HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE ON SITUATION IN OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES, SUDAN

The Human Rights Council, in a midday meeting, concluded its first substantive debate under agenda item 4, namely, the implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, under which it took up issues concerning the situation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine; the Peace Agreement in Sudan; religious or racial discrimination; and promoting the human rights of migrants and human rights defenders.

Occupation was the worst form of human rights violation, and was a permanent aggression according to the General Assembly, a speaker said on the topic of the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. The Middle East was saturated with violence, and needed no further complications, another said. The international community and the United Nations should intervene and provide protection to the Palestinian people due to the continued violation of international humanitarian law.

The implementation of the Abuja Peace Agreement needed the support of all parties and the international community as a whole, Sudan said. It further needed financial support and the donor countries should continue their support in order to allow Sudan to build the necessary infrastructure and to implement the Peace Agreement. The Abuja accords should include a participatory approach, and there was a need to ensure freedom in all spheres, including freedom of thought and of faith.

Freedom of expression should not include the denigration and defaming of religions and cultures, speakers said. All human rights mechanisms should call for the respect of human rights and respect for all religions and cultures in order to ensure defamation did not take place. Islam called for tolerance and understanding between cultures and civilisations, and the Council should adopt the necessary measures and develop international humanitarian law in order to put an end to religious discrimination.

Concerning migrants, speakers said migrants were victims of hatred, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination, especially women and the disabled. They urged that the human rights of migrants be considered in a broad sense.

On human rights defenders, speakers urged that their rights should be respected because their role was important in societies around the world.

Taking the floor during the meeting were the representatives of Lebanon, Sudan, Syria, Palestine, Israel, Norway, Chile, Libya, Qatar, Spain, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Sweden, Iraq, the United States of America, Nicaragua, Nepal, and the United Arab Emirates.

Also speaking were representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations; Human Rights Watch; the Association for World Education; International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development; Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples; World Federation of United Nations Associations; International Women’s Rights Action Watch; International Service for Human Rights; Colombian Commission of Jurists; Baha’i International Community; International Humanist and Ethical Union; Human Rights Advocates; Union de l’Action Feminine; and International Association of Democratic Lawyers.

Speaking in right of reply were the representatives of Syria, Cuba, Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Colombia, Sudan, Algeria and Uzbekistan.

The next meeting of the Human Rights Council will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon when it will start another substantive debate and discuss the report of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the report of the Working Group on the right to development. The Council is meeting today non-stop from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Statements

GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon) said the Human Rights Council should implement the Commission on Human Rights resolutions and statements concerning Lebanon aimed at ensuring the release of the remaining Lebanese nationals who were taken into detention under the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon; the disclosure of the fate of Lebanese missing persons due to the Israeli occupation; and the return the Lebanese mortal remains in Israel. Lebanon reserved the right to seize the Council again for further consideration and to request the appointment of a special mechanism on the question of the Lebanese detainees and missing persons due to the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon, should this issue remain unsolved.

Lebanon cautioned against the negative outcomes of the clash between the freedom of expression and the freedom of belief, and invited the Council to benefit from Lebanon’s experiment where both liberties were exercised in harmony and synergy. Lebanon proposed the establishment of a working group to study the shortcomings in international law and draw the conclusions and guidance to avoid the abuse of the rights of both freedoms and address the defamation of religion.

ELSADIG ALMAGLY (Sudan) said the implementation of the Peace Agreement for Darfur needed the support of all parties and the international community as a whole. The implementation further needed financial support and the donor countries should continue their support in order for Sudan to build the necessary infrastructure and to implement the Peace Agreement. As part of the Peace Agreement, a number of individuals had laid down their arms. The Netherlands was also hosting a conference in September in relation to the Peace Agreement on Darfur, and Sudan expressed its support for this meeting. In order for the Darfur Peace Agreement to become a reality, the international community should support Sudan in all its efforts.

BASHAR JA'AFARI (Syria) said the Council was meeting in its first session, and it was hoped it would be more credible than the Commission, which had relentlessly condemned the Israeli occupation of the occupied Palestinian territories, but had not ended it. This situation had been passed on to the Council. It was one of the oldest issues on the table. Occupation was the worst form of human rights violation, and it was a permanent aggression according to the General Assembly. The Council should boldly and squarely confront these violations, and should do so without trying to tailor-make international humanitarian law to fit the whims and desires of certain members. This was a refusal to selectively politicise certain issues.

