人权理事会就朝鲜民主主义人民共和国与厄立特里亚人权问题分别开展互动对话（部分翻译）

人权理事会
上午

2016年3月14日

听取新西兰司法部长的发言

今天上午，人权理事会与朝鲜民主主义人民共和国人权状况问题特别报告员马祖基•达鲁斯曼（Marzuki Darusman）及厄立特里亚人权状况问题特别报告员希拉•基塔鲁斯（Sheila Keetharuth）开展了互动对话。

理事会还听取了新西兰司法部长艾米•亚当斯（Amy Adams）的发言，她曾在国际论坛中强烈支持妇女。新西兰仍在处理暴力侵犯妇女的问题，这些问题正在毛利和太平洋家庭中不成比例地发生。政府承认，在刑事司法、公共卫生和社会问题方面，暴力侵犯妇女是一个严重的国内问题。预防和减少家庭暴力是重中之重，包括增加法官能够获得的信息。关于毛利人的问题，亚当斯女士表示，新西兰持续致力于磋商公平、持久的解决方案，其中包括“政府道歉”、文化补救以及财务和商业补救。

在报告中，达鲁斯曼先生列举了调查委员会的成果，例如在首尔建立外地办事处，但他也对朝鲜民主主义人民共和国在过去两年内的人权状况似乎丝毫未改表示遗憾。他列举了该国的人权侵犯行为，包括关于国家机构在监狱和拘留场所中实施酷刑且持续不受惩罚的报告。朝鲜民主主义人民共和国拒绝为其公民实现人权及其对外表现出来的侵略性行为，例如其第四次核试验等，就如同硬币的两面。他强调，对危害人类罪问责必须成为任何关于朝鲜半岛未来的讨论中必不可少的一部分。确保对此类犯罪问责要求国际社会发挥特定作用。

朝鲜民主主义人民共和国并未作为当事国发言。

在接下来的讨论中，发言人对朝鲜民主主义人民共和国外交部部长李洙墉在3月初在日内瓦作出关于抵制人权理事会的发言表示深切遗憾。他们呼吁朝鲜民主主义人民共和国立即解散所有政治监狱营，终结基于“连坐制度”的报复行为，“连坐制度”将被控罪犯的家人进行集体处罚。他们呼吁大家关注一系列人权侵犯行为，包括酷刑和其他针对政治犯的侵犯行为、强奸、强行流产、任意拘留、法外处决以及侵犯宗教和信仰自由，尤其包括影响儿童的地区营养不良。他们重申了调查委员会的建议，即联合国安全理事会应该向国际刑事法院移交该国的状况。然而，一些代表团们反对选择性的和政治化的任务授权，他们表示，特别报告员并未考虑国际制裁朝鲜民主主义人民共和国带来的影响，或政府提高该国公民状况的措施。

在互动对话中发言的国家包括：欧盟、爱沙尼亚、爱尔兰、俄罗斯联邦、澳大利亚、德国、葡萄牙、古巴、美国、伊朗、挪威、日本、中国、捷克共和国、大韩民国、英国、博茨瓦纳、苏丹、白俄罗斯、老挝人民民主共和国、斯洛伐克、立陶宛、叙利亚、新西兰、委内瑞拉、西班牙、阿尔巴尼亚和法国。

以下民间社会组织也作了发言：人权观察（Human Rights Watch）、联合国观察（United Nations Watch）、国际特赦组织（Amnesty International）以及促成南北韩统一者组织（People for Successful Corean Reunification）。

基塔鲁斯女士在她的报告中主要关注无人陪伴的厄立特里亚儿童跨越国际边境的处境、造成这一现象的部分根源以及他们所需的保护。无论他们的背景如何，厄立特里亚的人权状况是年轻人离开的主要理由，也导致政府未能实现年轻一代的抱负和梦想，年轻人希望拥有不同的生活，而不是作为士兵度日。然而，这不应该被误解为他们是经济移民。厄立特里亚儿童面对暴力和任意拘捕的风险是他们离开这个国家最重要的原因之一。基塔鲁斯女士建议，政府应在符合该国国际人权义务的条件下，首先通过解决最紧迫的问题而全面提高人权状况，并解决大量人口离开国家背后的根本原因。

