HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES DEBATE ON EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS, PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its interactive dialogue on the reports of Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions; Peter Kasanda, Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent; and Doudou Diene, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

In concluding remarks, Mr. Alston said that he had learned a lot from the dialogue. There was a vibrant domestic debate on the death penalty and he welcomed it. He responded to statements made by national delegations and thanked the various non-governmental organizations for the constant support of his mandate.

Mr. Kasanda, concluding, noted the need for funding to assist the successful implementation of the mandate of the Working Group. Member States should assist with the implementation of the measures recommended by the Working Group, as well as those for ending racial profiling. These measures were feasible, realistic, and implementable.

Mr. Diene, in concluding remarks, said the whole question of freedom of expression and its relationship with racism had been crystallized during the debate. Freedom of expression had been a major factor in the resurgence of racism: there was complementarity between freedom of expression and other freedoms.

Delegates speaking in the interactive dialogue raised issues on new and increasing forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the need to prohibit them; the importance of fighting impunity in order to stop extrajudicial and summary executions; the necessity of a balance to be maintained between the protection of free expression and respect for the freedom of religion; and growing incidents of religious intolerance and defamation of religion.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were representatives of: Cuba, Germany on behalf of the European Union, Switzerland, Australia, United Kingdom, France, United States, Sweden, Russian Federation, Japan, Brazil, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Morocco, Djibouti, New Zealand, Indonesia, Mexico, China, Zambia, Singapore, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Chile, Cameroon, Uruguay, Iran, Canada, Belgium, Senegal, Nepal, Uzbekistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Norway and Armenia.

Non-governmental organizations speaking included representatives of: World Council of Churches, International Educational Development, B’nai B’rith International, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, Asian Legal Resource Centre, Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, Jubilee Campaign, Public Services International, International Association against Torture, International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples and Amnesty International.

Speaking in right of reply were Cuba, Armenia, Equatorial Guinea, Japan, Philippines, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Nigeria and Azerbaijan.

When the Human Rights Council resumes its work at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will consider the reports of John Ruggie, the Special Representative on human rights and transnational corporations; Paul Hunt, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; and Hina Jilani, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders.

Continuation of Interactive Dialogue on Extrajudicial Executions, People of African Descent, and Racial Discrimination

YURI ARIEL GALA LOPEZ (Cuba) said the three Special Rapporteurs were thanked for the introduction of their respective reports. With regards to the report on extrajudicial executions, Cuba shared the Special Rapporteur’s concern with regards to the questioning by the United States of the right to life in armed conflicts, and the response of the Special Rapporteur thereto. The implication of this interpretation was that a Government could select and kill any individual that it deemed to be an enemy combatant, and not be accountable for this at an international level. This position would place all acts in the so-called global war on terror in a void, and no international monitoring body could exercise oversight. This was extremely disturbing, in particular given the war-like stance of the current North American administration, which had declared that anybody who did not support the war was guilty of supporting terrorism.

On the report on racism and racial discrimination, there were indeed alarming signs of regression in the war against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. There was concern at the resurgence of racist violence, and the increase in actions legitimising racism and xenophobia. One of the serious trends in racism and xenophobia was the acceptance as normal of racist and xenophobic rhetoric. Racial discrimination, one of the cruelest manifestations of exploitation was today being further aggravated, together with the increasing gap between rich and poor. There had been a proliferation of discriminatory policies and legislation which left the door open to arbitrariness and the exercise of public policy tainted by racism and racial discrimination.

ANKE KONRAD (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union appreciated Mr. Diene’s efforts to fight hatred and intolerance by maintaining and acknowledging freedoms of belief and expression and civil and political rights. The link between States and religion was becoming closer in many countries. What were the risks of undermining fundamental rights where religion was awarded pre-eminent status in these countries. Given the link between his mandate and Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, would closer cooperation between him and the Human Rights Committee be desirable? Did Mr. Diene also plan to visit other regions besides Europe?

To Mr. Alston, the European Union asked if the visits to conflict areas had shown that conflicting parties in Sri Lanka were responding to his earlier recommendations. In the Philippines, the European Union was concerned about politically motivated and extrajudicial killings. Military and non-state actors had been implicated, as had the New Peoples’ Army. Could Mr. Alston comment on this? On abolition of the death penalty, there was concern that China and Saudi Arabia still used it. It was crucial that the death penalty meet minimum international standards. Carrying out the death penalty on children in Iran was deplorable. How could the international community respond to breaches of international minimum standards?

ANH THU DUONG (Switzerland) said that with regard to the report on extrajudicial executions, Switzerland supported the Special Rapporteur’s interpretation concerning the complementarity of human rights and humanitarian law. This complementarity had been enshrined in many resolutions of the General Assembly and the Commission of Human Rights. Recently, a resolution presented by Egypt had been adopted in this regard. The report clearly showed in which legal framework this complementarity was embedded. Switzerland raised the question whether the Special Rapporteur could illustrate this complementarity through a concrete situation, based on his experience and recent visits to countries in conflict.

GUY O’BRIEN (Australia) said with regards to the report on extrajudicial executions, it served as a compelling reminder to the international community that it needed to tackle impunity in all its forms. Australia considered the establishment of a commission of enquiry in Sri Lanka to be a key step towards ending the environment of impunity in which human rights abuses were taking place. There was concern for reports of ongoing incidents of unlawful killings in Sri Lanka by those aligned with both sides to the conflict. In the Philippines, Australia supported the efforts made to tackle extrajudicial killings.