Many in the Golan were perishing in prisons and were being collectively punished. Israeli violations of human rights were not confined to the Golan citizens, but nuclear waste had also been buried there. The Council should send a fact-finding mission to the occupied territories, and it was within its competence and duties to do so. The Council should protect the rights of the Palestinian and Arab people, restore their rights, and not try to reinterpret the resolution 61/251.

MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine) said the Palestinian people had been subjected to gross and systematic violations of their human rights under the Israeli occupation since 1967. Although the Commission on Human Rights had adopted various resolutions condemning those violations, the Palestinian people continued to suffer from the brutal policies and practices by the Israeli occupying power, which was perpetrating such grave breaches of international humanitarian law and human rights law with both political and legal impunity. The Council now brought to life the hope that it would more effectively resolve human rights violations around the world. The credibility and efficacy of the new Council was to be gauged by its ability to offer action-oriented solutions to the human rights violations plaguing the daily lives of the Palestinian people.

The current precarious human rights and humanitarian conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory stemmed from the severe collective punishment imposed on the Palestinian people for exercising their democratic right in the January 2006 parliamentary elections. Collective punishment had taken the form of both an economic siege and repeated Israeli military aggressions against the civilian population

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said it had strong reservations with respect to the numerous glaring omissions in the agenda item, including the indiscriminate terrorist attacks which were important and should be considered with regards to Israel’s action in self-defence. Indiscriminate rockets continued to be targeted at innocent civilians, including women and children. No reference was included on the incitement to hatred and anti-Semitism, nor to Governments’ incitement to violence against Jews and Judaism in several countries. This was part and parcel of any discussion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and part of any achievement of even minimal credibility for the Council. It would be proper for the Council to take note of the previous day’s dreadful event, which highlighted Israel’s security concerns.

The Middle East was saturated with violence, and needed no further complications. The international community should intervene and bring the situation to an end. Radical failure called for radical change, and the Council should live up to its promises. This change was not, however, evident today, and the Council’s members should remember the road not taken, instead of going down the same old road in a march of folly.

WEGGER STROMMEN (Norway) said Norway had always supported the free expression of people and the right freedom of religion and the protection against any form of discrimination: Norway welcomed the Peace Agreement of Darfur, which was procured by the African Union. All should support the implementation of the Peace Accord. Norway would do all it could in supporting is implementation. With regard to human rights defenders, Norway was of the view that the activities of the defenders should not be hindered through the violations perpetrated against them. The rights of all human rights defenders should be respected.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said with regards to racial discrimination and other forms of intolerance, the Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Programme and Plan of Action had determined that education was a key element in the fight against racism, and this could be a key strategy as it would allow countries to be more tolerant. Another key was the forming of multicultural and democratic societies, based on the respect of all forms of diversity and equality between the sexes.

There was, in addition to anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia. In seeking ways to combat discrimination, each country should bear in mind that the increasing flows of information meant that the effects of discrimination could no longer be confined to a single place and context. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination should draw up indicators for early warning in order to detect racial violence so as to prevent urgent situations from developing.

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya) said the occupation of the century had been going on for the last 50 years. Israel had been violating the rights of the Palestinians through continued occupation of their land. The Commission had been dealing with the situation of Palestinians without any result as to improvements on the ground. The defunct Commission did not do anything to bring any solution to the problem faced by the Palestinian people. The resolutions and condemnations of the Commission did not bend Israel from its practices. The international community was now watching what the Council could do to resolve the Palestinian issue.

NASSER RASHID AL NUAIMI (Qatar) said the setting up of the Council was a reflection of the will of the international community to work towards the promotion and protection of human rights, and it was hoped that its establishment would constitute a quantum leap in the success factor, and would allow for an avoidance of the shortcomings of the Commission, including politicisation and double-standards. One of its priorities should be the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. The situation in Palestine could not be ignored, as the situation of human rights had deteriorated further.

The Council should take urgent steps to improve the economic situation in Palestine, and improve the human rights of the Palestinian people. It should retain this issue on its agenda. On the Abuja Agreement, the Government of Sudan was commended, and the international community should assign resources in order to build peace in the Darfur region. The Abuja Accords should include a participatory approach, and there was a need to ensure freedom in all spheres, including freedom of thought and of faith.

