人权理事会讨论白俄罗斯和朝鲜民主主义人民共和国人权状况（部分翻译）

中午

2014年6月18日

人权理事会今天与白俄罗斯人权状况特别报告员米克洛什·哈拉茲梯（Miklos Haraszti）和朝鲜民主主义人民共和国人权状况特别报告员马祖基·达鲁斯曼（Marzuki Darusman）进行了互动对话。

哈拉茲梯先生在介绍其报告时表示，白俄罗斯政府在报告所述期间几乎未在促进和保护人权方面作出任何努力。人权侵犯现象仍具有系统性和蓄意性质。政府直接监管法制机构，该国仍是欧洲唯一一个议会中没有反对党的国家。白俄罗斯还是唯一保留死刑的欧洲国家。政府与特别报告员之间合作的缺乏强调了继续报告和监测该国人权状况的必要。哈拉茲梯先生强调道，目前仍存在较高风险，白俄罗斯人民的处境值得列入国际社会关注的议程。

白俄罗斯在作为当事国发言时表示，应终止特别报告员的任务。鉴于其设立背后的明显政治动机，白俄罗斯并不认为该项任务是促进人权领域合作的工具。白俄罗斯将在评估特别报告员工作方面权宜行事，并不针对特别报告员个人提出批评。与此同时，由于其任务是欧盟的一项政治计划，白俄罗斯将不能与特别报告员展开合作。白俄罗斯强调，该国并没有亟需理事会关注的紧急情况。

在随后的讨论中，发言者就白俄罗斯持续发生的人权侵犯现象表示关切。他们重点关注了失踪人员的下落、仍被监禁的八名政治犯、对民间社会的压制、酷刑和虐待等。许多代表团呼吁白俄罗斯立即暂停执行死刑，并与特别报告员展开合作，允许其自由进入该国。其他代表团指出，令人遗憾的是，报告的编制仅基于二手资料。一些代表团对国别任务提出反对，认为其经常被政治化。

就白俄罗斯人权状况发言的有：欧盟，俄罗斯代表一个国家集团，比利时，捷克共和国，匈牙利，尼加拉瓜，俄罗斯，英国，阿塞拜疆，古巴，摩洛哥，美国，爱尔兰，波兰，斯洛伐克，朝鲜民主主义人民共和国，爱沙尼亚，立陶宛，澳大利亚，意大利，委内瑞拉，德国，伊朗，黎巴嫩，奥地利，荷兰，中国，法国，塔吉克斯坦，叙利亚，瑞士，哈萨克斯坦，挪威，斯里兰卡，乌兹别克斯坦，老挝人民民主共和国，土库曼斯坦和巴勒斯坦。

以下非政府组织也在讨论中发言：人权之家基金会，大赦国际，联合国观察，人权国际联合会，国际和睦团契，自由之家和人权观察。

达鲁斯曼先生在介绍其有关朝鲜民主主义人民共和国的报告时表示，调查委员会的工作为解决朝鲜民主主义人民共和国人权状况数十年的努力翻开了新的一页，也为各方提供了一个改变包括逃亡海外的受害者在内的朝鲜人民生活的独特契机。因此，推进该项事宜的核心要素在于从国际刑事司法和人权法的角度出发。面对蓄意、广泛和严重侵犯人权的现象，任何负责任的国际社会成员都不应以程序上的差异为借口袖手旁观。达鲁斯曼先生表示，他随时愿意协助建立人权联络组，以为旨在改善朝鲜民主主义人民共和国人权状况的举措提供支持。

朝鲜民主主义人民共和国在作为当事国发言时拒绝接受特别报告员的对抗性报告。这份报告充斥着身份不明的北部叛逃者和畏罪潜逃的罪犯们捏造的谎言。美国和其他敌对势力肆意入侵世界各地并杀害了大量无辜平民，他们才应该成为被调查的对象。朝鲜政府在金正恩主席的英明领导下正大力推进促进和保护人权的政策，将人民大众的利益放在首位，一切为人民服务。