Much more remained to be done both globally and locally for impunity to be addressed systematically and for violations to be prevented. It was the work of committed individuals and robust follow-up mechanisms that made perpetrators accountable, offered effective remedies to victims, and helped to deter individuals from committing crimes that led to conflict and suffering. It was precisely because it wished to see these outcomes, and avoid endemic cultures of impunity that Australia continued to be concerned by events in the region, including reports from Fiji of deaths in custody, arbitrary detentions, and the military’s interference with the independence of the judiciary.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) deplored the use of the death penalty imposed on so-called crimes associated with sexual orientation, and asked what practical steps could be employed to prevent this.

JEAN-MAURICE RIPERT (France) thanked all the Special Rapporteurs for their contributions to the debate. Concerning the racist statements made by a French politician, France affirmed that he had been excluded from his political duties. Regarding the existence of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic actions, the French Government was determined to combat this with its entire means. Regarding education, a lot was being done to fight racism and xenophobia as well. In support of equality, an independent body had identified measures to put forward recommendations to the Government to advance law in general. France was not tolerating the acceptance of racism and xenophobia. The report made clear the indispensable role that Special Procedures played. The Special Rapporteur had once again shown how useful his mandate was.

JAN LEVIN (United States) said in his report, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions discussed the important legal issue of the relationship between human rights law and international humanitarian law. Unfortunately, he tended to misrepresent the United States position in a number of respects. For example, the United States did not believe that human rights law ceased to apply entirely in times of armed conflict, or that every counter-terrorism action was governed by international humanitarian law. Could the Special Rapporteur provide more information about the situation in Iran, where members of religious minorities were arbitrarily subjected to the death penalty.

With regards to the Special Rapporteur on racism, the specific examples of “defamatory” and racist rhetoric cited were all met in some countries by vigorous and open public debate about racial and religious intolerance. By contrast, in many countries that justified restricting free expression in order to protect against racism or religious defamation, only members of certain religious or ethnic groups enjoyed the benefits of such State protection, and others in fact were often prevented from speaking on their own behalf. How, as a practical matter, would the Special Rapporteur suggest that States maintain the necessary balance between the protection of free expression and respect for the freedom of religion, the United States asked?

CHRISTOFFER BERG (Sweden) said vulnerable and marginalized groups often suffered disproportionately in situations of armed conflict. What could be done to make members of these groups more visible and protect them and their rights? In relation to Guatemala, Sweden commended the Government for its cooperation and asked what alternatives to the policy of “mano dura” could he advise and how could States be assisted to break negative and violent trends. Many States, including Council members had failed to send out requested invitations to the Special Rapporteur. What could be done to encourage cooperation?

GALINA KHVAN (Russian Federation) said concerning the report of Mr. Diene, Russia thanked him for his report. Russia considered that the manifestations of racism had a deep impact on society. The problems of racism and xenophobia were very broad. Russia wanted to ask the Special Rapporteur how he took into account previous provisions for his work. Concerning xenophobia, it could go so far that even history was being rewritten and symbols were being changed. The Special Rapporteur was asked to pay attention to the phenomena of racism and xenophobia with regard to the right to freedom of expression and opinion.

Concerning the report on extrajudicial executions, Russia wanted to ask the Special Rapporteur to pay more attention to the increasingly negative role that was being played by non state actors in this context. Concerning the request by Mr. Alston to visit Russia in an official visit, the request was being dealt with. The Russian Federation noted that there were also other instruments for carrying out mandates other than country visits.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) said Japan shared the view of Mr. Diene that intercultural dialogue was essential and nations should foster a multicultural tolerant society. Japan fully committed itself to continuing efforts along this line.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism, the report was stimulating, thought provoking, and touched on delicate issues. Mr. Diene was thanked for his recognition of the Regional Conference of the Americas on the Process and Challenges of the Plan of Action against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Brazil last July. The Special Rapporteur made specific reference to South America as currently being the most highly mobilised region in respect of the implementation of the Durban Programme of Action. Latin America and Africa had much in common in this goal, and contributions from other regions were welcomed in order to work closer with the same objective.

Beside progress achieved in its legal framework, Brazil was committed to public policies on the promotion of racial equality and the prevention of racism, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination. As the second-largest country in terms of population of African descent, Brazil would and should continue to pursue full racial equality policies and to combat prejudice and racial discrimination.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), thanked the Special Rapporteur for his report on racism and xenophobia. The report highlighted the major challenges in the efforts to combat racism manifested by the resurgence of racial discrimination and the growing democratic legitimisation of racism and xenophobia. Intellectual and political resistance to multiculturalism was seen as one of the root causes of the resurgence of racist and xenophobic violence. The Special Rapporteur underlined that instances such as prohibition of religious signs or symbols was one of the major manifestations of the defamation of religions, particularly Islamophobia. In the context of this comprehensive analysis, the OIC supported the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur that Member States should adopt, as a matter of urgency, national legislation against racism and racial discrimination.

