COUNCIL REVIEWS HUMAN RIGHTS IN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, BURUNDI, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO AND MYANMAR

The Human Rights Council this morning discussed reports on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Myanmar, as well as on human rights and extreme poverty.

Vivit Muntarbhorn, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said that the State had declined to cooperate with him and had not invited him to the country. The situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea provided a continuing cause of concern. With regard to the right to food, the country had been hampered very severely by food shortages since the mid-1990s, mainly due to natural disasters and mismanagement on the part of the authorities. There were also the questions of the right to security of the person, humane treatment, non-discrimination and access to justice. The issue of abductions of foreigners carried out by State agents had affected several countries. There were also the issues of freedom of movement, asylum and refugee protection.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea spoke as a concerned country.

Participating in the interactive debate on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were China, Cuba, Republic of Korea, Finland for the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, United States, Canada, Australia, Zimbabwe, Indonesia and Peru.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Japan spoke in right of reply.

Akich Okola, the Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Burundi, said in the area of social and economic rights, the new Government of Burundi had made many commendable strides on which it should be congratulated. The situation of political prisoners had now been resolved satisfactorily, following appointment of a commission whose recommendations resulted in the release of many who regarded themselves as political prisoners. The human rights situation still remained of deep concern, and human rights violations still continued on a daily basis due to the culture of impunity, widespread poverty, and the weakness of the culture of human rights in general. During the reporting period, the most violated rights were those to life, physical integrity, safety and inviolability of the person, opinion and expression, and property. The rights of the child and of women also required attention, and the plight of the minority community - the Batwa.

Burundi spoke as a concerned country.

Participating in the interactive dialogue on the situation of human rights in Burundi were Algeria, Finland for the European Union, Belgium, United States, Sudan and Canada.

Burundi spoke in right of reply.

The report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Titinga Frederic Pacere, was considered in his absence and the Democratic Republic of the Congo spoke as a concerned country.

Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said although he had not been permitted to conduct a fact-finding mission of Myanmar since November 2003, he was pleased to observe that in the recent months, the Government had replied to a number of official communications sent by him and by other mandate holders of the special procedures. He considered it as a positive indication of the Government’s will to cooperate with the Council. The stability of the country was not well served by the arrest and detention of several political leaders or by the severe and sustained restrictions on fundamental freedoms. Grave human rights violations were indulged not only with impunity but authorized by the sanction of laws.

Myanmar spoke as a concerned country.

Participating in the interactive dialogue on human rights in Myanmar were China, India, Finland for the European Union, Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States, Peru and Pakistan.

Arjun Sengupta, the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, said poverty existed in most countries as a failure of social action. Most societies with or without international cooperation could eliminate poverty by adopting specific and targeted policies to remove extreme income poverty, deprivation of particular indices of human development such as health, education and shelter and discriminatory social exclusion, within their existing institutions. What was lacking was political will.

The United States spoke as a concerned country.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue on human rights and poverty were Algeria, Mali, Senegal, Finland on behalf of the European Union, Ecuador, Cuba, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, India, China, Brazil, Philippines, Indonesia, Cameroon and Peru.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, International Movement ATD Fourth World, in a joint statement with International Association against Torture, International Council of Women and International Federation of Social Workers; and Interfaith International.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its discussion of the situation of human rights in Haiti which started in the previous meeting. In concluding remarks, Louis Joinet, Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti, said what were needed were real democratic processes, and this was why international support was important for, among others, the police academy in Haiti. On prolonged detention, this was a disaster in certain regards - judges had to work harder, among other things, but there was some reason for hope, as the drop in the number of imprisoned had to do with the acceleration of the justice procedure, although this was not uniform across the country. On training, this was done by the Judges School, and priority had been given by the President to this School. There was a serious lack of Justices of the Peace, who were underpaid and under trained, and the school could not do everything. It was very important to do proximity training in the field.

Participating in the interactive dialogue on the situation of human rights in Haiti were Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, Canada, United States, Peru, Finland on behalf of the European Union, Brazil, Nigeria and France.

Haiti made concluding remarks at the end.

The Council is meeting today from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. In the afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the reports on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, Belarus, and the report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Continuation of Discussion on Situation of Human Rights in Haiti

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said with regards to the report on Haiti and its update, the reforms of the Government with regards to justice, women and other encouraging progress to punish those guilty of corruption and violence, were all reasons allowing for optimism. However, the economic, social and political situation continued to require measures to resolve security and employment and other issues affecting the population as a whole. It was hoped that with the help of the international community the Government would confront and overcome these challenges. Chile was committed to contributing to democracy in Haiti. All countries should provide economic and financial assistance in order to consolidate progress made and deal with urgent problems such as the implementation of social programmes. Did the Independent Expert have any concrete proposals for increasing the effectiveness of his mission?