各代表团对达鲁斯曼先生在调查委员会的工作表示赞赏，并强调了委员会在记录朝鲜民主主义人民共和国严峻人权状况方面的贡献。其他代表团则重申其对国别任务以及未获得当事国支持且不利于对话与合作的理事会机制的反对。发言者对大韩民国主持建立一个人权高专办外地办事处的决定表示欢迎，并呼吁相关方加强合作以改善实地人权状况。

以下代表团参与了有关朝鲜民主主义人民共和国状况的互动对话：英国，以色列，法国，苏丹，捷克共和国，阿根廷，白俄罗斯，美国，澳大利亚，丹麦，中国，大韩民国，老挝人民民主共和国，委内瑞拉，新西兰，阿拉伯叙利亚共和国，爱尔兰，缅甸，瑞士，匈牙利，波兰，日本，挪威，泰国，博茨瓦纳，津巴布韦，古巴，马尔代夫，伊朗和加拿大。

人权观察，大赦国际，联合国观察和千禧运动也在讨论中发言。

理事会将于下午四点听取有关有效执行《德班宣言和行动纲领》政府间工作组第十二届会议的报告和执行德班宣言和行动纲领问题独立知名专家组的报告，随后将进行有关种族主义、种族歧视、仇外心理和相关不容忍现象的一般性讨论。

Documentation

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, Mr. Miklos Haraszti (A/HRC/26/44)

Presentation by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus

MIKLOS HARASZTI, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, presenting his report, said that during the past 12 months there had been no positive change as the Government had made little effort to promote and protect human rights; human rights violations remained of a systemic and systematic nature. Systematic because they were committed on a daily basis and in all walks of life, and systemic because laws and institutions were specifically designed so that human rights violations became their natural practice. The Government directly supervised the rule of law institutions and Belarus remained the only State in Europe with a Parliament without opposition. The economy was 70 to 80 per cent State owned which led to widespread denial of labour rights with a severe suppression of the right of independent labour unions to organize. Civil society was muzzled or forced to operate clandestinely and it was imperative to decriminalize membership in an unregistered non-governmental organization and to fully review legislation affecting the work of human rights defenders and bring it in line with pertinent international norms and standards. The overall number of persons incarcerated in retaliation to their policies activities had not diminished and the Special Rapporteur reiterated the recommendation for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, human rights defenders and activists and their full rehabilitation.

Belarus was the only European country that still retained the death penalty and in April 2014, two new executions had been carried out in secret and with disregard for minimum standards. Administrative detention had been part of a planned operation preceding and accompanying the World Ice Hockey Championship to preclude contacts between Belarus’ civil society and the visitors of the event. Administrative arrests and short-term detentions continued to be used systematically and arbitrarily in reprisal against citizens who sought to exercise independently and freely their rights. The Human Rights Council should bear in mind the systemic and systematic character of the serious oppression of all human rights and the Government’s lack of cooperation with human rights mechanisms which further aggravated the situation. Belarus would hold Presidential elections next year; chronic repression of human rights over the past 15 years had typically led to violence during elections and the announcement of their preordained outcomes. The lack of the Government’s cooperation with this mandate outlined the continued need to report on and monitor the human rights situation in Belarus. The stakes were high and the people of Belarus deserved that their situation remained fully on the agenda of the international community.

Statement by the Concerned Country

Belarus, speaking as a concerned country said that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur should be terminated. Belarus’ position was well known. It did not consider the mandate as a tool for cooperation in the area of human rights because of the obvious political motivations behind its creation. Belarus would be tactical in assessing the work of the Special Rapporteur. There was no criticism of the Special Rapporteur on a personal nature. There could be no cooperation, mainly because this was a political project of the European Union. There was no emergency situation in Belarus requiring the attention of the Council.