JUAN ANTONIO MARCH (Spain) said the role played by human rights defenders in societies around the world was important. Spain’s commitment to human rights defenders was strong and it would further strengthen it through its support of the cause of human rights. The designation of a global strategy for the fight against terrorism was essential, as proposed by the Secretary-General. Based on its recent experience, Spain was able to contribute much to the fight against terrorism

MAHY ABDEL LATIF (Egypt) said Israel had violated flagrantly the human rights of the Palestinian people, in defiance of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. Israel was imposing an economic and financial siege on the Palestinian people, and there was no excuse that could justify colonising and dominating a people, killing innocent civilians and children, especially as these were the future. The Council should take practical steps to deal with the Israeli violations of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, including in the Syrian Golan, and should continue to do so until the occupation was ended.

The efforts of the Sudanese Government were supported, and the international community should provide it with the necessary technical and financial aid in order to provide support for the peace efforts. Racism and racial discrimination were rejected, and all cultures and regions needed to be respected. There had been a linking made between terrorism and Islam over recent years, and this was a form of denigration of Islam. Islam called for tolerance and understanding between cultures and civilisations, and the Council should adopt the necessary measures and develop international humanitarian law in order to put an end to racial discrimination.

MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said Iran supported the statement of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The gross and systematic violation of human rights by the Israeli regime in occupied Palestine and other Arab occupied territories was a cause for grave and deep concern for the international community in general and for the Islamic world in particular. Other situations, such as that of migrants and indigenous peoples, particularly in Canada, were also a cause for grave concern. Those grave situations should be tackled effectively by the Human Rights Council.

Iran noted that for decades, freedom of expression was perceived as a licence to encroach upon religious beliefs and challenge cultural validities of peoples. However, the cartoon affair, in particular, pointed to a crucial conceptual aspect that so called “human security” should also include spiritual security, if human rights were to be protected effectively. The combat against poverty and the realization of the right to development gave full ground to the implementation of economic, political, civil and cultural rights in all societies. Plans to trigger profound changes, where necessary, at the national, international and global scale to institutionalise justice should be a priority objective of the Council.

NAJEEB AL-BADER (Kuwait) said regarding the violations which the Palestinian people were subjected to, there was concern as to the grave situation in the occupied Arab territories, and the situation of human rights there. The international community and the United Nations should intervene and provide protection to the Palestinian people due to the continued violation of international humanitarian law. There was a need to reaffirm respect for international law and international humanitarian law. The Council should take all necessary measures to put an end to the Israeli violations of human rights in all the occupied territories. A Commission of Inquiry should be set up.

Freedom of expression should not include the denigration and defaming of religions and cultures. All human rights mechanisms should call for the respect of human rights and respect for all religions and cultures in order to ensure defamation did not take place.

ELISABET BORSIIN BONNIER (Sweden) said that Sweden supported the statement made by Austria on behalf of the European Union. Sweden wished to address urgent and gross systematic violations of human rights. Sweden wished to that in a cooperative spirit. Today’s discussion had touched upon some crucial issues, including some of the most serious human rights situations that they faced today: in Darfur, in the occupied Palestinian territories, and in Burma/Myanmar. But the Council had only touched upon them.

What the Council needed to do now was to follow up, and follow through, on those and other challenges. The Council should look for different results-oriented ways and means to pursue issues before them and should plan the next sessions of the Human Rights Council accordingly.

OMER BERZINJI (Iraq) said this was a historical session of the Council, and wished to emphasise the need to protect the human rights of the Palestinian people and Arab people which remained violated by the Israeli occupation. The situation in the occupied Arab territories was deteriorating dangerously, and the Council should do its utmost to put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people and the violation of the rights of Palestinians. The international community should ensure that humanitarian assistance and aid reached the Palestinian people. It was hoped that the Council would fulfil its obligation to respect and protect the rights of the Palestinian people and ensure a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

There was a need to do away with hatred and violence and promote a culture of understanding and tolerance between civilisations. Islam should not be linked with terrorism, as it was against Islam to perform terrorist acts. Religions should not be defamed.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said that the success of this Council would depend on how it dealt with the mandate in General Assembly resolution 60/251 to address serious human rights situations. How the Council would deal with human rights situations in countries and regions like Sudan, the Middle East, Burma and Korea, for example.