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) thanked Louis Joinet, Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti, for his report. Argentina attached great importance to work carried out by the Organization of American States in helping to organize the general elections in the country. The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti was decisive in keeping security and fostering stability, and for creating an environment towards normalization and the normal functioning of economic activity. Argentina had contributed troops to the United Nations Stabilization Mission. Elections were the step towards normalization in the short term. Social and economic development as well as guaranteeing security were fundamental to assure long-time stability. Argentina asked the Independent Expert how the conditions of detention could pragmatically be improved in Haiti.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ (Guatemala) said the Independent Expert to the situation of human rights in Haiti, Louis Joinet, had provided updated information on Haiti on the electoral process and the strengthening of the country’s institutions. Such progress could not have been imagined some years back. Guatemala was participating in the contingent of the United Nations Stabilizing Mission to Haiti. It supported all measures taken to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights in Haiti.

SARAH FILOTAS (Canada) said Canada welcomed the recent report of the Independent Expert on Haiti, and was happy he had had an opportunity to visit the country three times in 2005, which had allowed him to provide an attentive report, which would be of use of Member States. Canada remained concerned at the use of long-term detention and by the general weakness of the judicial system. A Commission on Preventive Detention before Trial was suggested by the Independent Expert, and he should explain what specific measures could lead to the establishment of genuine judicial reform.

GIANNI PAZ (United States) commended the work of Louis Joinet, Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti, for his work. The United States agreed with Louis Joinet’s assessment that organized acts of violence were no longer orchestrated or condoned by the State, nor were they condoned under the interim Government. The United States wished to know if the Independent Expert had reviewed the impact of international programmes on problems such as pre-trial detention. It also asked the Independent Expert to elaborate on his suggestion for reform of the land register and explain how it would help address problems of speculation, corruption and inefficiency. Finally, the United States asked the Independent Expert if he had any recommendations on how to improve coordination between the key stakeholders, such as international organizations, donors, and the Government in tackling the problems he had highlighted.

MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS (Peru) said the Independent Expert had made a valuable contribution through his work, particularly in matters of impunity. The report had indicated the existing problems of detention conditions and violation of physical integrity. He asked how common delinquencies were dealt with by the administration of justice.

ANN MARI FROBERG (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union was committed to help the people and authorities of Haiti in their efforts to rebuild and develop their country, and would like to underline the importance of the protection and promotion of human rights on the road to the political, economic and social stability that the country needed for its development. The Independent Expert should elaborate on what reforms and measures in the field of human rights, and especially with regards to the justice system the Government should implement as a matter of priority, and what measures he would recommend to ensure better respect of women’s rights, both in the short and the long term.

SÉRGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) thanked Louis Joinet, Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti, for his report. The social indicators contained in the report provided a basic framework to overcome the critical situation in Haiti. The root causes of the situation in Haiti were poverty, social injustice and vulnerability of state institutions. Brazil was involved in social projects in Haiti, including projects to feed the population and fight gender discrimination. Brazil asked the Independent Expert how did he envision international cooperation to assist Haiti in overcoming poverty, violence and strengthening the judiciary.

ABDUL BIN RIMDAP (Nigeria) welcomed the report of the Independent Expert and said that there had been a rapid change in Haiti. The international community should help the ongoing reform in the country. Haiti was a least developed country and one of the poorest in the region. The lack of economic development would impede the democratization process if a poverty alleviation programme was not implemented as soon as possible.

SIDONIE THOMAS (France) said the report shed particularly instructive light on the situation and its developments in Haiti. What could be the role of international cooperation for example with respect to reforming the civil status system; and what type of cooperation had the Independent Expert engaged in with the justice system?

Concluding Statement by Independent Expert on Haiti

LOUIS JOINET, Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti, said when talking about reconciliation, the real leitmotif and driving force of his work was reconciliation, and there had been progress in this regard. Human rights issues were linked to security problems, and a main question here was the temptation to reinstitute the death penalty. What were needed were real democratic processes, and this was why it was important for international support for, among others, the police academy. On prolonged detention, this was a disaster in certain regards - judges had to work harder, among other things, but there was some reason for hope, as the drop in the number of imprisoned had to do with the acceleration of the justice procedure, although this was not uniform across the country.