Interactive Dialogue on Belarus

European Union strongly regretted the continued non-cooperation of the authorities of Belarus with the Special Rapporteur. It remained highly alarmed at the fact that serious violations of human rights continued. The European Union was gravely concerned by the lack of due process in death penalty cases and called on the Government to establish an immediate moratorium as a first step towards abolition. Belgium called upon Belarus to promptly issue a standing invitation to the Special Procedures and to undertake concrete measures to implement the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur, the treaty bodies, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review. Belgium urged Belarus to immediately release all political prisoners.

Russia, speaking on behalf of a Group of States, underlined the opinion that the Universal Periodic Review provided an effective framework for international cooperation in the field of human rights and enabled an objective and reliable assessment of the human rights situation in all countries. The Group of States did not believe that the situation in Belarus required urgent action or monitoring by the Council.

Czech Republic noted with concern the systemic and systematic violations of human rights identified in the report and urged the Government to recognise the mandate, fully cooperate with the human rights mechanisms and to implement recommendations. What advice did the Special Rapporteur have for Belarusian human rights activists to promote the abolition of capital punishment. Hungary reiterated that Hungary and Belarus were partners and, as such, invited the Government of Belarus to benefit from the mandate of the Special Rapporteur to improve its human rights situation and to cooperate with him. Nicaragua did not support resolutions against countries but was in favour of dialogue and cooperation among countries, and the Universal Periodic Review was the mechanism created to establish this dialogue with a view to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights.

Russia believed that the deliberate exaggeration of the situation in Belarus as requiring the urgent attention of the Council was politicised. The report and the draft resolution constituted biased accusations against the Government and the lack of cooperation did not provide a basis to argue that it did not seek to cooperate with human rights mechanisms at large. The mandate on Belarus had been created for political reasons and discredited the Council.

United Kingdom thanked the Special Rapporteur for his efforts to produce a report under such difficult circumstances. Serious and deep-rooted human rights problems persisted in Belarus and the reports prepared by the Special Rapporteur constituted a vital independent source of information. The United Kingdom urged Belarus to engage in dialogue and implement the report’s recommendations and to establish a moratorium pending the abolition of the death penalty.

Azerbaijan said that Belarus regularly cooperated with the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations, including with its Universal Periodic Review, and noted the move by the Government to extend a standing invitation to eight Special Procedures. Cuba always objected against politically motivated country mandates such as the one on Belarus and stressed that genuine international cooperation must not impose on countries uniformity and straight-jackets. Morocco recognized the progress made by Belarus in combating trafficking in persons, which was a direct consequence of the cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and said that it was aware of the major challenges which could be faced in a cooperative spirit with Belarus.

United States said that Belarus was the fifth most oppressive country in the world in the Freedom House ranking and welcomed the recommendation to adopt legislation on the freedom of assembly and association. What had the Special Rapporteur observed regarding labour rights restrictions in Belarus and how could their exercise be improved? Ireland highlighted the issue of the death penalty which was used without guarantee of due process and called on Belarus to impose an immediate moratorium on the use of the death penalty with the view of its abolition. What were the most urgent steps to create and maintain in law and in practice an enabling environment in which civil society could operate free from hindrance and insecurity? Poland asked the Special Rapporteur about the biggest challenges in the area of economic, social and cultural rights and whether the space for civil society had changed over the course of his mandate and in which direction.

Slovakia said that the situation in Belarus had not changed since the Special Rapporteur’s last report. Slovakia once again called for an immediate release of all prisoners of conscience, including their full rehabilitation. The independence of lawyers was indispensable for guaranteeing the rule of law, but lawyers seemed too often to be a target of intimidation. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was deeply concerned that politicized country-specific reports were still being discussed in the Council. Country-specific reports and resolutions did not contribute to the improvement of human rights situations and should be avoided in the future. The Human Rights Council had to steer clear of politically motivated considerations. Estonia regretted that the Government of Belarus had not cooperated with the Special Rapporteur. The general situation of human rights in the country had not improved, and the violations of human rights had a structural and endemic character. Estonia called on the authorities of Belarus to cooperate fully with all the human rights mechanisms, and asked that all political prisoners be immediately released.