厄立特里亚作为当事国发言，其表示，特别报告员的报告并无根据，不同于特别报告员杜撰的先入之见和流言，厄立特里亚是一个维持本国和平和稳定的国家。厄立特里亚不断努力解决人权挑战，其状况仍受到外部威胁和强制措施的严重限制。该任务已经遭到滥用，并用于不可告人的动机，其已与反厄立特里亚的代理组织和敌对国家合作，在厄立特里亚寻求政权变更。在美国及其盟友的压力和操控下，理事会现仍未能履行责任客观地、批判性地审视厄立特里亚的现实状况。

在关于厄立特里亚的互动对话中，发言人表达了对于特别报告员描述的人权侵犯行为的深切关注，并对她选择将其报告专注于无人陪伴的未成年人表示欢迎，这些未成年人是特别弱势的群体，他们的艰难状况即使在抵达目的国后仍会继续。他们强烈促请厄立特里亚积极回应联合国任务负责人，并尊重其限制无限期国家兵役的意愿。与此同时，一些代表团反对针对发展中国家的国别任务，并谴责道，通过这些任务，人权理事会被用作针对主权国家的危险政治工具。他们希望消除干涉他国的任务授权，并促请理事会成员不要继续支持国别任务。

以下代表团在互动对话上发言：欧盟、瑞士、比利时、美国、委内瑞拉、法国、吉布提、朝鲜民主主义人民共和国、英国、中国、苏丹和挪威。

以下民间社会组织也作了发言：东非及非洲之角人权维护者项目（East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project）与无国界记者组织（Reporters Without Borders）的联合声明、厄立特里亚妇女网络（Network of Eritrean Women）、联合国观察、国际和睦团契和睦团契（International Fellowship of Reconciliation）、公民参与世界联盟 （CIVICUS）以及国际和平研究所（International Institute for Peace）、司法与人权组织（Justice and Human Rights）。

理事会将于下午1点举行下一次会议，分别与伊朗人权状况特别报告员和缅甸人权状况特别报告员开展互动对话。

Address by the Minister of Justice of New Zealand

AMY ADAMS, Minister of Justice of New Zealand, focused her remarks on what her country was achieving on priority areas which included combatting family violence, both domestically and as an international issue. New Zealand spoke strongly for women in international forums and worked hard to meet its obligations in relation to the status of women, she said. But the country was also grappling with the problem of violence against women, which was disproportionately experienced by Maori and Pacifica families. The New Zealand Government acknowledged that violence against women was a serious issue domestically as regards criminal justice, public health and social issues. Preventing and reducing family violence was her top priority as Justice Minister, she said, outlining efforts she had made in line with that prioritization, including improving judges’ access to information. Turning to the issue of the Maori, she said that New Zealand remained committed to negotiating fair and durable settlements, with packages including “a Crown apology”, cultural redress and financial and commercial redress. On the subject of the Committee of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, she expressed pride at New Zealand’s promotion of the first candidature of a person with an intellectual disability, Mr. Robert Martin, to serve on the Committee. New Zealand looked forward to engaging with the Council in its next Universal Periodic Review.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

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 (A/HRC/31/70).

The Council has before it corrigendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (A/HRC/31/70/Corr.1).

Presentation of the Report by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

MARZKI DARUSMAN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said he would take the opportunity of his last presentation as mandate holder to scan the horizon for the international community’s way forward on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Commission of Inquiry which had submitted its report to the Council in 2014 had caused the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to become the focus of unprecedented attention by the international community. He reviewed achievements by the Commission, such as setting up a field office in Seoul, but expressed regret that in the last two years, the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not appear to have changed at all. He listed human rights violations in the country, including reports of torture by the State apparatus which continued with impunity in prisons and places of detention. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s denial of human rights to its citizens and its aggressive behaviour externally, such as its fourth nuclear test, were two sides of the same coin. With a number of Governments making reference to a peace treaty to replace the armistice agreement that concluded the Korean War, he underlined that accountability for crimes against humanity had to be an integral part of any discussion about the future of the Korean peninsula. Ensuring accountability for such crimes required the international community to play a defined role.