Focusing on a few specific cases, the ultimate goal in the situation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories was to establish two independent States, living side by side. The Hamas-led Government, however, rejected that. In Darfur, Government-led and other rebel groups committed human rights violations and killed hundreds of civilians, leading to massive displacements. With the new peace accord, there was room for hope. The new improved Council could follow-up, providing technical assistance and bolstering the peace accords. The United States was also committed to a bettering of the human rights situation in Burma.

ALICIA MARTIN (Nicaragua) said the promotion and protection of human rights for the Government Nicaragua were a matter of vital solidarity and could not be disregarded. International migration and corruption were issues the Council should consider. The first had become an unavoidable reality in the world, where individuals migrated in response to legitimate aspirations. Migrants were victims of hatred, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination, especially women and the disabled. The human rights of migrants should be considered in a broad context. The States that were destinations for migrants should protect their rights.

Corruption was the main impediment to enabling a State to extending a decent and fair life to its citizens. The corrupt sated their ambitions, whilst society was deprived from civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. This was not just a matter of wastage of funds, it was also an issue of fairness.

GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal) said that Nepal was deeply concerned at the escalation of violence as well as the worsening humanitarian crisis in the Middle East. Nepal was convinced that the resolution of that situation, through the implementation of a two-State solution, would have an important impact on the human rights situation there. Nepal, as a country that had many of its citizens working in other countries, also called for the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers.

NAJLA AL QASSIMI (United Arab Emirates) said the resolution creating the Council opened up new vistas to deal with all human rights issues with a serious approach in order to achieve progress. Throughout decades, mankind had seen many human rights violations in many areas, which had not yet been resolved. New problems were cobbled on to that, requiring a new approach, and the problem in the occupied Arab territories was one such problem.

Another serious problem was the denigration of religion, and in many countries there was no respect for religious specificities, leading to much dissent which had to be combated through education. Respect for individuals and their cultural and religious facets had to be encouraged. The Peace Accords signed in Sudan were welcomed.

SYBIL KESSLER, of Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations, speaking on behalf several NGOs, said that this was a joint statement on behalf of nine non-governmental organizations. To truly address the reality of human rights violations on the ground, the Council could not shy away from the most relevant situations in the world. In her recent report, the High Commissioner for Human Rights had mentioned the situations in Uzbekistan, Somalia, Sudan, Colombia, Nepal, Togo, Burma and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Based on Freedom House’s list of the “worst of the worst” violators and their own estimates, among areas for the Council’s consideration were Belarus, where peaceful demonstrators were arrested; Russia, where human rights defenders were vulnerable; Uzbekistan, where the crime of the Andijan massacre remained unpunished; Pakistan, where violence against women remained a pressing issue; and Nepal, where recent violence had escalated, and the list went on.

SIMIA AHMADI, of Human Rights Watch, speaking in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues said as the Council convened, all attention was on Geneva in the hope that the new body would be a true advocate for those suffering abuses of human rights. The Council was urged not to disappoint those expectations. It should not be timid, and it should be quick. The issues that required attention were numerous, and far exceeded the time for this session. The report of the High Commissioner was commended, as it included issues for attention in later meetings. The situation in many countries had to be addressed, and the Council would need to use all the tools available given the diversity of the different issues that required attention, and cooperative dialogue was essential.

DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, speaking in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism said that calls to kill in the name of religion were also incitements to hatred based on religion. Could there not be a simple Council resolution or a President’s statement condemning all calls for violence, terror, or killing in the name of any religion, or of any God? Regarding Darfur, it was now evident that the situation there was at a crucial turning point that should open the door to increased United Nations action. The Association believed that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had an important role to play in appointing a sufficiently large team of human rights monitors and advisers to help ensure that the ceasefire became really effective, that refugees and the displaced could return safely, and that efforts for the promotion of human development in the region could be undertaken.

ALEXANDRA POMEON, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, in a joint statement with World Organization Against Torture said there was deep concern about the fact that the repression human rights defenders worldwide were subjected to was growing. In all regions of the world, human rights defenders continued to pay a heavy price for their commitment to the defence of universal rights. The authors of such violations enjoyed complete impunity. Defenders of sexual minorities also suffered in many countries. In 2005, many States made extensive use of legislation in order to control independent civil society.

MOMOKO NOMURA, of Asian Forum For Human Rights And Development, said that Asia Forum welcomed the inclusion of human rights defenders in today’s agenda. In Asia, the three freedoms of assembly, association and expression were continuously undermined as Governments in the region introduced ordinances and so-called anti-terrorist initiatives to repress and obstruct the operation of human rights defenders. In particular, women human rights defenders, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender defenders suffered multiple exclusions and discriminations under oppressive cultures of patriarchy of the region. In addition, most, if not all, of the statutes promulgated to establish national human rights institutions had no reference to human rights defenders and the need to promote and defend them.

JEAN-JACQUES KIRKYACHARIAN, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said the a-priori critical position towards the Commission that had been expressed during the inaugural meeting was not necessary. It had reflected reality in the international community, dominated by interests that were not necessarily philosophical. The Council would do well not to cast its inheritance aside too quickly. Individualism in the worst sense of the term prevailed in the world today, and if human rights were to be the third pillar of the United Nations, then it was a global, structured vision which needed to be adopted. The Council should keep on its agenda the consideration and discussion of situations where it would be outrageous if there were to be silence over human rights violations.

BRUNA FAIDUTTI, of World Federation of United Nations Associations, said that the Human Rights Council was created by General Assembly resolution 60/251 to restore legitimacy to the human rights question and to strengthen the existing machinery for its protection and promotion. That was a welcome development. In the area of protection against human rights violations, the Council had to strengthen the legacy of the Commission on Human Rights, in particular the special procedures. Urgent situations should be promptly brought to the Council’s attention when gross and systematic violations of human rights became a threat to peace and security. At present, the questions of religion and belief, the clash of culture and civilizations, the movement of populations and internationally and internally displaced persons were of major concern to the international community and the Council had to address those issues.

The representative of International Women’s Rights Action Watch, said she was concerned with regression of women’s human rights in the name of culture and religion. Cultural and religious extremism was on the rise around the world, resulting in fewer rights for women. Increasingly, governments were choosing to apply more restrictive interpretations of culture and religion that violated the fundamental human rights of women. That was manifesting itself in, among other things, harmful cultural practices against women and dual legal systems for Muslims and non-Muslims. She urged the Council to taken note of those situations with the utmost urgency.

IMMACULADA BARCIA, of International Service for Human Rights, said that the International Service for Human Rights wished to bring to the Council’s attention specifically the need to promote and protect human rights defenders. It also asked that the Council work together with human rights defenders as key partners in the promotion and protection of human rights.

ANDRES SANCHEZ THORIN, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, said it was imperative to recognize, in a concrete manner, the role played by the human rights defenders. Colombian human rights defenders had been playing a significant role in promoting and protecting human rights, however the attitude of the Government was not in line with its international commitment. The paramilitary groups continued to perpetrate human rights violence, including executions of individuals and disappearances. The Government was reluctant to protect the human rights defenders. He urged the Government to continue protecting the defenders from any human rights abuses from the State or paramilitary groups.

BANI DUGAL, of Baha'i International Community, said that the Baha’i International Community came before the Council today to address the theme of avoiding incitement to hatred and violence based on religion, which was especially pernicious. By discouraging the freedom openly to raise questions and express thought, religious institutions bore much of the responsibility for leaving their followers vulnerable to influences intended to arouse hatred towards those or other beliefs. An untrained mind with no access to independent sources of information provided the most fertile ground for that type of manipulation. It was with profound concern that Baha’i International reported the rise of an intensive defamatory campaign being conducted by Iranian media targeting Iran’s Baha’i community, with Government sanction. The Community called on Members States to rise to the responsibility of ensuring that voices of citizens could pave the way for a desperately needed understanding among those of differing faiths and beliefs.

ROY W. BROWN, of International Humanist and Ethical Union,said no sanction was needed now against incitement to hatred based on religion. Incitement to hatred for any reason was already covered in national and international law. The Union viewed with disquiet calls by certain States to outlaw “defamation” of religion. It was noted that some of the States promoting that measure had a poor human rights record, particularly in the areas of freedom of religion or belief. The absence of an adequate definition of the term defamation added to the suspicion that some States might be promoting that resolution in order to shield their own human rights records from criticism.

JOAO PINHEIRO MOREIRA, of Human Rights Advocates,said that Human Rights Advocates were here today to urge the Human Rights Council to take specific action to protect the right to life along State borders and to affirm national labour rights irrespective of immigration status. Migrant workers’ right to life was protected in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the lives of migrants continued to be threatened worldwide. An example of that was the recent increase in the number of vigilante groups along the United States-Mexico border, and the building of fences along that border by the United States Government. Governments should carefully consider the effect of building border walls on the right to life.

KALTHOUM AL KHAYAR, of Union de l'action féminine,said that the Polisario had acted harshly against civilians, through detention and harassment. The security forces of the Polisario had cut off communications of the people and continued to detain individuals incommunicado. The suffering of the people had continued without the intervention of any external forces to relieve the violence. The leaders of the Polisario should be advised not to commit such violence against the people. She appealed to the Council and the international community to intervene and to help those being persecuted by acts of the leaders of the Polisario.

YORIO SHIOKAWA, of International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said the Association wished to speak about the radical line of the Constitution of Japan. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution said that the Japanese people forever renounced war as the sovereign use of the nation, or the means or threat of the use of force. Ground, sea and air forces would never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the State would not be recognized. At the Paris Conference it was established that any change to article 9 to the detriment of peace and security in the world would be stopped.

Right of Reply

A Representative of Palestine, speaking in a right to reply, assured the Israeli delegation that the Palestine Government was making efforts for the release of the Israeli soldier captured yesterday. The soldier was captured from a site where the Israelis were launching missiles against the Palestinians. The prisoners held by Israel had been suffering from different symptoms without getting medical care. All the Palestinians prisoners should be released.

A Representative of Syria, speaking in a right of reply, said that the Special Rapporteur on the situation of the occupied Palestinian territory, John Dugard, had been assigned by the Council to present a report in which he had said the violations of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory were unparalleled. The same was true of the situation of economic siege and the starvation policy of Israel. Israel had been attacking its neighbours for 39 years. Hamas did not at that point hold power. So the peace problems predated their coming to power. His delegation had a documentary film that showed how Israel had transformed mosques into cages of animals and nightclubs.

A Representative of Cuba, speaking in a right of reply, said he wanted to use his right to reply to respond to the cynic statement made by the delegation of the United States. That country had been committing flagrant and massive violations against the Cuban people through its economic blockade of the country. Cuba did not need lessons from that country, where 44 million people had no access to health care. Cuba also could not receive lessons from a country that discriminated against black victims of the hurricane and that was waging a blind anti-terrorist campaign.

A Representative of Iran, speaking in a right of reply, said that since the United States had started the game, Iran had to reply. When the United States delegation attacked the situation of human rights in some countries, what one had to do was to draw the attention of that country to the massive violations of human rights of people all around the world by that country – including in detention centres and prisons such as Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, as part of the illegal wars that country waged against innocent people. The Bahai’s in Iran were entitled to the same rights as anyone else in Iran. The prosecution of the Bahai’s by the Government in the present case was not discrimination, as it was prosecuting Muslims for the same violations of the law.

A Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in a right to reply, said he rejected the arrogant categorization of his country as a violator of human rights. The human rights violations committed around the world by the United States was worth mentioning. It was that county which was engaged in human rights violations of thousands of people on a daily basis.

A Representative of Colombia, speaking in a right of reply, said that terrorist activity by armed illegal groups had posed a huge challenge to the Government of Colombia to protect the work of human rights defenders there. The Government had launched a programme in 1999 to provide material conditions of protection to human rights defenders so that they could carry out their important activities throughout the territory. More than 18,000 people had benefited from that protection programme. And Colombia was continuing to work to strengthen the activities of human rights defenders in that country. The results were already being felt in terms of a reduction of acts of violence against human rights defenders.

A Representative of Sudan, speaking in a right of reply, said he had already warned this morning from not making the Council a replica of the Commission by finger pointing at other countries. The statements made by Canada and United States referred to the human rights situation in Sudan. Those who lived in glasshouses should not be the first ones to throw a stone. It was clearly indicated that the United States was detaining individuals in Guantanamo, in a flagrant violation of human rights.

A Representative of Algeria, speaking in a right of reply, said that, referring to the Statement by the Moroccan non-governmental organization, the Government regretted hearing about the sufferings of the women in Tindoof. They had sent representatives to that region and could talk about the real human rights situation in that region. The real issue was the fate of human rights defenders in the Western Sahara. Finally, Council members should concentrate on issues that united, not on those that divided.