丹·西森表示，《公约》的通过是实现预防和问责方面的历史性里程碑。但目前仍面临两大重要挑战。 虽然《公约》为种族灭绝后的问责提供了重要框架，但国家和国际法庭在证明种族灭绝意图方面仍困难重重。1948年以来，相关从业者和政策制定者在预防种族灭绝方面已积累了相当可观的知识和经验。但总的来说，这些知识却缺少预防种族灭绝的及时后续政治决定作支撑。所有人都对“不再发生”的承诺耳熟能详，但若缺少对暴行罪恶性思潮的有力回应，种族灭绝就会重蹈覆辙。应对过去是预防的先决条件，而应对过去方面的共同努力可有助于化解根本的不满并在公共机构中建立信任。如果没有这类努力，预防政策就缺少其可信度。

Interactive Discussion

Estonia said the Convention on Genocide and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were the cornerstones of human rights and the basis of international law. Turkey said the Convention provided a clear definition of genocide, was the main and most legitimate instrument at our disposal and had to remain as the general framework for our efforts. Sierra Leone said that raising awareness and sharing lessons learned were key to the success of both national and international efforts designed to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, a fundamental aim of the international community. European Union said the Convention had marked a milestone. Another landmark was the 2005 summit where States recognized the Responsibility to Protect, the European Union said, asking to what extent African regional mechanisms could contribute to the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect.

Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that a number of conflicts around the world today carried the traits of escalation to genocide. Since the Rwandan Genocide, the African Union had enshrined a number of actions and principles to prevent genocide on the continent. Argentina said that the role that it played in the prevention of genocide could not be understood without an understanding of the fight against impunity in the country. Regional fora had been held with countries from different regions of the world, to raise regional and international awareness. Chile said that the wretched shared history of a large number of Latin American countries that suffered systematic massive violations of human rights during the 1970s and 1980s was a factor that pushed for the establishment of the Latin American Network for the Prevention of Genocide. Cuba, speaking on behalf of the Like-Minded Group, said that the right to life was one of the non-derogable rights. Only if all countries respected truth and history and learned from the past would such atrocities be prevented in the future.

Brazil said a clear distinction between prevention and response would strengthen the elimination of genocide. Education in the field of human rights, gender equality and combatting torture and other ill-treatments would be an effective way to prevent hatred that could lead to international crimes. Australia supported the responsibility to protect, as well as efforts to protect victims and ensure reparation. Australia also underlined the importance of regional cooperation. Montenegro said it believed in the importance of propagating information on the Convention against Genocide, to identify root causes and early signs of genocide and to address impunity. Montenegro strongly supported the “Rights Up Front” initiative, as well as other similar regional level initiatives. Portugal said that the Convention on Genocide’s implementation was crucial to eradicate genocide. Each individual State had the responsibility to protect its population from genocide. The United Nations had the ability to work on the prevention of genocide and should use all means it could to do that.

Indian Council of South America underlined the vulnerability of indigenous peoples, and demanded that States’ sovereignty was not used to prevent accountability. World Environment Council regretted the inability of the United Nations to prevent some past genocides, adding that genocide resulted from long-term and deliberate processes. European Union of Public Relations said genocide was always born of a failure to understand that all humans were brothers. The deliberate distortion of education and public information that could fuel hatred and lead to genocide. It was important to involve local charities in genocide prevention.

ESTHER MUJAWAYO, sociologist, author and survivor of the Rwanda Genocide, said society and civil society could make enormous contributions to preventing genocide, particularly in raising awareness and early warnings. The imperative was for the political will to be in place and act on those warnings. States parties to the 1948 Convention had an obligation to fulfil their responsibilities but currently there were no consequences for non-respect of its provisions. The consequences of genocide and crimes against humanity were long reaching and echoed through generations

ADAMA DIENG, Special Adviser of the Secretary General on the Prevention of Genocide, spoke about what the Human Rights Council could do to prevent genocide, and suggested the Council use a tool developed by his Office, the Framework for Analysis of Genocide, which was applicable to all worrying situations. The establishment of Commissions of Inquiry was another important consideration. Strengthening of the preventative process was important too, for example through dialogues and exchanges on the margins of the Council. It was also important to fight impunity and ensure accountability.