The OIC also endorsed the proposal of the Special Rapporteur encouraging the Member States to demonstrate renewed commitment to the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. The worrisome trend of defamation of religions, particularly Islamophobia, remained a major challenge in the fight to combat resurgence of racial discrimination. The OIC requested the Special Rapporteur to continue to monitor the instances of Islamophobia around the world and make recommendations to the Human Rights Council to deal with it in a holistic and comprehensive manner.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said the three speakers were thanked for their very enlightening and superior presentations on delicate and complex issues. With regards to the report on racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, this contained high-quality analysis, as well as conclusions and recommendations. Morocco shared the concerns for the growing incidents of religious intolerance and defamation of religions. The most serious manifestations of these phenomena today were the upsurge of Islamophobia, and this was rejected, as it was a religion of peace, which rejected extremism and violence.

The Special Rapporteur was supported when he said that the Human Rights Council and the whole international community should face up to these challenges. It was up to each one to combat in a resolute and untiring way all of these manifestations that showed the difficulties, and the importance of the dialogue between cultures. Dialogue and humanism should always exist between religions and civilizations. Initiatives should be taken at the international level to bring about understanding, harmony and co-existence.

MOHAMED ZIAD DOUALEH (Djibouti) said there were key terms in the analysis of Mr. Diene that should be highlighted, in particular “trivialisation of the discourse”. As had been said by Hannah Arendt, it was not the evil itself that was trivial, nor the effects, but the state of mind in which it was engaged, and the retreat of thought behind this. Djibouti was also troubled by the attitude of elites who created a legitimizing discourse that encouraged actions that promoted racism and xenophobia. The growth of hate speeches and incitement was a trend that signalled a resistance to diversity and multiculturalism. Could this indicate a wish to restore the extreme, caricatured side of approaches to difference?

It should be stressed that there could be no hierarchy of rights. The right to freedom of expression and the right to be protected from discrimination were interdependent and indivisible. Racism had a history, a legacy overcome only by collective exercise on the part of victims of violations.

NICOLA HILL (New Zealand) said that New Zealand welcomed the report on extrajudicial executions. It was appropriate that the question of the death penalty was being addressed. The problems associated with the death penalty were also depicted. With regard to a decision of the Human Rights Council addressing violations against children, New Zealand was concerned about reports received on children in Iran facing the death penalty. This was a worrying situation and cooperation with the Special Rapporteur’s mandate was essential. New Zealand supported the Special Rapporteur on the question of how the juvenile death penalty could be abolished.

HARI PRABOWO (Indonesia) said the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions was interesting, and his observations were pertinent, and the Council could draw on and benefit from these. Welcome among the Special Rapporteur’s remarks on “mercy killings” in armed conflict was the emphasis placed on the complementary nature of the two bodies of law that international human rights law and humanitarian law constituted, and which made them indissociable and mutually reinforcing, especially in the context of armed conflict. The death penalty was a serious issue, and its application should remain governed by the strictest standards and justified by the most serious crimes only. The decision as to whether there had been any intent to kill should remain the prerogative of the judiciary of the State whose law provided for capital punishment, and such a decision could not be swayed by arguments of a political nature.

On the report on racism, the fact that the Special Rapporteur’s findings highlighted a renewed increase of racist attitudes and practices in certain sectors was a matter for serious concern in the Council. The new racist attitudes and discourse which his report revealed were made more dangerous by their insidious spread through the social fabric and political life by means of the trivialisation and intellectual legitimisation of racism. This was compounded on the religious front by defamation of religion against all the major religions, which continued unabated through religious and cultural profiling.

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico) said the report on racism and racial intolerance was an important step in establishing channels to allow better harmony and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights and freedoms. Reaffirming the principle of universality removed any possibility of legitimizing the establishment of priorities among different kinds of rights.

Incitement to racial hatred on the pretext of freedom of expression or religion and the promotion of rhetoric about a clash of civilizations should not be allowed. The right to freedom of religion in the Covenant had a quite high threshold. Would it be desirable to focus efforts on promoting respectful enjoyment of these freedoms? These freedoms should be enjoyed in a respectful manner. On Islamophobia, Christianophobia and the fear of Asian religions, it was intolerable to repeat old ideologies and hierarchies that discriminated between religions. Mexico thanked the Special Rapporteur on summary executions and extrajudicial killings for his analysis of the crimes that could not be considered “most serious”. Mexico also thanked the Chairperson of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent for the useful analysis of the phenomenon of racial profiling.

SHEN YONGXIANG (China) thanked Mr. Kasanda for having presented his report. The Working Group had had discussions on racial profiling for a long time. Instead of getting better, the situation over the years was getting worse and worse. China agreed with the conclusions contained in the report that the practice of profiling violated human rights and ran against international law. All Governments should carry out training among the judiciary and law enforcement bodies to create a better atmosphere throughout the society. As pointed out by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent was especially targeted and China assured its continuous support for the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

THANDIWE DAKA (Zambia) said Zambia was concerned about the current worrying trends in racism and xenophobia, which the Special Rapporteur had highlighted in the current and previous reports. These concerns included the exclusive security-based approach to immigration, asylum, and the status of foreigners and national minorities; the general increase in the defamation of religions and racial and religious hatred such as Christianophobia, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism; and the ideological and political hierarchy of the freedoms such as the freedom of expression to the detriment of the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of race. Zambia condemned such practices, and agreed with the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur that Member States should not trivialise issues of racism, xenophobia and intolerance, and should reject their use in politics.