Lithuania said that the lack of governmental cooperation was regrettable. Belarussian authorities were called upon to extend full cooperation to the Special Rapporteur and Special Procedures. Positive developments identified the previous year seemed to have come to a standstill. Lithuania urged the authorities of Belarus to immediately release and rehabilitate all political prisoners. Australia remained deeply concerned by the human rights situation in Belarus and that the Government of Belarus was making little effort to promote and protect human rights. Australia urged Belarus to cease executions and to immediately establish a moratorium on the death penalty. Belarus should also put an immediate end to any forms of pressure on representatives of the judicial system.

Italy was convinced that the mandate was an important opportunity for Belarus to substantially improve the human rights situation in the country. Regrettably, human rights violations continued to be systematic with very little progress. Italy deeply regretted that Belarus continued to use the death penalty and echoed the recommendation for an immediate moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Germany thanked the Special Rapporteur for the report, which clearly depicted that there had been no significant improvement in the human rights situation in Belarus. Germany urged Belarus to release all political prisoners immediately and to rehabilitate those already released, investigate the fate of disappeared persons, and end repression against civil society, among others.

Venezuela said that this politicised mandate was imposed by the European Union and that there had been an attempt to demonise the country. Belarus had been transparent in its dealings with the international community and had made great progress in the area of human rights. Belarus had given reliable proof of its attachment to human rights. Iran said that it opposed the politicisation of human rights issues and believed that the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue, aimed to enhance the capacity of States to comply with their obligations and commitments. The achievements of Belarus should be appreciated. Lebanon reasserted its commitment to a question of principle, which was dealing with human rights in a fair, objective and non-politicised manner in the Human Rights Council. Lebanon welcomed all of the progress achieved in Belarus and encouraged it to redouble efforts to face up to the challenges that remained and to achieve urgent objectives.

Austria expressed regret that the Government of Belarus had continuously failed to facilitate a visit by Mr. Haraszti. Austria condemned the widespread violation of the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, association and assembly. Arbitrary detentions continued unabated, while reports about torture and ill-treatment by the security apparatus were particularly unsettling. Netherlands was very concerned by the ongoing harassment, intimidation and imprisonment of political opponents, human rights defenders, journalists and activists. The Netherlands was particularly worried about continued allegations of intimidation and harsh treatment of political prisoners. China welcomed efforts and achievements made by Belarus in promoting and protecting human rights. China had always advocated constructive dialogue and cooperation in the field of human rights and was opposed to the political use of human rights to interfere into countries’ internal affairs. The human rights situation in Belarus ought to be given an objective and impartial look.

France stated that the human rights situation in Belarus was of particular concern. Non-cooperation by Belarusian authorities was deeply regrettable. France recalled the essential freedom of expression in all societies. France firmly condemned the continuous application of the death penalty in Belarus and called on the Government to place a moratorium on executions. Discrimination against the Roma minority was also worrying in the country. Tajikistan regretted that the report did not contain any of the achievements of Belarus in the previous period. Tajikistan closely cooperated with Belarus and knew that Belarus was committed to the implementation of its human rights obligations. The Belarusian Government was committed to the continuous improvement of the living conditions of its people.

Switzerland called on Belarus to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur. Switzerland regretted Belarus’ use of the death penalty and echoed concerns regarding its application. It was particularly concerned at the lack of independence of the judicial system as well as about the barriers thrown at the legitimate activities of civil society in Belarus. Norway urged the Belarusian authorities to recognise the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and fully cooperate with him. Norway called upon Belarus to address concerns raised in the report of the Special Rapporteur and also urged for an end to the use of capital punishment, and for the immediate release of all political prisoners and human rights defenders.

Syria said that once again the Council was seen to be moving from being a human rights forum to being a political instrument, the aim being to force Belarus to bow to other countries. Syria had looked at the report and noted that the Special Rapporteur had ignored the achievements of Belarus. The report was politicised. Sri Lanka said the report did not take into account the constructive engagement of Belarus with the Council and other human rights mechanisms. Belarus had also extended an invitation to the High Commissioner to visit the country in August 2011 and had shown its willingness to comply with its human rights obligations. The Universal Periodic Review was the appropriate forum to address the human rights situation of all countries.