Turning to his present report, Mr. Darusman said that in it, he had laid down “key elements” in relation to efforts seeking individual and institutional accountability of the leadership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. He then discussed legal principles surrounding accountability and prosecution of officials of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea which he said were ultimately responsible for human rights violations. Customary law could provide the basis to hold accountable individuals who had committed crimes against humanity in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, regardless of the country’s non-accession to the Rome Statute or the state of its current domestic law. The principle of “universal jurisdiction” might allow the prosecution of the leadership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in a third country. The political and legal accountability of those most responsible, including the Supreme Leader, Mr. Kim Jong Un, were the logical follow-on action to the Commission of Inquiry. Mr. Darusman proposed that a three-member group of experts look into the international legal dimensions of criminal accountability and recommend mechanisms for implementation. The international community was at a “critical juncture” in the history of the Korean peninsula, he said, adding that the international community’s resolve on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would have crucial implications for the future status of internationally recognized human rights in North East Asia, in Asia, and ultimately around the globe.

Interactive Dialogue

European Union noted that the Commission of Inquiry’s report was a major turning point as it had provided solid documentation of the horrific human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. There could be no impunity for such violations and the European Union continued to support the Commission’s recommendation that the United Nations Security Council should refer the situation in the country to the International Criminal Court. Estonia expressed regret that the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had not improved, drawing attention to the detention of foreign nationals and the report on torture of political prisoners. The international community had to make sure that those responsible for human rights violations were held accountable. The United Nations Security Council should refer the situation to the International Criminal Court.

Ireland abhorred the series of human rights violations, including torture and other violations against political prisoners, rape, forced abortion, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial executions and violation of freedom of religion and belief. It asked the Special Rapporteur to suggest how awareness of the accountability structures of international law could be spread to the official system of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Russian Federation stressed that the Special Rapporteur’s mandate was not warranted, calling it one of the most politicised mandates in the history of the United Nations. It noted that the Special Rapporteur had openly called for the change of the Government in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and thus flagrantly violated the code of conduct. Special Procedures should not be allowed to discredit the international system. Australia urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to halt all executions and to implement a moratorium on the death penalty, improve the human rights situation of women and people with disabilities, and address the endemic malnutrition affecting children in particular. It strongly supported the call to hold those guilty for crimes against humanity accountable.

Germany deeply regretted the remarks of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Foreign Minister Ri made in Geneva earlier in March regarding a boycott of the Human Rights Council. It called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately dismantle all political prison camps, and to end reprisals based on “guilt by association,” which constituted a collective punishment of families of alleged criminals. Portugal regretted that despite several requests the Special Rapporteur had not been granted access to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and it thus urged the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to invite him to undertake a visit as soon as possible, without preconditions and in accordance with the terms of reference for country visits by Special Procedure mandate holders.

Cuba opposed selective and politicised mandates, noting that manipulation with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had continued, and that there had been no genuine intention to contribute to the dialogue with the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Dangerous sanctions by the Security Council and proposals for the reference of the situation to the International Criminal Court were counterproductive. United States underlined the key role of the Special Rapporteur in the assessment and documentation of the gross human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It regretted that the Government had continued to refuse cooperation with the Special Rapporteur, and strongly supported the Special Rapporteur’s call for accountability and sustained attention to the grave human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Iran said that the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principle of cooperation and genuine dialogue, and underlined the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures imposed on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Norway called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to implement the recommendations of the report of the Special Rapporteur, and highlighted the positive role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in that regard. Japan regretted the absence of improvement of the appalling human rights situation in “North Korea”, and informed that it would submit a draft resolution together with the European Union on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which would establish a group of independent experts in order to ensure accountability.