On training, this was done by the Judges School, and priority had been given by the President to this School. There was a serious lack of Justices of the Peace, who were underpaid and under trained, and the school could not do everything. It was very important to do proximity training in the field. With regards to the issue of disarmament, and how to combat violence, the ideal recipe in a disarming programme had never been found, and this process took a long time. A Disarmament Commission had been established by the President. It was difficult to get rid of weapons, as the Constitution gave citizens the right to bear weapons - the problem was to own these legally. There were some hopes for the new Disarmament Commission.

With regards to cooperation, the first priority should be given to education, the second to education, and the third to education. There was no solution to Haiti’s problems without progress on education. A lot had to be done in the Courts and in the Criminal Courts, and there was a need for legal security around the land system, as a priority. There was also need for a civil registry system, and this would take a long time. Consultants should not be sent - technical experts were what was required, people who knew how to implement the solutions that had been identified.

Concluding Remarks by Haiti

JEAN-CLAUDE PIERRE (Haiti), in concluding remarks, thanked Argentina, Guatemala, the United States, Nigeria, and France for their statements. The report was a valuable tool for decision-makers to tackle the situation of human rights in Haiti. There was a correlation between violence and the unemployment rate. More than 80 percent of the Haitian population lived under the poverty line. It was important to stress the need for education as well as providing jobs for people. Haiti also thanked the European Union, the United States, and the international community for their assistance in helping to improve living conditions of the people in the country.

Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/35) entitled report by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The report notes that while welcoming the fact that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a party to various human rights treaties and that it has engaged with the monitoring bodies under those treaties, as well as adopting some key reforms of the domestic law such as its criminal law, there is still a huge gap between formal recognition of human rights and substantive implementation of human rights in the country. The situation in the country provides a continuing cause for concern - there are still many transgressions and discrepancies of an egregious nature, which require effective redress.

There are major challenges in regard to the rights to food and to life, the rights to security of the person and to humane treatment, the rights to freedom of movement, asylum and refugee protection, and various political and other rights such as self-determination and freedom of expression, association and religion. Specific concerns raised in this report include women’s rights, in particular violence against women, children’s rights, particularly to protection and participation, the rights of older persons/the elderly, the rights of those with disabilities and ethnic issues. Conclusions are provided at the end of the report, with key recommendations addressed to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, complemented by other recommendations addressed to the international community.

Presentation of Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said that the State had declined to cooperate with him and had not invited him to the country. While welcoming the fact that the country was a party to various human rights treaties and that he had engaged with the monitoring bodies under those treaties, there was still a gap between formal recognition of human rights and substantive implementation of human rights. The situation in the country provided a continuing cause of concern. With regard to the right to food, the country had been hampered very severely by food shortages since the mid-1990s, mainly due to natural disasters and mismanagement on the part of the authorities. In 2005, the authorities declined to accept food aid channelled through the World Food Programme and ended the presence of foreign humanitarian agencies. There was a further obstacle in July 2006 due to the missiles tests launched by the country. Those tests had a negative impact on the food situation of the country.

There were the questions of the right to security of the person, humane treatment, non-discrimination and access to justice. Given the non-democratic and repressive natural of the State, there continued to be many reports of transgressions by the authorities on that front, despite reforms of the criminal code and criminal procedures code in 2004. The issue of abductions of foreigners carried out by State agents had affected several countries. There was the issue of freedom of movement, asylum and refugee protection. While there were official claims that freedom of religion was allowed, the reality suggested otherwise. The periods 2005 and 2006 attested to many transgressions still taking place in the country with negative impact on its citizens and on other countries.

Statement by Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a Concerned Country

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking as a concerned country, said the Democratic People's Republic of Korea categorically and resolutely rejected the report of the Special Rapporteur. As stated several times, it did not recognise the so-called “resolution” and its product, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, as they were pursuing political and strategic objectives prohibited in the area of human rights. The resolution was an outcome of a conspiracy by such forces as the United States, Japan and the European Union, constantly perpetrating hostilities against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for more than half a century. The reason for the country being a target of the “Human Rights Offensive” of the United States was simple: domination of the whole Korean peninsula remained a prerequisite of the United States strategy towards Asia, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea maintaining socialism was an obstacle to this strategy.