Kazakhstan said that the report was based on secondary sources and that the official position of the Belarusian authorities had not been included in the report. It was inappropriate to politicize the Council’s work and inacceptable to use human rights issues to exert political pressure. The Universal Periodic Review was the most appropriate mechanism to address domestic human rights issues.

Uzbekistan noted that the report did not receive unanimous support of the Council, and it did not contain any reference to the progress made in the development of economic, social and cultural rights in Belarus. Adopting partial, politicized resolutions undermined the credibility of the Council. Belarus had consistently cooperated with the Universal Periodic Review, and the situation in the country did not thus require any additional procedures and investigations. Lao People’s Democratic Republic shared the view that a country-specific human rights resolution would not help the Council address human rights issues. The Universal Periodic Review process continued to serve as the most constructive way to discuss human rights issues in any country. Belarus was encouraged to continue its cooperation with the international community to achieve its international obligations.

Turkmenistan believed that the situation in Belarus did not require urgent attention or monitoring by the Council. The report contained the same compilation of secondary sources as the previous year. Turkmenistan noted that the Government of Belarus had cooperated with human rights bodies and demonstrated its will to comply with its human rights obligations. Palestine said that the mandate should not be politicized, as it only increased the double standards already present in the Council. The Human Rights Council had been politicized, diverting attention from fundamental human rights violations, discrediting its work and sending the message that human rights of some were more important than the human rights of others.

Human Rights House Foundation stated that eight political prisoners remained in detention in Belarus, including Ales Bialiatski, chairman of the Human Rights Centre “Viasna”. During the Ice Hockey World Championship, some 40 activists and hundreds of sex workers and homeless people had been arrested and arbitrarily detained.

Amnesty International said that Belarus’ continued disregard for internationally recognised safeguards on the application of the death penalty violated the human rights of those sentenced to death and executed and members of their families. The Council was urged to clearly condemn the use of the death penalty in Belarus. International Fellowship of Reconciliation asked the Special Rapporteur to pay close attention to the fate of the draft law on alternative service which was withdrawn, supposedly for technical amendments, almost immediately on being presented to Parliament last December.

Non-governmental organizations in Belarus feared that, not for the first time, the legislative proposal would disappear without a trace. Freedom House said that Belarus currently had eight political prisoners who had been given harsh sentences. Freedom of association was severely restricted in Belarus. The disappearance of the Government’s political opponents continued to go without investigation after 15 years. All legal bodies were subordinate to executive power and the impartiality of courts was of major concern.

International Federation for Human Rights Leagues said that violations of economic and social rights in Belarus were widespread and systematic as were violations of civil and political rights. The Council was called upon to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and Belarus was urged to grant him access to its territory without restrictions. Human Rights Watch had visited Belarus in May 2014 and concluded that the authorities had made no progress in addressing the systematic and grave human rights issues and that certain freedoms, such as freedoms of the media, speech and assembly had further deteriorated. The Council was called upon to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. United Nations Watch was concerned about the repression of political freedom, false imprisonment and the absence of an independent inquiry. It was time for Belarus to heed the appeals of the international community to release all political prisoners, and to turn away from repression, and instead to embrace the rule of law.

Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus

MIKLOS HARASZTI, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus, in his concluding remarks, said that the mandate had been triggered by the wave of violations after the previous elections, when scores of unarmed demonstrators had been brutally affronted by the authorities.

The way forward would include breaking the vicious circle of elections which did not allow for the expression of the will of people, complying with regional election observation advice, easing suppression of assembly and association, and giving independence to the judiciary. The sources of the report were eminently primary sources, representing actual victims of the violations of human rights. The Government of Belarus and the international community ought to support the enjoyment of freedom by civil society. Blocking, delegitimizing and even criminalizing international support for human rights had to be stopped. There was no definition of torture in Belarusian law, which was a deficiency that could be quickly improved. On labour rights, Belarus should follow the recommendations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Labour Organization. Mr. Haraszti asked Belarus to reconsider issuing him an invitation.