China opposed the politicization of human rights issues, and underlined the importance of adopting an approach tackling the root causes of mistrust in the Korean Peninsula by taking all views into account. It rejected the unfounded remarks made by the Special Rapporteur on China’s policies regarding its “North Korean aliens”. Czech Republic highlighted the need for accountability for human rights violations and crimes against humanity in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. While deferring the situation to the International Criminal Court would be the best approach, the Czech Republic expressed its readiness to consider alternative ways to ensure accountability. Republic of Korea welcomed the opening of a local Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ office in Seoul, and would continue to provide support for its full operation. It was deplorable that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had announced that it would never be bound by international resolutions. All States should implement their obligation to non-refoulement to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

United Kingdom expressed support for the Special Rapporteur’s report and concern about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s human rights record. Mr. Darusman was asked how the international community could build on the limited areas where the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was willing to engage on human rights, and use that to expand the scope of the international community’s dialogue. Botswana said there was growing consensus among Member States that the reported widespread human rights violations being committed by the “North Korean” Government were a threat to international peace and security. Appropriate action should be taken to ensure accountability for those “heinous” acts, including, if need be, referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court. Sudan spoke about the cooperation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, noting the country’s acceptance of 113 of the 268 recommendations received. Any proposed cooperation for the implementation of human rights mechanisms should be with the full consent and agreement of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Belarus expressed doubts about whether another group of experts in addition to the whole range of mechanisms would really bring about improvement in the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Achieving progress could only be done through cooperation in mutual respect, and stepping up political pressure would only limit the space for dialogue. Lao People’s Democratic Republic said the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was the appropriate forum to discuss and review the human rights situation in any country. The international community was called on to continue its engagement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the country was encouraged to continue its cooperation with human rights mechanisms. Slovakia said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s violations of its international human rights obligations were a matter of great concern, and expressed particular concern about the finding that crimes against humanity were being committed there. Efforts to further focus attention on issues of accountability were supported, as was the designation of experts in support of the work of the Special Rapporteur.

Lithuania regretted that there had been no substantial change in the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It urged the Government to immediately stop human rights violations, including systematic abductions of foreigners, enforced disappearances, religious persecutions, torture and other violations against prisoners. It also called on the Government to resume constructive engagement with the Special Rapporteur. Syria rejected any political use of human rights to facilitate interference into the internal affairs of States. This politicised approach had undermined the credibility of the Human Rights Council. The use of the Council to implement unlawful policies violated the United Nations Charter, in particular the right to sovereignty. The call for the dismantling of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a major violation of the Charter, and Syria expressed astonishment that certain States had not seen it as such.

New Zealand called for substantive and meaningful improvement in the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and supported the initiative of the United Nations Security Council in December 2015 to hold a briefing on the human rights situation in that country. However, it called for an open door to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to engage meaningfully with international human rights mechanisms. Venezuela noted that the report of the Special Rapporteur revealed how inappropriate mandates in the field of human rights were. Had he acknowledged any measures of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to improve the standard of its citizens? Had he considered the impact of the international sanctions against that country? His approach did not seek to promote dialogue and cooperation, and it was doomed to failure. Spain said that it was intolerable that crimes against humanity in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had continued, and it thus endorsed the Special Rapporteur’s call for the prosecution of those responsible. It welcomed the fact that the Special Rapporteur had met with representatives of civil society. It recognized that the country had decided not to participate in the dialogue, and called on it to cooperate with the mandate.

Albania urged the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take immediate steps to halt all human rights violations, including through cooperating with United Nations human rights mechanisms and granting them full access to the country. A framework on accountability measures for crimes against humanity and other human rights violations must be the core of future discussions on the Korean Peninsula. France said that the mere exercise of freedom of opinion or expression in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea could lead to death, and recalled that 1,382 persons had been publically executed between 2010 and 2014 on the most questionable grounds and without the slightest respect for due process standards. France was particularly attached to accountability, and supported the establishment of a group of experts in that regard.