Japan had also been fanatic in its clamour, and had not yet settled its past crimes, and was now making the futile calculation that, with the elimination of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, this past crime would disappear as well, and was also attempting to fabricate the country a threat, in order to justify its plan for militarism and reinvasion. The European Union spared no effort to win the favour of the superpower, even by sacrificing the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to that end. For these purposes, human rights were being abused as indispensable means. The confrontation over the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea's human rights problem, in essence, represented a confrontation between foreign forces trying to infringe the country’s social system under the pretext of human rights, and the country which was trying to defend its social system.

Interactive Dialogue on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

ZHOU JIAN (China) said that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was a close neighbour of China, and it had suffered recently natural disasters and food shortages. The Special Rapporteur had recognized the difficult situation the Government was dealing with. The Government had never given up its efforts to promote the realization of human rights and improve the living conditions of the people. It had also become party to various human rights treaties, and had made amendments to domestic law. The Special Rapporteur had to take all these issues into consideration and refrain from shaming the country.

YURI ARIEL GALA LÓPEZ (Cuba) said that the debate taking place in the room was a result of politicization by the United States. The hypocrisy and double standards of the Commission on Human Rights were still present in the Council. The Council should be a different forum than its predecessor. This forum should be a place of dialogue and understanding. Cuba rejected the report on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea) said the Special Rapporteur’s efforts to carry out his mandate in the difficult situation of not being able to visit the country concerned were appreciated. The Special Rapporteur had taken a practical approach in analysing the situation and drawing his conclusions on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. His conclusions and recommendations were fully supported, and the six-point human rights formula launched in November last year was constructive and well-balanced. His report provided useful guidelines in advancing the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and it was hoped that country would heed the conclusions in the report, as well as the increasing concerns of the international community, and make a sincere effort to improve its human rights situation, by, among others, engaging itself in sincere dialogue and cooperation with the various United Nations institutions.

The Republic of Korea would do all it could to help the Special Rapporteur accomplish his mission.

ANN MARI FROBERG (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked Vitit Muntarbhorn, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for his report and also commended him on the work to fulfill his important mandate. The European Union deplored the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had not responded favorably to the request by the Special Rapporteur to visit the country and cooperate with him. The European Union urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to extend its full cooperation to the Special Rapporteur. What measures could the international community take to ensure food distribution and improve access to some areas of the country as well free movement of humanitarian non-governmental organizations.

FUMIKO SAIGA (Japan) said the report was informative and well balanced. The report had indicated that the human rights violations were severe in the country. The Government should invite the Special Rapporteur to visit the country so that he could have first hand information on the country. The abduction of foreigners was not yet resolved, and the international community should resolve the pending issue of abduction by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. What problems had the Special Rapporteur encountered in compiling his report?

AMY LAURENSON (New Zealand) said the mandate was one to which New Zealand attached particular importance, and there was much in the report that was worthy of exploring further. With regards to the provision of food and other aid from outside the country, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s shift from accepting humanitarian relief to its call to a development framework of a broader nature also called for reflection. The Special Rapporteur had suggested that human rights should be incorporated into this, and he should explain what would be the key elements of this approach.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) deplored the continued systematic violation of basic human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, including extrajudicial killings, disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture, religious repression, a complete lack freedom of speech, association, movement, and workers’ rights. The United States asked what would it take to encourage the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to view the Special Rapporteur’ mandate as a window of opportunity to engage with the United Nations system; and why the Special Rapporteur thought the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had engaged with the monitoring bodies under the four human rights treaties to which it was a party, but had not engaged with him.

SARAH FILOTAS (Canada) said Canada had regularly raised human rights issues in ambassadorial and other senior-level meetings with counterparts from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, particularly during a visit to the country. However, the authorities tended to dismiss Canada’s view as infringing on their sovereignty. What alternative means could the United Nations and the international community use to induce that country to abide by the provisions of the international human rights treaties to which it was a party as improve the human rights situation?

ROBYN MUDIE (Australia) said Australia remained deeply concerned about reports of continuing human rights violations in “North Korea”, and appreciated the work of the Special Rapporteur. There was particular concern about border crossers who were forcibly repatriated to “North Korea”. The country should engage further with the international community, and dialogue was the best way to deal with such concerns. There was also concern for the humanitarian situation, and the Government’s actions to restrict humanitarian assistance by the United Nations and other humanitarian agencies. The Government should allow the United Nations to help, avoiding the onset of a deep humanitarian crisis. Had there recently been any changes in access arrangements for the Special Rapporteur?

ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe) aligned itself with the statement made by China. Zimbabwe remained very concerned over the politicisation of the issue, and wondered how could one expect a fair, balanced and objective report when the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was being continually demonised. The report did not help anyone. Instead, the Council had to engage in a constructive dialogue.

JONNY SINAGA (Indonesia) welcomed the report and the informative statement of the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Indonesia was against country specific mandates. It would nevertheless like to see positive developments in the Council generally and in the deliberation of specific issues in a way that promoted and strengthened dialogue, transparency, non-selectivity and cooperation.

MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS (Peru) said the Special Rapporteur was congratulated for his efforts to produce a report with no political elements or selectivity and which tried hard to express the situation in the country. His recommendations were supported, and it was regretted that he could not carry out a country visit to the concerned country, and the Government of “North Korea” should assume the obligation of international cooperation and allow him to do so. There was serious concern regarding reports of detention, violations of freedom of movement, problems related to repatriation, freedom of the person, and many others. This report should give rise to positive points, and the best way to do this was to establish channels for due cooperation. What kind of action could the international community, and in particular the Human Rights Council take with regards to what the Special Rapporteur suggested, and what were his opinions with regards to the exercise of civil rights and fundamental freedoms in “North Korea” compared to those rights internationally.

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

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in addressing questions from the floor, said that he wanted to assure delegations that he had tried to carry out his mandate in a constructive and objective manner. He had nothing to do with the drafting of the resolution as he was contacted for the position after the approval of the resolution. Therefore, he came to this post very unattached and with an independent and free spirit.

The Special Rapporteur said that the presence of UNICEF in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was important, and that the agency was involved in programmes on child protection and development. With reference to doable measures that the Special Rapporteur would endorse, he said that some of the priority areas included food relief, as there was a serious food shortage due to the loss of the harvest to floods. The World Food Programme had set up a programme aimed at assisting 1.9 million people for the next two years, but funding and access to the areas in need had fallen short. The World Food Programme was only assisting 13,000 people; therefore, there was an urgent need for the international community to address the humanitarian gap.

With reference to the Special Rapporteur’s visit to the Republic of Korea, and on the consequences of the Korean War, he welcomed the warming of relations between both States, and encouraged the continuation of the inter-Korean dialogue, including on issues such as family reunion and missing people.

The Special Rapporteur urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to enforce labour rights in industrial zones, to provide human rights training to law enforcement officials, and to engage in human rights education campaigns.

On some of the obstacles encountered in fulfilling his mandate, the Special Rapporteur said that the major difficulties included lack of access to the country and no cooperation on communications from the Government.

The Special Rapporteur emphasized the importance of the involvement of the human rights community, addressing food and humanitarian needs, including refugee protection, and the improvement of the judicial system.

Right of Reply

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), in a right of reply, said that the statements made by Japan, the United States and the European Union were pure allegations. He asked what the United States was doing in Guantanamo and in the Republic of Korea. The United States was committing all kinds of human rights violations even under the feet of the Statute of Liberty. With regard to Japan, it should first settle its crimes committed during the Second World War, during which millions of people had been killed and abducted, before accusing others. Why did the European Union keep silent when the United States invaded Iraq? Was it difficult for them to criticise a super power? They should rather deal with their own problems of discrimination and racism in their countries.
FUMIKO SAIGA (Japan), speaking in a right of reply, said the delegation was not politicising the human rights issue in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and could not accept the claim just made. Japan acknowledged the fact of history with sincere feelings of remorse and reiterated apologies. The history issue could not be used to justify abduction, which was an ongoing clear violation of human rights. The figures just referred to by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were unsubstantiated.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), in a second right of reply, rejected the allegations made by Japan, and urged Japan to settle its historical record on the invasion of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and commit itself to avoid repeating the crimes of the past.

FUMIKO SAIGA (Japan), in a second right of reply, said that with regard to the claims between Japan and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, a declaration had been signed in 2002 between the two States in which they agreed to settle their differences through a process of normalization.

Report on Situation of Human Rights in Burundi

The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/109) entitled report by the Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Burundi, which addresses in section I the political and security situation in Burundi. The Independent Expert welcomes the exemplary and successful completion of the election process. However, despite relative stability, the overall security situation remains very fragile. The main victims of the continuing violence are civilians. Section II deals with the situation of civil and political rights in Burundi and violations of rights such as the right to life, liberty, security and inviolability of the person, freedom of movement and people’s freedom to choose their residence, and the rights of women, children and the Batwa minority. The Independent Expert then analyses the situation with regard to economic, social and cultural rights, especially the rights to health and education, addresses the situation in the judicial and penitentiary sectors and with respect to strengthening of the rule of law, as well as activities relating to the promotion of human rights.