JONATHAN SISSON, Senior Advisor, Task force for dealing with the past and prevention of atrocities, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, spoke about the role of the Human Rights Council and existing mechanisms for prevention, particularly in the area of early warning, such as reporting to treaty bodies. The field presence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in many countries was an important element. Collaboration with civil society, such as through civil society forums, could be useful. Civil society was important in advocating and promoting the search for missing persons, and also in the area of justice where it took part in trial monitoring.

Costa Rica, on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, said the international community had made progress in preventing and sanctioning genocide. All available mechanisms had to be used to prevent that crime from occurring and to prevent impunity. Future cases of genocide could be avoided by identifying early warnings and preventing conflicts, and through education. New Zealand said prevention was an essential pillar of the global response. New Zealand asked in which institutional areas improvements were the most needed. The responsibility to engage in prevention work had to be shared throughout the United Nations system. New Zealand underlined the critical role civil society organisations and journalists could play. Egypt said that States had the responsibility to protect their citizens and to ensure that perpetrators were held accountable. Egypt encouraged Member States to develop national expertise to enhance the prevention of genocide.

Rwanda said 2014 marked the twentieth anniversary of the genocide against the Tutsis. It was resolved to ensure that what happened in Rwanda, including the absence of a response by the international community, did not happen again. Rwanda asked what measures could be undertaken to address the issue of genocide denial. Morocco said that the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide was a pillar of the United Nations human rights system, and had to be placed at the heart of the work of the Council. Accountability of perpetrators was essential. Morocco regretted that the international community sometimes lacked the will to intervene. Public awareness-raising on the issues of racism and xenophobia was a mean of prevention. Azerbaijan denounced the extermination of Azerbaijani by Armenia, which suited the definition of the crime of genocide. Azerbaijan urged Armenia to recognise officially that genocide had been perpetrated by them.

International Committee of the Red Cross said that efforts were still needed to enable the full implementation of the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. States had to ensure that perpetrators were held accountable, which included military officers being held personally accountable for the actions of their subordinates.

Sudan said the United Nations General Assembly had already announced that genocide was a clear violation of the right of all peoples to life and to freely exist. Genocide remained one of the most odious and serious crimes that existed and Sudan reiterated the need to respect human dignity. Madagascar said that Convention contributed to recall and enhance the human dignity of human beings and respect for human lives. Slovenia said that the Convention on Genocide remained as valid today as it was 65 years ago. The adopted threshold of the Convention had proven to be very severe in a number of situations.

Spain said that the anniversary was an opportunity to reflect not just on the need to press ahead on the fight against impunity but on how prevention of the crime of genocide could be pressed on with. Venezuela said that 65 years ago the United Nations had committed itself to preventing genocide. However it was seen that such atrocities continued to be committed in the twenty-first century with utter impunity, such as those suffered by the Palestinian people. Algeria said that the Convention had become a reference for all States to protect their people and right to life. Despite achievements, there were a number of conflicts today that could lead to violation of the provisions of the Convention.

Hungary said that the specificity of genocide was that there were detective signals before it and there was a chance of timely response. Netherlands said that the prosecution of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity were first and foremost a national responsibility. How could the Council be more involved in ending impunity towards the responsibility to protect at the national level? Poland said that the crime of genocide was one of the most horrific crimes known to humanity and the international community should not spare any effort to eliminate it. Genocide did not occur out of the blue and had root causes of a political, economic and social nature. Liechtenstein said that more had to be done to implement the Convention. Tribute was paid to the victims of the Rwandan genocide, one of the worst failures of the international community. The international system had to be changed to improve response. Belgium said that it had been one of the first States to ratify the Rome Statute. It encouraged all states to designate a national focal point for the responsibility to protect. United States said the reality of the looming risk of mass atrocities around the world continued to be faced such as in Syria, the Central African Republic, and in the world’s newest nation, South Sudan. There were reasons to be sober and humble about those challenges.

National Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, said that reviewing the last 65 years, not much had changed and two genocidal events had been witnessed in Rwanda and Srebrenica. International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination said that some populations were highly exposed to situations of genocide and the situation in Iraq was a good example of that. It regretted that Permanent Members of the Security Council were sending weapons to Iraq.

Concluding Remarks

EDWARD NALBANDIAN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, called on Turkey to respect the agreement concerning those who had recognised the genocide committed by the Ottoman authorities against the Armenian people, and highlighted the importance of all provisions of the Convention concerning reparations for victims. Concerning the Armenian genocide, Mr. Nalbandian noted that several generations of Armenians were still suffering the consequences and had been waiting for reparations and redress. Concerning the massacres perpetrated by the Azerbaijani forces with political motivations, Mr. Nalbandian said that Baku had to stop using that tragedy as a propaganda tool and for spreading racist ideas. In conclusion, Mr. Nalbandian said it was clear that there was still work to be done on genocide prevention and that the international community needed efficient solutions.

ESTHER MUJAWAYO, sociologist, author and survivor of the Rwanda Genocide, thanked the Council for the invitation to participate in the panel and to share her experience. Ms. Mujawayo said that delegations sitting in this room were representatives of States and had decision making power. She urged them not to forget that there were human beings, just like the ones in the photos she had shown, whose lives depended on the right interventions. Reflecting on the history of the Rwandan genocide, Ms. Mujawayo said 20 years after the genocide, the survivors should not be abandoned. Sharing some of her writing, Ms. Mujawayo evoked memories of the victims and the importance of understanding their experience on the basis of a shared sense of humanity. Nothing should deprive individuals of their humanity, she said, even when they were working in political decision-making.

ADAMA DIENG, Special Adviser of the Secretary General on the Prevention of Genocide, reminded the Council that building resilience was key to preventing genocide. The rule of law should be respected and human rights should be protected without discrimination. Accountable and credible institutions, at the service of the population, should be created. Work had to be done to eliminate corruption, which constituted a serious obstacle for the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. It was also important to help manage diversity in a constructive manner and to support a strong and diverse civil society. Mr. Dieng reiterated the value of the framework developed by his office as a tool to assess risk and to build capacity. Concerning the responsibility to protect, he said it was important to remind States about their responsibilities as well as building capacities for preventing violations.

JONATHAN SISSON, Senior Advisor, task force for dealing with the past and prevention of atrocities, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, stressed the important role of survivors in providing memory and truth. He referred to a positive example concerning sites of conscience in Bangladesh and Argentina on the basis of documentation gathered during and after the conflicts. It was important to promote memories from the point of view of the victims. He also warned that memorials could be divisive and a legal framework at a national level should ensure that memorials promoted cohesion rather than an ethicized conflict.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide

Statement by the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide

ADAMA DIENG, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, said that the establishment of his mandate 10 years ago had been a direct result of the failure of the United Nations system to prevent genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica and one of the most important accomplishments of the past 10 years had been the increased emphasis on the importance of prevention of atrocity crimes, which included genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The challenges of the mandate were significant. One was the title of the mandate itself. No Member State would say it was not interested in preventing genocide. Genocide was a strong word and a horrendous crime; it did not happen often but when it did happen it had devastating consequences for families, societies, States and regions and global peace and security.

Prevention started at home and was the responsibility of States; it implied building the resilience of societies to atrocity crimes and ensuring respect for the rule of law and human rights, without discrimination. Genocide was the result of a series of events that developed over time and required planning and resources and this meant there were multiple opportunities to take preventive action. Efforts must be focused on early prevention and not only on responding to situations where the risk of genocide was imminent like in the Central African Republic, or where atrocity crimes were ongoing such as in Syria. The international community must act well before the violence reached such levels; when situations reached a level of crisis that they were placed on the agenda of the Security Council, like Syria, the world had failed in its duty to prevent.

Interactive Dialogue

European Union said that the “responsibility to protect” had been the most important development in the efforts to prevent genocide. The main question was how to ensure the realization of the “responsibility to protect” and prevention in peaceful times; how to put the principle into practice. Morocco said that despite legal and normative work carried out, more ambition was needed in collective efforts to address the issue. There were several situations in the world that could descend into genocide if important measures were not taken by the international community.

Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, welcomed the capacity building and technical assistance activities of the High Commissioner in the field of genocide prevention. The African Group called on further partnerships between the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General and regional and local organizations. The United States said that preventing mass atrocities was not limited to the implementation of the Convention, but also required using tools to identify early warning signs and indicators. The United States asked how United Nations agencies were working together to implement the framework on genocide prevention. China called on all States to enhance international cooperation to prevent genocide, with the support of the United Nations. Protecting the right to life as well as social harmony would reduce the risks of hatred to develop and therefore would limit the chances of genocide to occur. Australia said it continued to support international and regional efforts to prosecute perpetrators of mass atrocities, particularly in the Pacific region. Australia asked how prevention tools could be adapted to other international crimes. Mexico reiterated that States had the responsibility to protect and prevent genocide, and to exercise universal jurisdiction for this crime, and insisted that tackling impunity for this crime was vital. Mexico underlined the importance of avoiding systematic discrimination targeting certain groups, which could be one of the root causes of genocide. Bangladesh underlined the importance of holding perpetrators of genocide responsible, and would be happy to share its experience prosecuting the perpetrators of mass atrocities that had occurred there.

Armenia said that the Office of the Special Adviser had become an important part of preventive diplomacy within the United Nations system and Governments’ political will remained an important factor in prevention; the work of the Office of the Special Adviser would greatly benefit from the establishment of durable cooperation mechanisms. Ireland said that the prevention of genocide was central to all three pillars of the “responsibility to protect” and preventive policies would be necessary to succeed in the fulfilment of the goals of the Charter. Ireland stressed that incidents of genocide started with hate speech, discrimination and marginalisation. Ecuador expressed support for proposals for the creation of spaces for dialogue and the exchange of experiences; the prevention and punishment should be based on mechanisms that prevented impunity; an important part of the solution should be understanding the root causes on the basis of capacity building and education. Turkey said that in the long run creating an environment that fostered mutual respect and tolerance was an important aspect of prevention; the Special Adviser’s timely statements on situations of concern played a positive work in promoting awareness.

Pasumai Thaayagam Foundation noted that in many parts civilian populations continued to suffer from crimes against humanity and possible genocide and the international community lacked the political will to take action; the Foundation called on the Council to establish an international commission of inquiry on Sri Lanka. France Libertes said that genocide was rightly defined as the most hideous crime against humanity but such crimes did not happen overnight; moving from a reactive to a preventive approach was necessary. How was this possible if civil society warnings were not heeded? International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination said that despite progress made, recent events in Iraq showed that there was still a road ahead. The situation had been described as degenerating into genocide, with military operations predicated on the need to combat terrorism and sectarian rhetoric which showed the intent to eliminate a religious group. The International Organization called on the Council to address this situation.

Concluding Remarks

ADAMA DIENG, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, said in his closing remarks that this type of dialogue with Member States was extremely helpful. He was pleased that several delegations mentioned the reference tool his Office had developed to fight hate speech and incitement to hatred. Quoting past experiences in Rwanda and Libya, Mr. Dieng stressed the real need to closely monitor hate speech. His Office was working closely to see how to engage the discussions on the responsibility to protect within Africa. Regarding the role of the Human Rights Council in implementation of the “right to protection”, Mr. Dieng stressed its early warning function, reminding States of their responsibilities, including the Universal Periodic Review process. Concerning the Analysis Framework, it covered the crimes of genocide, war crimes and crime against humanity, which in the framework were defined using their legal definitions, and Mr. Dieng encouraged States and regional organizations to use it. It was clear that without a vibrant civil society, it would be extremely hard to mobilize action and their involvement was crucial in ensuring accountability and including all sectors of society in decision-making processes. Kenya was an example where civil society was playing an important role, together with the national committee of genocide prevention.

Right of Reply

Iraq, speaking in a right of reply, said that Iraqi armed forces were more than capable of gaining victory over terrorists, but the Government was reluctant to put the lives and property of civilians at risk; accusations of indiscriminate firing were therefore unfounded. Iraq had joined the war on terrorism together with the whole world and this was a bloody war which had to be won.

_________

For use of the information media; not an official record