Human Rights Watch said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a place of horrific forced labour camps, torture, public executions and had a history of mass malnutrition and mass starvation. The gravity of these abuses and the absence of hope for accountability at the domestic level heightened the urgency for seeking criminal liability, Human Rights Watch said, strongly urging the Council to establish a group of experts in that regard. United Nations Watch said that women defectors who were repatriated to “North Korea” by China faced sexual harassment, human trafficking and forced abortion. United Nations Watch asked the Special Rapporteur to examine this issue and to hold perpetrators accountable. Amnesty International said that people in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were still denied their right to freedom of expression and the ability to make calls out of the country, and were confined to a computer network that only provided access to domestic websites and email. The Council should call on the Government to lift all restrictions on freedom of expression and to end mass surveillance. People for Successful Corean Reunification said that the “North Korean authorities” abused their citizens to acquire much needed foreign capital in order to preserve their privileged way of life. Many were forced to work in conditions in which they were overworked, underpaid and did not receive proper healthcare. The international community must stop engaging politically with “North Korea”.

Closing 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 work done over the past six years had been a collective effort. The work had been done for the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Commission of Inquiry had established that crimes against humanity were being committed at present as well as in the past. Reflecting on the context of the issue at hand, he said that engagement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was essential. When the international community had addressed the issue, there had always been a two-track strategy, he said, one being engagement and the second pursuing accountability at the same time. With regard to the findings of the Commission of Inquiry, which two years ago had come to the conclusion that crimes against humanity had taken place, nothing had happened since. The international community could not continue to allow the situation to be an open-ended process, but had to ensure that accountability measures were taken. Aware of efforts being undertaken through the Security Council, he said the international community needed to broaden its approach in terms of being able to continue to collect information, also appealing to the Council to set up a group of experts that would not duplicate the work of the Commission or the Seoul office. The international community was at a crucial stage, and there was a need for the Council to take the next step in ensuring accountability.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea

Presentation by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea

SHEILA KEETHARUTH, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, noted that the focus of her presentation was the situation of unaccompanied Eritrean children crossing international borders, some of the root causes attached to that phenomenon, and their protection needs. She noted that in November 2015 the Bank of Eritrea had implemented a decision to issue new Nakfa notes, the legal tender of the country. Whereas individuals or entities had been able to deposit any amount of money in the accounts during the first two weeks, reportedly they had not been able since then to access more than 5,000 Nakfa monthly. Certain measures had also been in violation of protected rights, such as the right to privacy. She also noted that to date she had not received any conclusive sign that the national service had been reduced to 18 months, following initial indications that that could be the case. She turned to the plight of unaccompanied Eritrean children since 2013 in neighbouring countries and further including Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia and the United Kingdom. Some of the root causes of that phenomenon were related to access to education and other self-development and growth opportunities for youth. Irrespective of their background, the human rights situation in Eritrea had been the main reason why young people left, as well as the failure of the Government to live up to the aspirations and dreams of the younger generation, who desired to live differently, rather than spending their lives as soldiers. The movement of young unaccompanied children could also be linked to challenges and legal requirements with respect to family reunification, exacerbated by the fact those children could not leave legally.

The majority of Eritrean unaccompanied children between 12 and 13 said they had feared being forcibly conscripted into the army. Those fears emanated from witnessing the same fate befall their parents, siblings and other family members, as well as other people in their communities. The exposure of Eritrean children to violence and arbitrary arrest was among the top compelling reasons for leaving the country. Most of the unaccompanied children emphasized that they had left Eritrea to seek a better life for themselves and their families. That might be misconstrued to mean that they were economic migrants. However, further discussions with them pointed out to broader goals and expectations which compelled children to leave. They expressed a general sense of despair with the current situation, which according to them, would not allow for further personal development. Fear of a future constrained by indefinite military conscription and arbitrary detention for exercising fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression or religion, were the chief among the concerns they voiced. Those children had special protection needs that first and foremost fell on the shoulders of the Government of Eritrea, as well as on the international community. Ms. Keetharuth recommended that the Government prioritize improvements in the overall human rights situation by addressing the most pressing ones, in line with the country’s international human rights obligations, and to address the root causes of the huge number of departures.