Concluding Remarks by the Concerned Country

Belarus said that there was a definition of torture in the law. A politicized country mandate should not be part of the Council’s work. Belarus was open to working with the Special Procedures, and a number of mandate-holders had been invited to the country. There were no objective reasons why there should be a special mandate on Belarus.

Documentation

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mr. Marzuki Darusman (A/HRC/26/43)

Presentation by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

MARZUKI DARUSMAN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said that the work of the Commission of Inquiry had turned a page in the decades-long efforts to address the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and provided a unique opportunity for all parties concerned to make a difference in the lives of the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including the victims abroad. For more than 50 years, this question had always been regarded as a political issue within the United Nations and addressed in a political manner. With the report of the Commission, the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been placed on the track of international law. The Commission had clearly found that it had reasonable grounds to conclude that crimes against humanity continued and that they had been taking place for decades. A core element in moving forward therefore was to pursue this matter from the perspective of international criminal justice and human rights law. Mr. Darusman said his report addressed the international law implications of the Commission’s findings and the responsibility of the international community to protect. The report also highlighted the responses by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including some opportunities for engagement presented by the Government’s latest position on the recommendations made at the Universal Periodic Review.

Noting that the latest resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been subjected to a vote, as well as disagreements concerning the mechanisms available to the Council, Mr. Darusman encouraged all concerned parties, in particular the States that preferred the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, to seize the opportunity provided by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s latest acceptance of these recommendations to produce and demonstrate genuine results that made a difference on the ground. In the face of systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations, no responsible member of the international community should be allowed to hide behind procedural differences and idly stand by. Mr. Darusman was ready to assist and facilitate the formation of a human rights contact group of States to raise concerns about the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and to provide support for initiatives to improve it. The report also introduced the key elements of a strategy to address the issue of international abductions and enforced disappearances, including an international approach, increased engagement of civil society and contact with local communities in all concerned countries, with a view to bring closure and accountability. The acceptance by the Republic of Korea to host a field-based structure to strengthen the Office of the High Commissioner’s work on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a welcome development, and Mr. Darusman hoped that the structure would be operational soon.

Statement by the Concerned Country

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking as the concerned country, categorically rejected the confrontational report presented by the Special Rapporteur. The report was full of lies and fabrications provided by defectors from the north and criminals who had escaped the country after committing crimes. The report had no relevance to the promotion and protection of genuine human rights. The United States and other hostile forces should be the ones to be investigated as they had killed a large number of innocent civilians through ceaseless invasions around the world. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea emphasized that the human rights violations mentioned in the report did not exist in the country. The Government, under the wise leadership of Kim Jong Un, was vigorously pushing ahead with the policy of the promotion and protection of human rights whereby the interests of the popular masses were given utmost priority and everything was done in service of people.

Interactive Dialogue on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

HUGO SWIRE, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom, deeply regretted the continued refusal by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to engage with the Special Rapporteur or the Commission of Inquiry. The scale and brutality of systematic human rights violations could not go unchallenged. The authorities had to demonstrate genuine respect for the rights of their citizens, while the international community had to act to ensure accountability. What role was seen for the new field office in Seoul, and how could the Council support it? What could the Special Rapporteur do to further bring the world’s attention to the plight of the North Korean people? The United Kingdom stood ready to respond to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea if the country showed willingness to engage on human rights.