Section III contains the Independent Expert’s observations and recommendations in which he says that he is deeply troubled by the continuing sexual violence in Burundi and reiterates his call on the Government to take swift and concrete measures to combat this phenomenon. He recommends prompt action on issues relating to prisoners provided for by the various international and national commissions that have dealt with these issues. He encourages the Burundian authorities to press ahead with the establishment of the institutions provided for by the Arusha Agreement, especially those relating to human rights, in particular the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms and an independent national human rights institution.

Presentation of Report on Situation of Human Rights in Burundi

AKICH OKOLA, Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Burundi, said in the area of social and economic rights, the new Government of Burundi had made many commendable strides on which it should be congratulated. It had put in place a programme of free primary education, and although it had encountered many problems, it was working fairly well. Early this year the Government had commenced a programme to provide free health care for expectant mothers and children under five years of age. The situation of political prisoners had now been resolved satisfactorily, following appointment of a commission whose recommendations resulted in the release of many who regarded themselves as political prisoners.

The human rights situation still remained of deep concern, and human rights violations still continued on a daily basis due to the culture of impunity, widespread poverty, and the weakness of the culture of human rights in general. During the reporting period, the most violated rights were those to life, physical integrity, safety and inviolability of the person, opinion and expression, and property. The rights of the child and of women also required attention, and the plight of the minority community - the Batua. On the violations of the right to life, over the first half of the year, human rights observers had reported that 53 persons had been killed in the country. The practice of torture was still reported to be widespread during police investigations. Many violations had been reported regarding arbitrary arrest, detention in illegal places, and lengthy detention.

Since his last visit, the Special Rapporteur said there had been many disturbing developments in the area of political and human rights. Respect for freedom of expression and opinion was under threat as a result of increasing intolerance by the Government of individuals perceived to be against it, either as a result of their membership in another political party, opinions expressed, or for investigations conducted into scandals implicating members of the ruling party. Full peace could not be achieved in Burundi without a full and frank examination of the causes of the conflicts which had characterised the history of the country since independence. The Government should speed up the process of establishing the transitional justice mechanisms, and fulfil its international commitment in this regard. It should consolidate the young democracy which it embraced in 2005, by showing tolerance towards its critics. The international community should increase its support to the justice system in Burundi, and its humanitarian and development assistance.

Statement by Concerned Country

FRANÇOISE NGENDAHAYO (Burundi), speaking as a concerned country, said that only a year had passed after the entry into force of the function of the elected democratic institutions, and the period was relatively short to make an objective evaluation of the actions of the Government in general and the human rights situation in particular. However, it was sufficient to analyse the trend, and to measure the constraints in matters of human rights protection and the challenges faced. With regard to the constraints, it was important to cite the persistence of war with the Front National de Libération (FNL) until a peace agreement was signed on 7 September 2006 between the Front and the Government. The socio-economic situation of the country should also be considered as 12 years of civil war had destroyed the socio-economic infrastructure, devaluated the currency by diminishing the purchasing power of the population, and had also destructed the social, moral and human values.

The signing of the peace agreement had also allowed the observation of the ceasefire and the establishment of the spirit of peace. Burundi was now endeavouring to strengthen the respect of human rights. The newly elected Government was implementing social policies in order to alleviate the miseries of the vulnerable groups of the population. A series of measures had been taken by the Government to address the human rights situation in the country.

Interactive Dialogue on Situation of Human Rights in Burundi

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Group had noted with satisfaction the progress of the peace process in the Burundi. The Group took note of the report of the Independent Expert and supported the recommendations made in the report. They invited those who had not yet done so to make good on their pledges to aid the Government of Burundi. Finally, the African Group encouraged the Government of Burundi to continue its dialogue with all parties concerned.

MIIA RAINNE (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the importance of due protection of human rights in Burundi in its road to political stability and reconstruction could not be ignored. The European Union was concerned about the information it had received regarding a preparation for a coup d’état, and had taken note of the assurances of the Government that a judicial investigation would take place in strict compliance with human rights and due process. Had the Special Rapporteur been in contact with the authorities in this regard? Regarding the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, what was his assessment of this, and what role could a Special Chamber have in revitalising the judicial system?