Member States should adopt legislative, judicial and other measures to combat racism, xenophobia and intolerance, and should promote inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue to combat the general increase in the defamation of religions and racial and religious hatred such as anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia.

WEI JIANG HO (Singapore) said the differences of views on capital punishment were well known, and there was a visible fault line within the Council. There was no international consensus on the “most serious” crimes or other conditions under which the death penalty should be used. For many countries it was part of the criminal justice system, and every country had the right under international law to decide for itself whether to retain or abolish the capital punishment. For the most serious crimes it served as a deterrent to offenders. Singapore respected the right of other countries to abolish or retain the death penalty as they judged fit. Respect for human rights must include respect for different values and systems across the world.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea appreciated the report of Mr. Diene, particularly his investigation and recommendations to address the situation of Korean nationals in Japan. It was well known that the Japanese Government had carried out systematic repression and discrimination against Korean nationals as part of its hostility against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for more than half a century. This had also been strongly criticized during the consideration of the Japanese reports in the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Committee on Racial Discrimination. However, the repression and human rights violations this time around were unprecedented as ever. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea believed that this repression and discrimination by the Japanese Government must immediately stop and it strongly encouraged Mr. Diene to continue his investigation and follow up activities until an end was put to these cruel acts.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said with regards to the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, this was an area of important and necessary work. In previous reports, the Special Rapporteur had reminded the Council that there had been a resurgence of the phenomena of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia world-wide, and had noted that these phenomena took on new forms and manifestations, with their sources in intellectual constructs that were long-standing and deeply entrenched. There was a disturbing trend to bring about democratic legitimization of racism and racial discrimination. States should have the political will to overcome racism and racial discrimination, and should adopt legislative instruments in this regard, with an ethical strategy to combat the roots of the problem.

It was necessary to ensure effective implementation of international instruments when combating racism and racial discrimination, and to encourage the dialogue between nations and cultures, focusing on defending human rights and fundamental freedoms. Significant progress had been made in this regard in coordinating public policy in Latin America.

CHANTAL MFOULA (Cameroon) said Cameroon was party to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racism and was a multi-ethnic country which enjoyed peaceful co-existence. The elimination of all forms of discrimination was a goal promoted by the Government. A democratic culture was fostered to uphold tolerance and respect for differences. Concrete measures must be introduced to combat racisim, racial discrimination, tribalism and xenophobia and promote cooperation and harmonious relations. Cameroon welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations on dialogue between cultures, and the need to address immigration, asylum, foreigners and minorities on the basis of international law. The Special Rapporteur had denounced the emergence of racialist platforms in politics which opened the way to racist parties. This was a grave obstacle to democratic progress and social cohesion. Criminalisation of the areas of immigration and asylum on the basis of security was in danger of allowing a resurgence of racism.

PAULINE DAVIES (Uruguay) thanked Mr. Diene for his report. All forms of racial discrimination and xenophobia that were manifesting themselves in societies had negative repercussions. Uruguay regretted these practices as reflected in the report. It agreed with Mr. Diene’s report that action should be taken at all levels, including the legal, judicial, institutional and intellectual levels, among others. Dialogue among societies and other bodies was crucial. Uruguay reiterated that cooperation among States was fundamental if the new Council was to succeed. The mechanism of Special Procedures should be strengthened. Uruguay had supported the regional endeavours. Uruguay wanted to express its support for the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur concerning the establishment of a monitoring centre looking at the phenomenon of racism.

ABBAS GOLRIZ (Iran) said Iran, on cultural, national and international grounds, had committed itself to fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. On this basis, Jews, Christians, Muslims and others were integral parts of the Iranian population, and they lived in peace, harmony and liberty, actively participating in social and political life. The international conference held in Tehran was not aimed at “questioning the truth of the extermination of the European Jews by Nazi Germany”, as the Special Rapporteur had put it, but to contribute to an important right guaranteed by relevant international instruments, which was the right to free flow of information. The search for revisionism should include the double standard practiced with respect to the freedom of expression.

It had become a daily practice for some countries at the official level to speak of “regime change” in Iran, and threatening Iran with a full-scale raid on its infrastructure. It was a legitimate question why these pronouncements did not motivate the Special Rapporteur’s sensitivity. On the report on extrajuduciary execution in relation to capital punishment, this was not illegal in Iran, and it was issued by the courts for the most serious crimes.

CYNDY NELSON (Canada) said Canada was pleased that the Special Rapporteur had underscored the appointment of Michaelle Jean as Governor General of Canada, a meaningful demonstration of Canada’s commitment to multiculturalism. Canada continued to pursue its goal of a society in which discrimination would be a thing of the past, as shown by the 2005 Plan of Action against racism. Canada would be pleased to see the Special Rapporteur explore these areas during his next visit to Canada. He had mentioned his holistic approach and Canada would be interested to see recommendations on how the Human Rights Council could operate to promote non-discrimination, in particular on the basis of sexual orientation.