Israel said that strong international leadership was needed to provide a follow-up to the findings of the Commission of Inquiry and seconded the High Commissioner’s call to the Human Rights Council to use all mechanisms at its disposal to ensure accountability. France said that the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was more than dramatic and there was no doubt that crimes committed there amounted to crimes against humanity. All States should respect the principle of non-refoulement. European Union urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to take immediate steps to stop the human rights violations and said that the United Nations Security Council should refer the situation to the International Criminal Court. The European Union asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on the idea of forming a contact group on the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Czech Republic remained seriously concerned by the findings of grave, wide and systematic violations of human rights that amounted to crimes against humanity. The Czech Republic hoped that the momentum created by the findings of the Commission of Inquiry would not be lost and that its deeply disturbing findings would be followed up by further action. Argentina restated its deep concern about systematic and serious violations of human rights, including mass-killings, murder, rape, forced abortion, prosecution on basis of political or religious reasons and others. Argentina asked whether the Special Rapporteur had been in touch with other United Nations bodies dealing with enforced disappearances.

Sudan noticed that the Special Rapporteur had based his report on the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry, and stressed that the Commission had not been approved by the country concerned. The Council should abide by objectivity, credibility and non-politicization of country mandates. Belarus said it did not accept country procedures without the consent of the country concerned, adding that the measures taken by the Council had not led to a dialogue despite their cost implication. Belarus reiterated that issues regarding human rights in a global context should be based on the principles of impartiality and full respect for country’s sovereignty. United States was encouraged by the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation to address the issue of international abductions and enforced disappearances. The United States expressed support for Mr. Haraszti’s recommendation to use multiple mechanisms to address the deplorable human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including the Universal Periodic Review process. Australia urged the Government to acknowledge the existence of human rights violations and the need for change and engage meaningfully with the international community. Australia welcomed the decision to establish a field-based structure in the Republic of Korea to monitor and document the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Denmark emphasised the need for a mechanism to follow up on the Commission’s recommendations, including those regarding the ability of religious minorities to exercise their religion without fear or punishment, reprisal or surveillance. Denmark urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take all required measures to improve the conditions of its population and the situation in general. Republic of Korea said that the report had not only shed light on the abysmal situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but also presented recommendations to the international community on how to improve the human rights situation. The Republic of Korea agreed that there was no turning back and hoped that the field based-structure that it had expected to host would work as a platform for interaction and evidence documentation. China reiterated its opposition to pressure and naming and shaming, as well as the establishment of mechanisms without the support of concerned countries. Such an approach exacerbated confrontation rather than solved problems. China was also opposed to any acts that might increase tensions in the peninsula.

Lao People’s Democratic Republic said that the Universal Periodic Review was the only appropriate forum for discussing and reviewing the human rights situation in any country on an equal basis and should continue to serve as the channel for dialogue. Venezuela said that country mandates had brought down the former Human Rights Commission as those anachronistic forms were clearly directed against sovereign countries. New Zealand had repeatedly emphasized the need to immediately close political prison camps, end the death penalty and ensure humanitarian access to those most in need. It was thanks to the work of the Special Rapporteur that such serious crimes could no longer be denied. Ireland said that the report built in a clear way on the report by the Commission of Inquiry and proposed concrete actions to address the dire human rights situation. Ireland supported the call for the closure of political prison camps, prompt release of detainees and granting immediate access to human rights monitors.

Syria categorically rejected the use of human rights as a pretext for interference in the internal affairs of States and objected to the use of the Human Rights Council for political purposes. The Universal Periodic Review was the only appropriate forum to examine human rights records of nations on an equal footing. Myanmar said that country-specific mandates of the Human Rights Council did not create a conducive environment for a genuine dialogue and constructive cooperation with the country concerned, but instead undermined the principles of constructive international dialogue and cooperation.

Switzerland reiterated that the international community should shoulder its responsibility to protect the people in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and to put an end to impunity. Could the Special Rapporteur elaborate how the human rights contact group could be organised and how to bring on board the Government to ensure effective follow up to the Universal Periodic Review recommendations? Hungary hoped that the United Nations and Member States would send an unequivocal signal that they were prepared to take the follow-up to the work of the Commission, including by establishing individual criminal responsibility for crimes. Hungary welcomed the Republic of Korea’s willingness to accommodate the newly established field presence of the Office of the High Commissioner.