NICOLAS NIHON (Belgium) said that sexual violence was a concern as mentioned in the current and previous reports of the Special Rapporteur. The pressure exercised on the victims to marry the perpetrator of the crime was additional trauma on the victim. What measures did the Special Rapporteur envisage to deal with that issue?

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said the report was admirable and highlighted the country’s positive political developments, and also showed the ongoing human rights problems, including gender-based violence, and the ongoing conflict regarding the Government and the rebel group, and the negative effects it had had on peace and security. The recommendations were appreciated, including that the Special Rapporteur on the rights of women should visit the country, and that the international community should continue to support development in the country. With regards to the continuing sexual violence and the need for the Government to take swift measures, did the Special Rapporteur have any recommendations for the Government in this regard; and with regards to transitional justice could he elaborate further?

MUDAWI MOHAMED EL TURABI (Sudan) said that Sudan associated itself with the statement of the African Group and welcomed the report of the Independent Expert. Sudan also noted with satisfaction the recommendations of the Independent Expert, in particular with a view to calling on the international community to help in establishing social peace and restorative justice. Sudan also called on the international community to continue to assist Burundi to pursue the path of peace, for which it lacked the necessary means.

SARAH FILOTAS (Canada) said that serious violations of human rights were taking place in Burundi, which were committed reportedly by Government agents. In the nine months since the completion of the report, violations of human rights had continued. The Government officials who had committed extrajudicial and summary executions were still in prison but had not yet been tried. What was the assessment of the Rapporteur of the recent developments in the country, practically on the question of whether he believed the conclusion of a cessation of hostilities agreement allowed the Government to take a more measured and rights-respected approach to ensuring the security of the people in the country?

Concluding Remarks by Special Rapporteur on Burundi

AKICH OKOLA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burundi, said many of the violations that were contained in the report took place within the conflict between the Government and the rebel movement, which had refused to join the peace process. His report documented some of these violations, and pointed out the institutions and sometimes the persons who were responsible for them. The Special Rapporteur hoped that now that the peace agreement had been signed with the Government that some of these violations that had taken place would cease. The Government appeared to have set on a path of repression not based on military conflict, but based on fear that those who were within the political process could be engaged in activities that it perceived as detrimental to the security of the State.

There was no evidence the Special Rapporteur had that the Government would substantiate the claims it had made against the individuals who had been alleged to be planning a coup d’état. The Special Rapporteur was still concerned about the commitment of the Government to respect and promote human rights. There appeared to be a firm commitment on the part of the Government on the issue of the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Mechanism, but with the intention of limiting its capacities, without the establishment of special chambers that would bring to justice those individuals who had committed certain types of crime. Sexual violence continued - he had been informed that there was a programme of sensitisation of the public at large to ensure that the kind of immunity that prevailed in regards to sexual violence was addressed, and he hoped that this programme, in which the United Nations was participating, would somehow bring this phenomenon to an end.

Right of Reply

FRANÇOISE NGENDAHAYO (Burundi), speaking in a right of reply, said that the delegation of Canada had referred to the failing system of justice in Burundi. While Burundi admitted that there were legal lacunae, but it was not possible to say the system was failing. Over 120 political prisoners had been freed, and there were others whose cases were under investigation. Criminals had been brought to justice and strides had been made in combating impunity. Regarding the coup d’état, that was an allegation which was being investigated. Of course it remained a concern of the Government, but they had to wait for the evidence to be produced.

Report on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic Republic of Congo

The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/113) entitled report by the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which states that the human rights situation continues to be a matter of concern throughout the Democratic Republic of the Congo, especially in the eastern regions (Ituri, North Kivu and South Kivu) and in northern Katanga, where militias and other armed groups, both Congolese and foreign, as well as the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC) and the Mai-Mai, are committing atrocities and other massive human rights violations with impunity. Massacres of civilians, pillage, mass rape of women and girls and summary executions have, among other things, seriously undermined the Transitional Government’s efforts to improve the situation.

The precarious circumstances of unpaid or underpaid civil servants and public officials, the climate of impunity, and the threats, harassment and killings to which journalists and human rights defenders are exposed foment unrest and jeopardize the prospects for the restoration of peace.

The main sources of concern include the lack of consensus on joint management of the transitional period and the steady deterioration of law and order in Ituri (Orientale province) following repeated attacks by the armed militias. The lack of an independent judiciary and the control exercised by the executive branch over the judiciary and judicial decisions are also regrettable. Other problems include insecurity, the situation of women and children, the trafficking and illegal exploitation of natural resources and other violations of fundamental rights.