Statement by the Concerned Country

Eritrea, speaking as the concerned country, said that the report of the Special Rapporteur was baseless. Contrary to the preconceptions and myths perpetrated by the Special Rapporteur, Eritrea had sustained itself as a country that enjoyed peace and stability, and unity and harmony, where people enjoyed their fundamental rights. Eritrea had strengthened its achievement in promoting the dignity of women and occasional cases of rape were not tolerated. Eritrea had made marked development strides and embarked into a new effort that would lead into a qualitative leap in the next three years, and had strengthened equal opportunity to all returnees who had illegally emigrated. Eritrea had continually worked to address human rights challenges while its situation was still heavily constrained by external threats and coercive measures, and had successfully strengthened its engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms and the European Union. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur had been abused and used for ulterior motives as it had collaborated with anti-Eritrean surrogate groups and hostile countries seeking regime-change in Eritrea. Under the pressure and manipulation of the United States and its allies, the Council had so far failed in its responsibility to look at the reality in Eritrea objectively and critically. In this context, Eritrea reiterated its principled position and opposition to politically-motivated country-specific resolutions and mechanisms.

Interactive Dialogue

European Union expressed deep concern about the situation in Eritrea, asking the Special Rapporteur what were the most urgent steps the Government of Eritrea should take to address the root causes of unaccompanied minor children fleeing the country and what measures the transit countries should take to curb human rights violations by human traffickers, among other questions. Switzerland expressed concern about human rights violations described by the Special Rapporteur, and welcomed her choice to focus her report on unaccompanied minors, who were a particularly vulnerable group and whose difficult situation continued once they arrived in their countries of destination. The Rapporteur was asked how and where she would continue her investigations henceforth. Belgium called the situation of human rights in Eritrea alarming, and asked the Special Rapporteur whether any concrete improvement had been made since the new penal and civil codes entered into force and which actions the international community could take to support the fight against impunity, particularly when it came to alleged crimes against humanity? United States strongly urged Eritrea to respond positively to the United Nations mandate holders who had requested a visit, and asked the Special Rapporteur if she had seen any signs that the Government of Eritrea was considering limiting the duration of national service, whose end would be one of the most positive signals the Government of Eritrea could send. Venezuela said it continued to oppose country-specific mandates against developing countries, and deplored that with those mandates, the Council was used as a dangerous political instrument against sovereign States. Venezuela hoped interventionist mandates would be eliminated, and urged Council members not to continue supporting country-specific mandates. France said that the human rights situation in Eritrea remained concerning. While progress had been made in some areas, those achievements could not justify lack of progress on others. In 2014, Eritrea had ratified the Convention against Torture; the Rapporteur was asked whether measures had been taken since then to implement the application of that Convention?

Djibouti deplored that the Government of Eritrea continued to fail its international obligations under resolution 21/18, and that it refused to grant access to the Special Rapporteur. It called on Eritrea to fully cooperate with the mandate holder and to grant her access to the country, drawing attention to continued extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and acts of torture. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea voiced its principled opposition to all politically motivated, confrontational and divisive country-specific Special Procedures. The politicized and selective procedures on human rights situations of individual countries were contrary to the United Nations Charter and the principles of impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity. United Kingdom shared the concern highlighted by the Special Rapporteur on the dangerous fate of unaccompanied Eritrean minors. It was working with African partners to tackle people smuggling from the Horn of Africa. It welcomed the opportunity for the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit places of detention in Eritrea.

China opposed any country specific resolution and mandate without the consent of the concerned country. It reminded that Eritrea had made constant progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, such as improved figures on infant mortality and gender equality. It called on the international community to refrain from exercising pressure and to support capacity building in Eritrea in order to facilitate improvement of the situation of human rights. Sudan noted that the consent and cooperation between the mandate holder and the concerned country represented the sole alternative to achieving tangible progress on the ground, adding that no positive result could be reached in the absence of dialogue and mutual respect. The Universal Periodic Review provided an appropriate framework for international cooperation in the field of human rights. Norway remained deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Eritrea, notably the denial of basic liberties and political rights, and the arbitrary administration of justice and indefinite national service. It called on the Government of Eritrea to honour its intention to limit the indefinite national service.