Poland agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s evaluation on the work of the Commission and its ground-breaking character and remained appalled by the magnitude and gravity of human rights violations, a number of which constituted crimes against humanity. Japan said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should accept the findings of the Commission and the Council’s resolution and take concrete measures in a timely manner. Japan asked the Special Rapporteur about the strategy he would take to address international abductions. Norway urged the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur. Noting with interest the proposal to form a “human rights contact group”, Norway inquired about the views of the Special Rapporteur concerning the composition of such a group and the manner it would undertake its work. Thailand regretted that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had not favourably responded to Mr. Darusman’s request for a country visit. Noting the Republic of Korea’s acceptance to host a field-based structure to monitor and enhance engagement and capacity building with all concerned States, Thailand asked the Special Rapporteur to share his view on how the new structure would contribute to the fulfilment of his mandate.

Botswana called upon the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to invite the Special Rapporteur to investigate the existing conditions, including the plight of over 80,000 political prisoners. Botswana welcomed the decision by the Security Council to receive an informal briefing by the Commission of Inquiry. Zimbabwe said that country mandates tended to be politicized and selective and were manipulated by powerful members. The most appropriate tool to address gaps in human rights of States was the Universal Periodic Review. Cuba said that the mandate on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was a leftover of the agenda item 9 of the former Human Rights Commission and said that the situation of human rights in that country had already been reviewed by the working group of the Universal Periodic Review.

Maldives was deeply concerned by the refusal of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to effectively address and curb grave human rights abuses in the country and urged members of the Human Rights Council to ensure that the valuable work of the Special Rapporteur would continue without hindrance from any parties. Canada was determined to keep the international focus on the grave human rights violations to which millions of people in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were exposed. Canada reiterated its support for the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and inquired about the priorities in terms of the follow up on the Commission of Inquiry’s conclusions and recommendations. Iran maintained that the practice of selective approaches in the Human Rights Council was a tool that exploited human rights for political purposes and undermined cooperation as an essential principle to promote all human rights for all.

Jubilee Campaign, in joint statement, said the report’s findings were shocking. There were indeed specific legal consequences arising from the publication of the report and the international community now had clear knowledge of the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and had an unequivocal responsibility to protect. Human Rights Watch said that after the Commission of Inquiry’s exposure of violations, the international community had correctly reacted with horror and many States had been compelled to take a stance. Today, more than half the members of the Security Council had underscored the importance of accountability for crimes. Amnesty International said the report had noted some areas where the Democratic People's Republic of Korea seemed to make efforts to engage with human rights mechanisms. It looked to the Special Rapporteur to continue to present findings and report on the outcome and follow-up on the work of the Commission of Inquiry. United Nations Watch was gravely concerned by the prevention of travel abroad and urged the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to remove this ban. It welcomed the establishment of an Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Republic of Korea to monitor the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

MARZUKI DARUSMAN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that the Commission of Inquiry had consolidated 10 years of international concerns about the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and said that there were several key areas in which engagement of the international community was needed to move the issues forward and provide follow up on the findings of the Commission of Inquiry. First was the setting up of the field presence to continue doing what the Commission would be doing if it had more time and resources. The Republic of Korea had agreed to hosting this field structure and its task would be to continue investigations and outreach and enable greater understanding and corroboration of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry in a more in-depth manner. Second, the contact group on the human rights issues in the country: the purpose of this contact group was to bridge the two sessions of the Human Rights Council in which the human rights situation in this country was addressed briefly and did not do justice to the gravity of the situation. The contact group would facilitate understanding and explore imaginative ways of moving forward.

Other issues of high importance on the agenda of the Special Rapporteur were the issue of prison closure and international abductions. The work would focus on two main paths: accountability and engagement. From a strategic point of view, the Special Rapporteur would work on a shift from a bilateral to multilateral approach to addressing those issues. The problem of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was an accountability issue which obliged the international community to look at the available accountability mechanisms, including through the United Nations Security Council. In short, the mandate would be looking at the legal recourse to ensure accountability for crimes against humanity committed in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
_________

For use of the information media; not an official record