NATHALIE RONDEUX (Belgium) aligned Belgium with the questions asked by Germany on behalf of the European Union. Throughout the world, one could observe xenophobia and intolerance taking multiple and serious forms, due to the diverse forms of discrimination. The European Union took note of the Special Rapporteur’s appreciation for a holistic approach. Belgium particularly appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s association with the joint declaration of several rapporteurs expressing concerns on a law project in Nigeria, which would have the consequence of criminalizing all relationship between two persons of same sex.

Belgium asked whether the Special Rapporteur could give more details on these concerns and whether he had received already an answer from the Nigerian authorities following the declaration. The Special Rapporteur made reference to a certain number of best practices related to the fight against racism in the framework of football matches. Belgium wanted to know whether the Special Rapporteur, within his mandate, could identify best practices also in other fields, like housing, education or employment.

MOUSSA BOCAR LY (Senegal) said the report on racism and racial discrimination confirmed the scope of this scourge, as well as the new forms it had taken on due to globalisation. It called upon the international community and made it incumbent upon the latter to ensure that its action was clearly incorporated into a trend to make an impact on the many challenges related to racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. The two-prong strategy that he advocated could be rapidly defined and implemented, and there was an urgent need for this in order to build a world of respect and harmony, in which cultural balances were respected. The availability and dissemination of reliable statistics on racial profiling was also a present need. There should be in-depth thought at the Durban Update Conference in 2009. The Working Group of Experts on Persons of African Descent should spare no effort in this regard, and all delegations which truly believed in human rights should participate in this regard.

AKMAL SAIDOV (Uzbekistan) said the reports by Mr. Alston contained an inaccuracy. Uzbekistan in January 2007 provided exhaustive information in a communication not mentioned in Mr. Alston’s addendum. Uzbekistan would continue to provide exhaustive information. Uzbekistan hoped the Special Rapporteur had been informed that the death penalty had been abolished in the country and the new law would enter into force in early 2008.

Mr. Diene’s report pointed to alarming trends in the development of racism and Islamophobia. What measures could be adopted in Europe, especially in France and Germany, to ensure the fight against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia was given due attention?

GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa) expressed its appreciation for the report on racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. Like all his previous reports on this critical subject, the Special Rapporteur had once again alerted the Council to the increasing dangers of racism, and in particular, its latest violent manifestations. The global threat posed by racism and its related forms of intolerance could not go unnoticed and effective measures must be undertaken to mitigate the dangers of this scourge. South Africa also welcomed the report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent. It encouraged the Working Group to continue with its important programme. South Africa urged the High Commissioner for Human Rights to allocate more resources to the Anti-Discrimination Unit to allow the Working Group to undertake visits to communities of African descent in the diaspora with a view to assess their needs. South Africa welcomed the recent efforts of the Working Group in highlighting the problems of racial profiling.

South Africa could only agree with the analysis of Mr. Diene on the subtle forms of racism in certain regions of the world and how these forms had been actively legitimised, under the pretext of promoting democracy. The country supported all the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur as reflected in the latest report. South Africa was particularly attracted to the recommendation calling for the establishment of a centre for monitoring racist phenomena, within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. South Africa was grateful to the Special Rapporteur for heeding the request of the General Assembly resolution, by initiating a constructive partnership involving the United Nations Secretary-General and the Government of Germany, among others. South Africa hoped that, consistent with the General Assembly resolution, the Special Rapporteur would soon initiate similar efforts and partnerships with the relevant authorities in South Africa, who would be hosting the 2010 Soccer World Cup.

SHAVINDRA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said Sri Lanka made every endeavour to respond promptly to the requests for information sent periodically by the Special Rapporteurs. It had always held an open and constructive engagement with the Special Procedures, and had extended invitations to the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons to visit. Since March 2006, the Mission had not received a single communication from Mr. Alston in regard to his mandate, nor had it received any response from him to a request for factual evidence to back up a remark he made during the interactive dialogue last year.

Sri Lanka was disappointed that Special Rapporteurs continued to make generalised statements long after their country visits, perhaps in order to promote their own perspective. It was regrettable that recent positive steps taken by Sri Lanka were not even mentioned. Effective police action had resulted in a number of such cases being resolved, and a police spokesman had been appointed to provide more information to the public. Several cases of alleged disappearances had been resolved. As a responsible member of the Human Rights Council, Sri Lanka would continue to take every action and recommendation to protect and promote human rights while combating terrorism, and in this context Mr. Alston’s remark suggesting imposition of an international monitoring mission appeared out of order.

ASTRID HELLE AJAMAY (Norway) said the reports by Mr. Diene showed worrying trends in racism and xenophobia, and noted the contribution of globalization to increasing xenophobia and rejecting diversity. But the Special Rapporteur should also bear in mind the positive contribution of globalization to the enrichment of national cultures. Mr. Diene mentioned the need for a “systematic campaign” to prevent racial and religious hatred by “maintaining a careful balance between the defence of secularism and the respect for freedom of religion”, and it would be interesting to hear suggestions on how to approach this, and on how to introduce complementary standards. He highlighted the link between racial discrimination and related intolerance with other forms of intolerance, notably the criminalisation of same-sex advocacy, expression and conduct. Could he comment on these concerns? There were other related mandates: indigenous peoples, minorities, freedom of opinion and expression – could he comment on his cooperation with these?

HASMIK SIMONYAN (Armenia) thanked all three mandate holders for their laudable and profound work and would like to comment on several points of the report presented by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou Diene. Mr. Diene pointed out the revitalization of racist violence resulting in growing scales of physical violence and murders. Armenia was greatly concerned about this fact and, thus, saw a great merit in that dual approach developed by the Rapporteur, which distinguished political and legal aspects in the fight against racial and related intolerance, on the one hand, and cultural and ethical parts, on the other. Armenia welcomed the idea mentioned in the report, which underlined the importance of fair interpretation of history and the key role of education as a fundamental instrument to combat racial discrimination and xenophobia. The country also welcomed the recommendation by the Special Rapporteur, calling on the Human Rights Council to draw more attention of Member States to the historical and cultural depth of racism.

Armenia would also like to mention with satisfaction the fact of reflection by the Special Rapporteur on different forms of religious intolerance, including Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism and Christianophobia. Nevertheless, in future follow-ups on the issue Armenia would wish to see more balanced consideration and approach to this phenomena, as each of them contained the same threat to the enjoyment of human rights. Armenia wished to stress the importance of concerted actions and dialogue on the part of all States, as essential means to contribute to the establishment of multiculturalism and to promote the dialogue of civilizations, which the Human Rights Council was striving for.

MARIE HILAO-ENRIQUEZ, of Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council Of Churches, said Mr. Alston was thanked for his visit to the Philippines, and his initial findings were fully supported - extrajudicial killings persisted, and continued to increase, due to the climate of impunity, even after his country visit. The Government of the Philippines had openly stated it had taken measures with regards to the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, but nothing had in fact been done. The climate of impunity had intensified, and the vilification campaign waged by the Government had not spared Mr. Alston. The statements were inexcusable, and clearly done in derogation of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and the Human Rights Council. The human rights situation in the Philippines was fast deteriorating, and the Council should employ appropriate measures to prevail upon the Government to put a stop to the extrajudicial executions in the country.

KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, in a joint statement with Indian Council of South America, said indigenous organizations in the Philippines were being characterized as “fronts” or “enemies of the state” and were thus targets for military operations. This was clearly racist, and clearly an issue within the mandate of Mr. Diene. International Educational Development asked if Mr. Alston would be following up his visit to Sri Lanka in light of recent operations and assassinations. The organization echoed Mr. Diene’s concern on the racist platforms of an increasing number of political parties, and asked what the Special Rapporteur planned to do about this, especially in Sri Lanka. International Educational Development also raised the matter of specific unresolved cases of assassination and imprisonment in Indian-occupied Kashmir and Tibet.

KLAUS NETTER, of B'nai B'rith International, in a joint statement with Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations, said that as a Jewish organization, it was particularly pleased to note the emphasis laid by the Special Rapporteur on the new forms of anti-Semitism, including State sponsored anti-Semitism, both in Europe and the Middle East, in the form of Holocaust denial and calls for the elimination of the only Jewish State in the world. The upsurge of anti-Semitism duly reported by unimpeachable governmental and non-governmental institutions should incite this Council to institute a monitoring instrument, which could produce recommendations for action by the Council.

JESSICA MARASOVIC, of Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, in a joint statement with BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, said the Centre represented the Committee of the Uprooted Residents of Kafr Bir’im and other landholders of the Bedouin community of Arab As-Subieh, which compromised people in the Galilee region of Israel, whom Israeli authorities had first forcibly displaced, and then arbitrarily and illegally deprived of their land, through a system of State sanctioned confiscations. This was part of a systematic pattern and practice by Israeli authorities of confiscating land and property belonging to Palestinian citizens of Israel. This land regime and the systemic pattern and practice of racially discriminatory forced displacement violated numerous provisions of international customary and treaty law to which Israel was a party.

MICHAEL ANTHONY, of Asian Legal Resource Centre, in a joint statement with Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development and International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, raised the issue of extrajudicial killings by the State in the Philippines. The Special Rapporteur’s assessment of the military’s denial of the situation, and need for protection for witnesses and credible investigations, was welcome. There was particular shock at the killing of Siche Bustamante Gandinao, who had been interviewed by the Special Rapporteur during his visit. What was the Special Rapporteur’s reaction to this, and what could the Philippines and the Human Rights Council do about the safety of persons working with the mandate holder in the Philippines, and to ensure the killings were brought to an end? The Center was also concerned about continued extra-judicial executions in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and legal developments in Indonesia leading to possible impunity of those responsible for a number of extrajudicial killings in 1998 and 1999.

URIEL GOLDBERG, of Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, said that the report of the Special Rapporteur brought to light new aspects of the rise of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in Member States. The organization supported the creation of a centre for monitoring racist phenomena to obtain and disseminate accurate information on racism and xenophobia as well as the use of intercultural and interfaith dialogue at all levels of society. Once informed of these abuses by an international centre and dialogue within Member States, the Human Rights Council could effectively take steps to prevent racism and xenophobia.

HEATHER CAYLESS, of Jubilee Campaign, said on the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism, he should examine the increasing acts of religious intolerance against all religious communities with greater depth. In regard to the draft resolution on the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, submitted by Pakistan, the Council should take out the references to defamation of religions. There was a pervasive problem with defamation laws, and there was a critical need to clarify the difference between advocacy of religious intolerance, and expressing opinions that could offend the religious sensitivities of another. The Council needed to clarify that offending the religious sensitivities of another did not necessarily involve advocacy of religious intolerance.

CHIDI KING, of Public Services International, speaking about trade union activists who had been among those killed in extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, said Public Services International was urgently appealing to the Government of the Philippines to put an end to extrajudicial killings. The Government should establish a transparent dialogue between different stakeholders and ensure independent monitoring and respect for the obligations of the Government under international law to protect the right to freedom of expression and association. The Government should stop the harassment and violence against trade union activists.

ROGER WAREHAM, of International Association against Torture, in a joint statement with December twelfth Movement International Secretariat, said that the Black and Latino community in general, but particularly young Black males, were increasingly the target of summary execution by police departments across the United States. There were countless examples across the United States of unwarranted police killings. The common denominator in these cases was that the police were rarely if ever charged with criminal conduct. There was a racist culture of impunity for law enforcement officers in the United States.

VERENA GRAF, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said an impressive amount of cases of extra-judicial killings, disappearances and torture in the Philippines, often in combination with each other, had been documented by the Permanent People’s Tribunal in The Hague. Although the Government was strongly denying any participation of the army in these killings, there were serious indications to the contrary.

SHIREEN MUKADAM, of Amnesty International, addressing Mr. Alston, said Amnesty International believed that the Human Rights Council should address the failure of States to respond fully and promptly to communications and mission requests from Special Procedures. The case of Iran’s standing invitation was a case in point. The emphasis on follow-up to Special Procedures recommendations, mentioned by Mr. Diene, was also important. The Human Rights Council should work harder to ensure follow-up to missions, country reports, communications etc., and asked how mechanisms for this could work.

Concluding Remarks by Experts on Extrajudicial Executions, People of African Descent and Racial Discrimination

PHILIP ALSTON, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that he had learned a lot from the dialogue. In terms of country reports, he was troubled by the response of Guatemala and the Philippines, which were both very supportive, and he might need to review his approach. The Special Rapporteur wanted to condemn in strong terms the killing of Siche Bustamante Gandinao in the Philippines. Concerning the relationship between human rights and humanitarian law, the matter was central to his mandate. The comments by the United States were actually encouraging, and he would welcome an ongoing debate with the country. Concerning non-state actors, Russia had emphasized a focus on these and the Special Rapporteur agreed. With regard to the New People’s Army in the Philippines, there was no doubt that this army was responsible for many killings and violations of international law.

Singapore noted that there were no standards related to the death penalty because there was no customary international law and each society could judge for itself, Mr. Alston said. The Special Rapporteur said it was for individual societies to design their criminal justice standards, but it was up to the Council to evaluate their compliance with human rights. The Special Rapporteur had received no response from Iran. The Council should mandate a dialogue between its President and the Government of Iran, which unquestionably violated international law.

With regard to China, encouraging legal reforms were noted, Mr. Alston said. There was a vibrant domestic debate on the death penalty and the Special Rapporteur welcomed it. Concerning Sri Lanka, the Special Rapporteur would present a follow up report next year. He thanked the various non-governmental organizations for the constant support of his mandate.

PETER KASANDA, Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, thanked Brazil for the affirmative measures that had been responsible for putting many students of African descent into university with scholarships. He also thanked China for recognising the gravity of racial profiling, and urged other countries to put into place measures to end this. The need for funding to assist the successful implementation of the mandate of the Working Group was noted. Member States should assist with the implementation of the measures recommended by the Working Group, as well as those for ending racial profiling. These measures were feasible, realistic, and implementable.

With regards to country visits, the Council noted that the Working Group had visited Belgium, and was now in the process of making requests and discussing modalities for future country visits. These were very important for familiarising the members of the Working Group with problems on the ground, and were a good barometer, monitoring the implementation by countries being visited of the recommendations of the Working Group. On whether or not the Working Group would visit the United States, it had this intent, as the United States was home to millions of people of African descent, and a lot of studies that had been made on this subject showed racial profiling.

DOUDOU DIENE, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms or racism, racial discrimination xenophobia and related intolerance, welcomed the very positive aspect of the dialogue and the balanced reaction provided by countries he had recently visited: Switzerland, Italy, Japan and Canada. The whole question of freedom of expression and its relationship with racism had been crystallized during the debate. Freedom of expression had been a major factor in the resurgence of racism: there was complementarity between freedom of expression and other freedoms. The case of the Danish cartoons showed that extreme far-right movement played a role in publishing the cartoons, showing that racist groups exploited the freedom of expression to promote racist platforms. The response was to go back and restore balance. There was also growing and disturbing refusal to accept cultural, religious and ethnic diversity, exacerbated by the movement of immigrants and a consequent identity crisis. The question of racism and memory had been raised. A Noble Prize Winner had once said that racist executioners killed twice: the second time by silence. Regarding countries he would be visiting in the near future, they included Mauritania, India, Pakistan, Nepal, the Baltic States, the United States, and the Dominican Republic, though he had not yet had a reply from the last two. The need for States to reply was urgent to prevent paralysis of the Special Rapporteur mandate.