East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, in a joint statement with Reporters Without Borders, expressed concern at the gap between the description of the situation by the representative of Eritrea and the systematic, widespread and grave violations documented by the Special Rapporteur and the Commission of Inquiry. It referred to the cases of Dawit Isaak and Seyoum Tsehaye to illustrate violations against civil society activists and journalists in Eritrea. Network of Eritrean Women said that women in the military were victims of gender-based and sexual violence. Indefinite military conscription had the effect of disintegrating the family, and children growing up without their parents faced high risks of being kidnapped, killed, raped and enslaved. Arms proliferation among civilians was also highly concerning. United Nations Watch said that indefinite military conscription, including forced enrolment of children, led to unaccompanied migrant children fleeing the country on a large scale. The problem required urgent solutions, including calling on Eritrea to stop military conscription, and calling on receiving countries to ensure the protection of unaccompanied migrant children.

International Fellowship of Reconciliation regretted that an egregious human rights situation remained in Eritrea, and stressed that countless Eritreans were fleeing a country that violated their rights and offered them neither future nor hope. The Council should do its utmost to support the work of the Rapporteur and the Commission to complete their work and to halt the suffering of the Eritrean people. CIVICUS said that perpetrators of human rights violations in Eritrea were the defence forces, various government ministries and the office of the President. They acted with utmost impunity. The Government should establish an independent mechanism to investigate past and current human rights violations, and hold to account those guilty of perpetrating them. International Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights said that the Government of Eritrea continued to engage in systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations, some amounting to crimes against humanity. That situation incited an increasing number of Eritreans to leave their country, often facing high risks of abduction, and abhorrent physical and mental abuse and other ill-treatment.

Concluding Remarks by Eritrea and by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea

Eritrea, in concluding remarks, reiterated its firm support and recognition of those countries that had rejected country specific resolutions and mechanisms. Although it firmly opposed country specific mandates, Eritrea had embarked on substantive changes in its human rights situation. It advocated engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms with dignity rather than through coercion. Responding to the Special Rapporteur’s focus on unaccompanied minors, it noted that it was committed to implement child development programmes. The departure of unaccompanied children was a phenomenon that the Government was very much aware of. However, the linkage between children leaving and the military service was baseless. There was no indefinite military service in the country. It was extended due to the extenuating circumstances. As for the issue of the national currency, it was beyond the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

SHEILA KEETHARUTH, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, explained that her capacity was a mandate holder appointed by the Human Rights Council. She was not there to represent the Commission of Inquiry. The two mandates were separate and she would only respond to those questions that were specific to her mandate. As for the opening of Eritrea’s relationship with the external world, she said that she was very encouraged by the different signs she had seen. She was pleased with the visit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the country. However, she expressed hope that the Office would be able to visit more prisons in Eritrea and that broader access to the international community’s representatives would be granted in order to get a better understanding of arbitrary detention in the country.

As for the issue of unaccompanied Eritrean children, she noted that she was in no way trying to sensationalize the problem. The issue continued to be a concern because Eritrean children comprised the largest group of children arriving in Italy. Origin, transit and reception countries should observe the best interest of the child, Ms. Keetharuth stressed. She reiterated that she had not seen any signs that the Government of Eritrea had indeed limited the national military service to 18 months. She did, however, recognize that the Government did increase the salary of those in the military service. Speaking of impunity for crimes against humanity, she clarified that she had not conducted research in that respect. Reforms of the Penal Code were encouraging as long as they indeed were implemented. The Government of Eritrea needed to address its human rights situation consistently, starting with the limitation of the national military service and with the opening of access to prisons. It was excellent news that Eritrea had acceded to the Convention against Torture, but it had to inform how it had implemented that in practice. The Government should listen to children. Responding to some delegations’ concern about country specific mandates, Ms. Keetharuth noted that her mandate was in the hands of the Council.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr