HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN BELARUS
The Human Rights Council, in a midday meeting today, concluded its interactive dialogue on the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Belarus, and started its general debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s Attention.
In concluding remarks, Belarus, speaking as the concerned country, said Belarus appreciated those governments which had supported Belarus. Regarding the European Union, Belarus said in the free world one could not tell other people how they should live and where they should go. Belarus’s recommendation would be for the European Union to not participate in political power struggles in other countries. Belarus would try to achieve the removal of Belarus from the Human Rights Council agenda. Dissatisfaction with the presidential election was an interference with the internal affairs of Belarus. This discussion had clearly shown the defects of the Human Rights Council.
Kyung-wha Kang, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, in concluding remarks, thanked all delegations and civil society partners for their statements and was very encouraged with the Belarusian delegation’s statement on their willingness to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In line with the recommendations indicated in the oral report, significant steps should be taken in Belarus to revise the legal framework so that it was in line with international standards, notably that the judicial and prisons system reflected best practices worldwide. The protection of human rights defenders and activists was critical for the improvement of human rights in Belarus. The priority for the Office of the High Commissioner was to gain access to Belarus so that the Office could continue to provide technical cooperation.
In the interactive dialogue, speakers welcomed comments by the Government of Belarus conducted in line with international norms and treaties. Some speakers strongly opposed the discussion of the report on human rights in Belarus, saying that politicized reports resulted only in mistrust and confrontation among Member States. Human rights issues must be resolved though dialogue that was free from selective condemnation based on political motives. Other speakers said they fully supported the efforts to scrutinize the human rights violations in Belarus. They were concerned that no less than three former presidential candidates were behind bars. Speakers were also concerned about reports of arbitrary detention and torture and ill- treatment of detainees. They urged Belarus to cooperate with the High Commissioner with sincerity and transparency.
Speaking on Belarus were the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Syria, Viet Nam, Austria, Denmark, Uruguay, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Angola, Myanmar, Switzerland, Botswana, Latvia, Bahrain, and Bangladesh. The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: International Federation of Human Rights, Human Rights House Foundation, Amnesty International, World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru.
The Council also started its general debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention.
Speaking in the general debate were Poland on behalf of the European Union, the United States, Switzerland, Spain, Norway, Romania, Czech Republic, Belgium, Cuba, China, Austria, and France.
States speaking in right of reply at the end of the day were Azerbaijan, Venezuela, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Bahrain, China and Zimbabwe.
The Council will resume its general debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention at 9 a.m. on Friday, 23 September.
The Council today is holding a full day of meetings from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. In the afternoon meeting, it will consider and adopt the outcomes of the Universal Periodic Review on Suriname, Greece and Samoa.
Interactive Dialogue on Situation of Human Rights in Belarus
KIM YONG HO (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea welcomed comments by the Government of Belarus conducted in line with international norms and treaties. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was concerned that the discussion on a politicized country report was still ongoing. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea strongly opposed the discussion of the report on human rights in Belarus. Politicized reports resulted only in mistrust and confrontation among Member States. Human rights issues must be resolved though dialogue free from selective condemnation based on political motives. Measures must put an end to the anachronistic practice of having country specific Special Procedures.
DANY BA’AJ (Syria) said Syria had taken note of the inability to verify the truth of many items concerning the human rights situation in Belarus in the report by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Syria welcomed the spirit of openness that the Government of Belarus had shown along with the open invitation extended to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Syria stressed the intergovernmental nature of the work of the Human Rights Council and urged the adoption of a path of cooperation and dialogue rather than the exercise of political pressure by some countries to achieve political agendas.
NGO LE HOANG VU (Viet Nam) asked that all States, including Belarus, intensify their efforts to better protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in accordance with international standards of human rights. However, it was imperative that the exercise of those rights must be peaceful and non-violent, within the law, as signified in Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Viet Nam condemned any form of abuse of the rights of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, which could lead to violence, hatred and intolerance or infringe on public order and the flow of goods and services. The Government and protesters were responsible for maintaining the peaceful nature of events and must refrain from all forms of violence, in accordance with the principal of dignified dialogue and mutual understanding.
PETER GUSCHELBAUER (Austria) said Austria commended the High Commissioner on the report on the human rights situation in Belarus. Austria fully supported the efforts to scrutinize human rights violations in Belarus. Austria was concerned that no less than three former presidential candidates were behind bars. Austria was also concerned about reports of arbitrary detention and torture of ill treatment of detainees. Austria urged Belarus to cooperate with the High Commissioner with sincerity and transparency.
STEFFEN SMIDT (Denmark) said Denmark highly appreciated the continued work of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote democracy, rule of law and human rights in Belarus. The political situation in Belarus had deteriorated over the last months. Reports of torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and the practice of arbitrary arrests were deeply worrying and should be further examined. Denmark believed that the abolition of the death penalty was essential to the protection of human dignity and urged Belarus to introduce a moratorium on the death penalty with a view to its complete abolition. Denmark asked what primary challenges the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would address in the ongoing human rights violations in Belarus.
FEDERICO PERAZZA (Uruguay) regretted that the country visit from the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights’ team had not been held until now since Belarus did not agree with Resolution 17/24. That would have enabled the Council to have direct information on what was happening on the ground. Uruguay supported the High Commissioner’s recommendations, which would help protect human rights in Belarus, particularly in those cases identified by the High Commissioner. To implement those recommendations, it was necessary and desirable for the Government of Belarus to fully cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights and all United Nations bodies. Uruguay took note with satisfaction of the invitation Belarus had extended to the High Commissioner to visit Belarus.
BRANISLAV LYSAK (Slovakia) said Slovakia regretted that the mission of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had not been granted access to Belarus. The invitation sent just a few days ahead of this very debate did not suggest that Belarus had approached the Human Rights Council’s call to cooperate with the Office of the High commissioner for Human Rights in a frank, open and constructive manner. Slovakia strongly condemned the excessive use of force against demonstrators protesting peacefully against the irregularities accompanying the presidential elections on 19 December 2010. The news about the detention of Ales Bialatiski was received with deep concern. His immediate and unconditional release was demanded. Slovakia asked what were the future plans that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights envisaged with regard to Belarus?
VERONIKA STROMSIKOVA (Czech Republic) said that despite the fact that some the political prisoners in Belarus were being released, these pragmatic steps could not be considered as signs of a genuine change in the Government’s attitude to human rights. Credible allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Belarusian political prisoners was alarming and so was the resumption of executions. Controversial Article 193-1 of the Criminal Code of Belarus, which made actions connected with non-registered organizations punishable by arrest, was still in force. Belarus had failed to cooperate with international organizations or with the Moscow Mechanism and international monitors had been expelled from the country. The Czech Republic urged Belarus to start cooperating with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights so that visits could take place.
LUKONDE LUANSI (Angola) said that Angola recognized the universal right of freedom of expression, as well as the variety of political opinions, in accordance with international legal provisions enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Angola also recognized people’s right to choose their representatives through universal suffrage. Angola called for the situation in Belarus to be changed in a non-political and non-conflictive manner. Angola supported Belarus’s efforts in the field of education, which enabled the country to achieve one of the Millennium Goals: universal access to primary education. Angola was also pleased to note that the Government had cooperated with civil society to enable the full protection of children’s rights. Since the adoption of resolution 17/24 during the seventeenth Session of the Human Rights Council in June 2011, Angola had recognized the efforts of the Government of Belarus, in collaboration with the High Commissioner, to respect and promote human rights.
MAUG WAI (Myanmar) said for Belarus to be able to tackle human rights issues on the ground, the pursuit of an equitable dialogue should be followed. Myanmar wished to thank the cooperation showed by the Government of Belarus, such as the invitation issued to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Myanmar would have liked to see cooperation between the Government of Belarus and the Human Rights Council strengthened. Myanmar did not support any politicization of country situations.
MICHAEL MEIER (Switzerland) said that despite the engagement of the Government of Belarus during its Universal Periodic Review, Switzerland remained concerned by the situation of human rights in the country and in particular by recent events. During the panel on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful demonstrations, States were encouraged to see all peaceful demonstrations not as a threat but as an opportunity. However in Belarus, peaceful protestors were imprisoned. Switzerland called on the authorities in Belarus to release all political prisoners, engage in a national dialogue with protestors, and lift restrictions imposed on non-governmental organizations. The case of Ales Bialiatski was an example of how representatives from civil society were unable to speak freely without risk of reprisal. Switzerland asked what necessary conditions were required to establish cooperation between the High Commissioner’s Office and the Government of Belarus.
MAPHOI KOMANYANE (Botswana) said that human rights violations had occurred in Belarus before, during and in the aftermath of the presidential elections of 19 December 2010. Those included the use of force against opposition candidates, journalists and human rights defenders, as well as their arbitrary arrests, detention and the politically motivated confession. Botswana noted with great concern the challenges faced by the High Commissioner’s Office in the collection and verification of information due to the absence of a presence in Belarus, and urged the Government of Belarus to give the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights access. As a State party to most of the core United Nations human rights instruments, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights included, Belarus had an obligation to ensure the full protection and promotion of all human rights of its people. Botswana urged the Government to heed and implement the recommendations contained in the oral report of the High Commissioner, as well as those in resolution 17/24 and immediately release all detainees who were not involved in any violence. Botswana also urged the Government of Belarus to undertake an in-depth investigation on cases of torture and ill-treatment, and bring the culprits to justice.
RAIMONDS JANSONS (Latvia) thanked the High Commissioner for her in-depth and informative oral report on the situation of human rights in Belarus. Latvia placed particular importance to the role that Special Procedures played in informing the work of the Human Rights Council. Latvia called on the Government of Belarus to allow the visits of United Nations mandate holders. Latvia noted the recent release of several political prisoners as a step in the right direction and urged the release of remaining political prisoners. Latvia remained concerned about restrictions on the freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of the media.
BUDOOR ABDULAZIZ AHMED (Bahrain) said this interactive dialogue should be a good opportunity for Belarus to renew its constructive relation with the Human Rights Council. Belarus had manifested its intention to cooperate with the Council on its Universal Periodic Review and with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This interactive dialogue provided an opportunity to engage with Belarus in a fair and objective manner to promote and protect human rights. National efforts should continue in Belarus to achieve its objectives in cooperation with other organizations.
NAHIDA SOBHAN (Bangladesh) said Bangladesh noted with appreciation the commitment that the Government of Belarus had shown in its engagement with the Universal Period Review at the Human Rights Council last year and its engagement with the High Commissioner. Bangladesh called upon the Government of Belarus to release all political prisoners and upon all concerned to cease the violence. Bangladesh noted that the oral report of the High Commissioner was based on secondary sources, and said that they believed it was unfair and not impartial to judge the situation in Belarus based on information received from secondary sources. The Human Rights Council also needed to provide technical assistance to the Government of Belarus in the field of human rights as stated at their Universal Period Review of last year.
VALENTSIN STEFANOVIC, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues - FIDH, in a join statement with World Organization against Torture, called on the authorities of Belarus to release Ales Bialiatski, the Vice President of the International Federation of Human Rights. The arrest of Ales Bialiatski was part of the systematic refusal due to political reasons of registering non-governmental organizations. The most flagrant violations were the executions of Andrie Jouk and Ales Grichkovstov. Both had had outstanding communications with the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Despite this both were executed. The International Federation of Human Rights urged the release of the Vice President of the Federation, Ales Bialiatski, and for the Government to allow the registration and financing of non-governmental organizations.
FLORIAN IRMINGER, of Human Rights House Foundation, said since 19 December 2010, repression had escalated in Belarus. In July 2011, 400 protesters were arrested. Many of the protesters were found guilty of disorderly conduct. Human Rights House Foundation urged the Government of Belarus to allow all lawyers disbarred in connection with 19 December 2010 to be registered as lawyers again. Human Rights House Foundation also urged the Government of Belarus to let human rights organizations do their work. The Government should also abolish legislation criminalizing human rights work, including article 193.1 of the criminal code.
PATRIZIA SCANELLA, of Amnesty International, said the freedoms of assembly and expression in Belarus were increasingly restricted. Attempts had been made to silence all forms of peaceful protest, and human rights defenders had come under increasing attack. Amnesty International had received credible reports that torture and other ill-treatment was routinely used to extract confessions, and that those who complained about torture and other ill-treatment were at risk of reprisals from police officers. There was an apparent lack of provisions for judicial control of decisions to detain persons and there were restrictions in the practice of the right to unimpeded communication with lawyers.
ANNA DOBROVOLSKAYA, of World Alliance for Citizen Participation, said the situation concerning the freedom of peaceful assemblies in Belarus remained below international standards and the situation showed no sign of improvement, even compared with the violent crackdown of the demonstration on the election night on 19 December 2010. Participants in peaceful assemblies that were considered illegal were likely to face administrative arrest of up to 15 days, a disproportional punishment. Belarus should do the following: bring national legislation on the freedom of assembly in compliance with international principles and standards; restrain police officers from the use of force against peaceful participants of assemblies and observers; extenuate Article 23.34 of the Administrative Code regarding the responsibility for participants and organizers of unlawful events; and invite the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association to Belarus in order to assist the Government in moving towards better legal regulation and practice.
LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, in a joint statement with World Peace Council, speaking in a joint statement, said that in September 2007 Tupaj Amaru visited Minsk and presented a book on the right to self-determination in the framework of peace. They met with human rights associations on minorities. At no time did they observe human rights opponents, nor did they see as much violence as the West had described, nor did they encounter as much violence against minorities as in Chechnya. The acts of the Human Rights Council which condemned the Government of Belarus in resolution 17/24 and had asked for the visit of Special Rapporteur to the country ran counter to the resolution of the General Assembly. It was noted that the States which promoted the resolution were the same western countries, with the United States at their head, which were opposed to resolution L.94/Rev.1, submitted by Cuba, which concerned the visits of human rights officials to the Naval Base at Guantanamo.
Concluding Remarks
MIKHAIL KHVOSTOV (Belarus), speaking as a concerned country in concluding observations, said Belarus took note the various opinions as set forth in the interactive dialogue. Belarus had based their assessment on the broader documents of the Universal Periodic Review which they had undergone. Belarus appreciated those governments which had supported Belarus. Regarding the European Union, Belarus said in the free world one could not tell other people how they should live and where they should go. Belarus’ recommendation would be for the European Union to not participate in political power struggles in other countries. Belarus would try to achieve the removal of the situation in Belarus from the Human Rights Council agenda. Dissatisfaction with the presidential election was an interference with the internal affairs of Belarus. The discussion had clearly shown the defects of the Human Rights Council.
KYUNG-WHA KANG Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, in concluding remarks, said she thanked all delegations and civil society partners for their statements and was very encouraged with the Belarusian delegation’s statement on their willingness to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In response to Belarus’ statement that the Office of the High Commissioner had not monitored other situations around the world, Ms. Kang stated that the Office was in communication with various countries to monitor challenges in individual Member States demonstrated by public statements issued by the Office and posted on the website. Ms. Kang noted that the United Nations Development Programme had no mandate to monitor and access human rights mandates on the ground in Belarus. In line with the recommendations indicated in the oral report, significant steps should be taken in Belarus to revise the legal framework so that it was in line with international standards notably that the judicial and prisons system reflected best practices worldwide. The protection of human rights defenders and activists was critical for the improvement of human rights in Belarus. The priority for the Office of the High Commissioner was to gain access to Belarus so that the Office could continue to provide technical cooperation and conduct the technical assessment necessary for the report to be presented at the twentieth session of the Human Rights Council.
Ms. Kang clarified that there had been cooperation with Belarus since 2009 on the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review recommendations in terms of assessment and training and called on the Government of Belarus to fully implement all recommendations, including those related to civil and political rights. The High Commissioner had received an invitation to visit Belarus on 30 August and she had informed the Government of Belarus that she would consider such a visit after the preparation of the report for the twentieth session of the Council and noted that her visit would be distinct from the visit by the technical team. A visit by the technical team was essential to obtain first hand information and to corroborate and substantiate evidence. Ms. Kang assured Member States that although the information in the oral report was secondary, it was reliable. Concerning questions on priority actions to be taken by the Government of Belarus, Ms. Kang referred back to recommendations in the oral report, including a call for the immediate release of all political activists in detention, an investigation into the terms of their detention, an immediate end to the harassment of journalists and civil society actors, reform of the legal code, acceptance of a technical team to the country and cooperation with all mandate holders.
Member States should continue to engage with all stakeholders in Belarus, including civil society actors, and this engagement should be done with unity. Regarding the case of Mr. Bilatski, Ms. Kang said that she had information that he was still in detention based on the crime of concealment of income on a large scale which carried a penalty of up to seven years; the investigation would end this week with a trial expected later in the year. Concerning Internet access, additional restrictions on the internet and media were under consideration by the authorities in addition to new legislation that would outlaw public protests. The main barrier to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights from carrying out its work in Belarus was access to the country and Ms. Kang urged the Belarusian authorities to render full cooperation with the Office and engage with all Special Rapporteurs, especially on freedom of assembly and expression. The Office’s immediate task was to compile the report due in the twentieth session of the Council and to continue with the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review recommendations on Belarus.
General Debate on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention
REMIGIUSZ A. HENCZEL (Poland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that in recent months they had witnessed unprecedented changes in the Middle East and North Africa regions, and as a neighbouring region, the European Union had accompanied those developments bilaterally and in the framework of the Human Rights Council, for example in Tunisia and Egypt, although in the latter case the European Union remained concerned about the human rights situation and hoped that transition would mark progress rather than regress. In Bahrain more needed to be done too, and the European Union had engaged with Bahrain in view of a possible interactive dialogue at the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council. The European Union encouraged Yemen to investigate all human rights abuses of peaceful protestors, notably extrajudicial killings, ill-treatment and arbitrary arrests. In Libya human rights violations committed by the Gaddafi regime needed to be properly addressed, with cooperation with the International Criminal Court. In Syria, the European Union called for an end to violence and repression and the release of all those arbitrarily detained. Where crimes against humanity had occurred, their authors must be prosecuted. Further south the overall situation in Sudan required continued attention by the international community. They were alarmed by disturbing reports on widespread human rights violations in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states. The human rights situation in South Sudan also deserved attention. In Iran the crackdown on human rights defenders continued, together with torture, arbitrary detention and unfair trials. The European Union called on Iran to fully cooperate with the Special Rapporteur. In Burma/Myanmar, the European Union was encouraged by the recent visit of the Special Rapporteur, but shared his concerns over political prisoners, allegations of torture and ill-treatment during interrogation and the treatment of ethnic minorities. All political prisoners must be released immediately and unconditionally. Sri Lanka could move on the path of greater accountability as an essential part of the process of national reconciliation. The European Union believed that both Eritrea and Azerbaijan should fulfil their human rights obligations under both domestic and international law. Finally the European Union wished to affirm its serious concerns about the human rights situation in its close European neighbour, Belarus, and urged the Belarusian authorities to immediately end all human rights violations.
EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States) said that the United States remained deeply disturbed by ongoing human rights violations around the world where people continued to be tortured, killed, arbitrarily arrested, and denied their fundamental rights. In Iran, the United States remained concerned by repeated instances of torture, the house arrest of opposition leaders, restriction on the freedom of religious minorities and suppression of forms of dissent against States. In Burma, the Government denied citizens basic rights, including freedom of speech, movement and association; and the United States urged the Government to follow its words and commitment with concrete actions leading to genuine reform, national reconciliation and respect for human rights. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea maintained draconian controls over almost all aspects of citizens’ lives, denying fundamental freedoms. China arrested and detained lawyers, activists and writers for exercising freedom of expression and for defending their internationally recognized right, and extralegal measures to silence even peaceful dissent. Cuba used short-term detention and arbitrary arrest to prevent groups from meeting and disrupted peaceful protests. The Venezuelan Government had placed severe restrictions on civil society and actively prosecuted political opposition, thereby undermining freedom of association and expression, and weakening democratic institutions. In Zimbabwe, politically motivated violence and bias of the police, state prosecutor and military remained an obstacle to citizens’ free and equal participation in elections. The United States stood by the victims of human rights abuses around the world and called on all countries to uphold their human rights obligations.
EMANUEL BICHET. (Switzerland) said Switzerland was pleased that the Council had paid attention to the growing number of cases where serious violence and human rights abuses had occurred around the world. In Bahrain, peaceful demonstrators were arrested and tortured and civil rights were not respected. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, the human rights situation was deficient, due to the application of the death penalty and the corporal punishment of women. With regard to many countries in the Horn of Africa, the right to food and water was under threat and displaced populations faced increased security problems while humanitarian workers, journalists and human rights defenders were at daily risk of being kidnapped or killed. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the second electoral cycle would be opened and Switzerland called on the Government to protect human rights during this time. In Sri Lanka, the Government should abolish the state of emergency and Switzerland voiced its support for the report of the experts mandated by the Secretary-General on Sri Lanka.
HARRIET E. BERG (Norway) expressed Norway’s recognition of positive developments in Sri Lanka since the end of the war in 2009. There was now a historic opportunity for sustainable peace. Norway called on the Government to take bold steps necessary to bring about a political solution and reconciliation. Norway remained deeply concerned by the continuing systemic human rights violations in Iran, particularly by the dramatic increase in the use of death penalty. It also remained concerned over the human rights situation in a number of countries in the Middle East. Norway called on the Syrian authorities to abstain from the use of violence and to respect fundamental human rights. Norway was also deeply concerned over the latest reports on the human rights situation in Yemen, characterized by comprehensive acts of violence against civilians. In Bahrain, Norway was concerned about reports of violations against people who were associated with the anti-government protests earlier this year and called on the Government to investigate these matters. Norway urged the Democratic Republic of the Congo to ensure a level playing field for all candidates and political parties in the upcoming elections. Norway was concerned about systematic violations by the Government of Swaziland on the rights of freedom of assembly and association. Norway noted the establishment of the reconciliation and truth commission in Côte d’Ivoire, justice needed to be meted out to all who had been involved in gross violations of human rights in the post-election period. Finally, Norway urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to cooperate with international partners to improve the human rights situation; humanitarian organizations should be granted free access given the serious situation.
MARIA CIOBANU (Romania) said many people in the Middle East and North Africa had opted for change in their countries. Although the process of transition to democracy was sometimes slow and often painful, nothing could stop people from aspiring and fighting for a better life. As a country having gone through its own transition, Romania said that good governance based on the rule of law and respect for human rights could be the only way forward. Romania welcomed the cooperation of the Yemeni authorities with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights mission and the openness of dialogue with the Council; however it was important that the authorities of Yemen took all the necessary measures to establish a constructive and peaceful way to respond to the legitimate aspirations of its people. Romania called on the Government of Syria to immediately end all human rights violations and to take immediate steps to end impunity, including the abolishment of legislation granting immunity from prosecution to security and intelligence personnel. Romania welcomed the presence of representatives of the National Transitional Council in Libya. Romania encouraged the Sudanese authorities to clarify the serious allegations about the events in different parts of the country and to prepare the ground for effective international help and technical assistance. Romania welcomed the presence of South Sudan in this forum.
KATERINA SEQUENSOVA (Czech Republic) said the Czech Republic firmly condemned all human rights violations that continued to be committed in Belarus and requested the immediate release of all political prisoners, including the recently detained human rights defender Ales Bialiatski. The Czech Republic strongly condemned the gross human rights violations committed by the Syrian authorities and called onto the Government of Syria to grant access to the Commission of Inquiry without delay. During the upcoming months they expected the organization of important elections in the Middle East and North Africa region. The Czech Republic hoped that people in Tunisia and Egypt would finally get a chance to exercise their basic rights, namely the right to take part in their country’s government. They welcomed positive developments in Cuba, aimed at improving the economic situation of common Cubans, although progress must be made in other areas, especially amendments to legislation. The Czech Republic welcomed the willingness of China to discuss human rights issues and was keen to see them being put into practice. The Czech Republic was concerned about the unsatisfactory situation of the rights of national minorities, including Uyghurs and Tibetans, and ongoing restrictions on the freedom of expression. It was noted that the Government of Burma/Myanmar were proceeding with reforms, including the protection of fundamental human rights, however concern remained about the continuing detention of political prisoners, allegations of torture and continuing violations of human rights of ethnic minorities. Human rights defenders in Iran were subject to harassment, intimidation and stigmatization, and there were credible reports of torture in prisons. The Czech Republic called on Iran to immediately put an end to the persecution of members of the Defenders of Human Rights Centre. They strongly called on the Government of Zimbabwe to establish an environment where freedom of expression and assembly was fully respected, and encouraged the Government to proceed with the preparations of free and fair referendum, and elections, in 2012. It was regrettable that no progress had been made in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, a country where the human rights situation remained disastrous. The Czech Republic called on the Government to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur and other relevant United Nations mechanisms.
HUGO BRAUWERS (Belgium) said that the recent uprisings in the Arab world showed that people could not be indefinitely deprived from their rights. The tremendous optimism which initially accompanied these events was waning away in face of a challenging reality. Belgium deplored the fact that some countries in the region remained deaf to the aspirations of their people and had made no efforts to investigate alleged violations. Belgium would like the Council to better support these countries to fulfill their obligations. The situation in Bahrain was not improving; Belgium hoped that the recommendations of the investigation commissions would be implemented and that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would be able to visit Bahrain and inform the work of the session of the Council in March 2012. Belgium deplored what seemed as the use of excessive force against protesters in Yemen as identified by a report of the Office of the High Commissioner, the culture of impunity should not be allowed to take root. Belgium regretted that the state of emergency had not been suspended in Egypt and a transparent investigation concerning alleged abuses should be conducted. Belgium also remained concerned with the human rights in Iran and deplored the fact that human rights defenses suffered from threats and called for the unconditional liberation of those detained on a weak case.
JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba) said that once again there had been a lengthy list of countries presented by the United States and the European countries to be named and shamed, notably countries in the South. The recurrent question on the eve of each session on the Council was which country in the South would be the subject of investigation. How could the United States engage in such finger pointing when it was guilty of its own human rights violations as committed in Guantanamo and other prisons? Cuba said that members of minorities and ethnic groups were mistreated in the United States. Cuba urged the countries of the South to close ranks and firmly reject political manipulation by countries from the North. The United States had no right to be critical of the human rights situation in Cuba when the situation of human rights in their own country was much worse. Cuba advised the Czech Republic not to condemn Cuba and to concentrate on its own human rights concerns.
XIA JINGGE (China) said that the diversity of human rights should be respected. It was necessary to encourage countries and regions to take account of their own specific regions, cultures and history when adopting human rights legislation. The international community should do away with politicization and double standards to avoid conflict in the Human Rights Council. China noted with concern that so far the United States had not ratified core human rights instruments, and had refused to close Guantanamo, nor had it investigated casualties caused by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The United States had used counter-terrorism legislation to violate freedom of speech and freedom of speech on the Internet. With regard to the Czech Republic’s comments on human rights in China, China said that they believed any impartial, fair and sensible person could not come to such a conclusion. The problems of the Czech Republic were first and foremost racist. China hoped that countries would solve their own human rights problems first before pointing fingers at others on the subject of human rights.
THOMAS UNGER (Austria) said that the Council had a central role to address human rights violations around the world. Conflict and oppression in all parts of the world continued to claim a multitude of innocent victims. The unequivocal stance of the Council on human rights situations in Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and Syria proved that the Council was capable of acting in the face of serious violations and the establishment of commissions of inquiry for all three situations was clear testimony that the Council could do more than producing words. It would be important that States fully cooperated with these commissions. In the context of Syria, Austria was deeply concerned about the continuing reports on violence and repression of peaceful protests and urged Syria to grant full access to the newly established commission of inquiry. Austria called on both Sudan and South Sudan to seek solutions for the lasting development of their countries, grounded on the principles of human rights. Austria welcomed the establishment of a country mandate on the human rights situation in Iran at the sixteenth session and remained concerned about the systematic violations of human rights in Iran. There was a worldwide increase in attacks against journalist and measures aimed at the protection of journalists were introduced for instance in Colombia and Mexico. There was a clear role for the Council to act and to prevent further abuses.
JACQUES PELLET (France) said France was concerned about the atrocities committed by the regime in Syria and it was urgent for the international community to take up its responsibility there. France reiterated its confidence in the new Libyan authorities to build a State that respected the rule of law and fundamental freedoms. France was concerned by the suffering of the Yemeni population and said the plan provided by the Arab States was the best roadmap possible. Repression continued in Iran and France noted that the country should cooperate with the Special Rapporteur. There should be a renewal of the mandate on Sudan and a new mandate should be created to assist South Sudan to improve its human rights mechanisms. France noted the report from the Secretary-General’s office on Sri Lanka and encouraged the Sri Lankan authorities to implement the recommendations in the report.
Right of Reply
RASHAD SHIRINOV (Azerbaijan), speaking in a right of reply, indicated Azerbaijan’s surprise to see inaccurate information in the statement by Poland on behalf of the European Union. No one had been imprisoned in Azerbaijan on the basis of their political background. The United Nations platform was not the adequate place to discuss regional matters such as those involving the Council of Europe. The delegations which aligned themselves with such a statement should better focus on the human rights situation of the refugees from and the ongoing armed aggression by the neighbouring country, a situation which posed serious challenges and dangers to the European continent as a whole. Similarly, delegations should provide serious consideration to the information circulated by the Permanent Mission of Azerbaijan concerning agenda item 4.
FELIX PENA RAMOS (Venezuela), speaking in a right of reply, said that the United States had assumed the role of the monitor of human rights on the planet without a mandate and had launched attacks against Venezuela’s human rights’ record. The United States had displayed a continuous intervention in the internal affairs of Venezuela and had charged the country with withholding fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of religion, which no one believed. The United States, in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, had left in its wake thousands dead. Venezuela maintained the free exercise by all citizens of their full human rights and urged the Government of the United States to halt its policy of pressure and hate against Venezuela and said there was a need to found a new relationship with South America based on fairness.
KIM YONG HO (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, rejected the unsubstantiated allegations made by the United States against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq as well the world’s worst atrocities committed in camps such Guantanamo demonstrated the United States’ true nature. The United States concern for human rights situations was hypocrisy and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea called on the United States to rectify its own human rights abuses. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea rejected the groundless naming and shaming of the Czech Republic and the Czech Republic must address its own violations.
BUDOOR ABDULAZIZ AHMED (Bahrain), speaking in a right of reply responding to the statements of many European countries concerning the human rights situation in Bahrain, said that a royal commission had been set up in Bahrain to investigate and find out the truth in accordance with international instruments. Furthermore, a facility for reparations had also been set up. Despite these efforts and the work undertaken, the European Council had been hasty to give an opinion before duly considering the results of this process. The delegation of Bahrain would keep the Council informed of developments and the results of Bahrain’s ongoing investigation.
HON QUENG (China) said China rejected the unfounded accusations by the United States and the Czech Republic. In China there was full support of freedom of speech but for those people who agitated to split the Government and engage in other activities than freedom of speech, there would be consequences. All religious bodies in China were entitled to exercise their rights to hold religious activities. China had adopted numerous measures to protect minority nationality rights such as specific teaching modes to help minorities develop and maintain their own local languages. In Tibet, there was a religious establishment for every 1,600 persons, which was higher than in some Western establishments. China said that countries should look at their own violations of human rights instead of pointing fingers at other countries.
ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, said that Zimbabwe continued to take all measures to improve its human rights situation. The largest challenge remained the imposition of illegal sanctions on Zimbabwe which prevented the implementation of a global political agreement. Therefore Zimbabwe would not listen to politicized statements. The demonization of Zimbabwe before this Council had nothing to do with its human rights situation; it was an attempt to control its natural resources. Zimbabwe knew well the promoters of democracy and selectivity who targeted Cuba, Venezuela and Iran to name but a few, while they continued to decimate villages in Iraq and Afghanistan, calling them collateral damage, and carried out torture and illegal detention against so-called terrorists. While today Troy Davis had been executed in the United States, not a single European delegation had raised the issue of the death penalty with regards to the United States. This was sheer criminality. Let the perpetrators be accountable and be brought to the International Criminal Court. Those who pursued a different development path were considered enemies and persecuted. Zimbabwe dismissed any accusation intended to bully them and pillage Zimbabwe’s natural resources.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC11/123E