Right of Reply

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking in right of reply, said yesterday the United States had referred to the case of the five young Cubans in prison in that country. It was, as usual, a question of the opinion of the United States versus the rest of the world, including the Working Group on arbitrary detention, who had declared the detention of the five to be arbitrary and contrary to law. The argument of the United States could not be sustained. It was an outright lie that these men had received a fair trial - it had been filled with inaccuracies and arbitrariness, in a hostile environment, with the defence prohibited access to documents, and the detainees forbidden full access to their counsel.

Miami, where the trial took place, was a refuge for terrorists, and this was why the trial took place there. There was also the case of the United States vs. Ashcroft, when the Government of the United States had highlighted that Cuban Miami could not be impartial and equitable. The judicial process against the five had not taken place legally, and the five were arbitrarily detained political prisoners.

ARTAK APITONIAN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said Azerbaijan clearly wished to divert the attention of the international community concerning the destruction of monuments. Azerbaijan had refused access to the site, and had obstructed missions from the Council of Europe. The destruction of the Armenian settlement was conducted years after the conflict ended, far from the battlegrounds. The Azerbaijanis were shadow boxing with Armenian ghosts.

SISINIO EYEBE MBANA MAKINA (Equatorial Guinea), speaking in right of reply, said that Equatorial Guinea found it necessary to reply to statements made yesterday by the non-governmental organization North South XXI. Those comments were without basis and showed a lack of knowledge. The organization did not live in the country and did not have the slightest idea of what was going on there. In response to the concerns, the Government had undertaken some measures to ameliorate the infrastructure, involving the housing and food sectors. The Government planned to build in the medium term more housing facilities for people living under difficult conditions. All who doubted the efforts the Government was making should come to the country for a visit.

HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), speaking in right of reply, said Japan wanted to reply to the statements made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea yesterday regarding racial discrimination in Japan, which were totally ungrounded. Japan’s Constitution prohibited any form of racial discrimination and any person was treated equally under the law. Japan had acceded to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Also, the country had been fully cooperating with Special Rapporteurs, including Mr. Doudou Diene. Japan would continue to cooperate with human rights mechanisms.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines), speaking in right of reply, said with regards to statements made by non-governmental organizations, the Philippines welcomed the participation of civil society, as well as the structured debate, as it helped bolster the rule of law. The Philippines condemned arbitrary executions, and had made this clear. For investigations to succeed, a precise reckoning of figures was required, and arriving at the exact number was pivotal in arriving at the sought result. Investigations had determined that five persons said to have been killed had returned alive. Cases were being actively investigated, and charges being prepared against perpetrators and those guilty of inaction when the crimes occurred. As to the statement that nothing was being done, a number of significant measures had been taken by the Government both before and after Mr. Alston’s visit, and this demonstrated an unambiguous commitment to dealing with the issue, both on behalf of the public and private sectors.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in right of reply, rejected statements made by the Japanese delegation. Discrimination and repression of Koreans in Japan were a daily occurrence. Japan had demonstrated a catastrophic failure to address past crimes against millions of civilians. Korean nationals in Japan were descendents of Koreans forcibly drafted to Japan in earlier times, and this was thus a repetition of the crimes of old. Japan should stop all cruel and inhumane repression against Koreans in Japan rather than continue to mislead the Council.

MOHAMMED I. HAIDARA (Nigeria), speaking in right of reply, wanted to respond to the statements made by Belgium concerning same-sex marriage. The fact that the law project was envisaged did not imply that it was adopted. Nigeria was a democratic country and shared a linguistic and multicultural diversity. Same-sex marriage was an alien practice. The international community should cooperate to achieve the cause of human rights.

HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), speaking in a second right of reply, said with regards to the statement of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Japan had faced its past history with sincerity and consistency, and had made apologies and dedicated itself to promoting international peace and security, and enhancing democracy. On racial discrimination, the Constitution of Japan forbade any form of this. No system could be perfect, which was why there were international conventions, Special Procedures, and other bodies. It was hoped the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would cooperate with all Special Rapporteurs.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a second right of reply, said Japanese crimes against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the past remained unresolved. Japan had not resolved its legacy of crimes against humanity, and the racism in the country now was part of that legacy. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea repeated its call for an end to discrimination against Koreans in Japan.

AZAD CAFAROV (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said Azerbaijan had already explained why the statements of Armenia were wrong. The Armenian armed forces had left no Azerbaijani cultural and historic monument undamaged. Azerbaijan was confident that a time would come when Armenia would be held accountable for what it did. The Government of Azerbaijan had called upon the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to dispatch a mission to the region. Armenia maintained the tool of false propaganda.

In press release HRC/07/25 of 27 March 2007, the statement made by Armenia should read as follows;

ARTAK APITONIAN (Armenia) thanked the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion on her report and Armenia strongly supported her mandate. In her report, the Special Rapporteur referred to the “alleged destruction of certain monuments in Djulfa, Nakhichevan”. This was a highly sensitive issue as these “certain monuments” were a medieval Christian Armenian cemetery with a remaining 2,000 out of originally more than 10,000 individually carved, artistically unique cross stones dating from the ninth and sixteenth century and the adjacent church. These acts of destruction had occurred in an area which posed no immediate security concern. General Assembly resolutions condemned all acts of destruction directed against religious sites and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action emphasized the need to counter intolerance and related violence based on religion, including the desecration of religious sites. The Special Rapporteur was encouraged to keep the issue under further consideration.


For use of the information media; not an official record


HRC07027E