The Independent Expert makes specific recommendations to remedy the situation, including the following actions: speed up the disarmament of the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda (FDLR), the Interahamwe, the “Rastas” and their Mai-Mai allies, and their unconditional departure from Congolese territory; in the case of the Ministry of the Interior and the Independent Electoral Commission, adopt all necessary measures to permit the active involvement of all shades of political opinion in the democratic process as a contribution to social peace; and in the case of the Government, promote an independent judiciary and ensure the independence of the judicial system, chiefly by revising the Law on the Status of Judges and the Law on the Organization and Functioning of the Higher Council of the Judiciary, and by endowing the judicial system with a budget that will guarantee its financial independence.

Statement by Democratic Republic of Congo as a Concerned Country

MARIE MADELEINE KALALA (Democratic Republic of Congo) expressed sadness at the absence of the Independent Expert. His post implicated cooperation between the Human Rights Council and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the delay in the consideration of the report delayed the achievement of this, and the Democratic Republic of Congo hoped that the report would be considered during the session in order to ensure an interactive and helpful dialogue. The Independent Expert was asked to go to the Democratic Republic of Congo in the next few days to see the evolution in the field in a number of sectors of national life.

Report on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar

The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/34) entitled report by the Special Rapporteur on situation of human rights in Myanmar, which states that throughout the six-year period of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur had received substantiated reports of grave human rights violations on an ongoing basis. Little evidence was available of the existence of a serious commitment by the Government to addressing the culture of impunity for State actors, with the vast majority of his communications to the authorities not receiving a response. With regard to the transition process, the National Convention, having been suspended for a further nine months following its last session held from 17 February to 31 March 2005, was reconvened on 5 December 2005. The Special Rapporteur was deeply dismayed to learn that no progress towards instituting genuine democratic reform has been made since the previous session.

The Special Rapporteur regrets that, according to information received during the last reporting period, the situation regarding the exercise of fundamental human rights and freedoms remains grave. The intimidation, harassment, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of civilians for peacefully exercising their civil and political rights and freedoms continue. Members of registered political parties, human rights defenders and pro-democracy advocates are particular targets.

The Special Rapporteur draws attention to the marked decline in socio-economic conditions, which has resulted in increased poverty countrywide. Urgent reform is required to prevent any further degeneration of an already severely damaged economy.

The human rights concerns enumerated in the present report are largely the same as those, which the Special Rapporteur highlighted when he commenced his mandate, six years ago. Despite early indications from the Government that it was willing to address these problems, he regrets that all such willingness appears to have disappeared.

The Special Rapporteur stresses that human development and economic reform must be prioritized in order to defeat the poverty that is at the root of Myanmar’s many problems. Rational management of the economy and substantially enhanced budgetary allocations for the protection of economic, social and cultural rights continue to be essential priorities for tackling those problems. Any progress towards resolving ethnic conflict in Myanmar is unlikely to be possible or sustainable without tangible political reform.

Presentation by Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Myanmar

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said that he had not been permitted to conduct a fact-finding mission to Myanmar since November 2003. However, he was pleased to observe that in recent months, the Government had replied to a number of official communications sent by him and by other mandate holders of the special procedures. He considered it as a positive indication of the Government’s will to cooperate with the Council. In the past two years, the reform process proposed in the seven-point road map for national reconciliation and democratic transition, which was meant to become eventually open to various relevant actors, had been strictly limited and delineated. The work of the National Convention had been adversely affected by that evolution. He however acknowledged with satisfaction the recent announcements by the Government of the resumption of the National Convention by October 10. The persecution of members of political parties in the opposition and human rights defenders showed that nowadays the road map for democracy faced too many obstacles to bring a genuine transition.

The stability of the country was not well served by the arrest and detention of several political leaders or by the severe and sustained restrictions on fundamental freedoms. On 27 May 2006, the house arrest of the Secretary-General of the National League for Democracy was further prolonged by 12 months. Grave human rights violations were indulged not only with impunity but authorized by the sanction of law. The criminalization of the exercise of the fundamental freedoms by political opponents, human rights defenders and victims of human rights abuses was a matter of grave concern. He was worried by the on-going military campaign in ethnic areas of Eastern Myanmar and by its effects on human rights, especially on civilians who had been targeted during the attacks. As a result of the military campaign, numerous cases of forced evictions, relocations and resettlements, situations of forced migration and internal displacement had been reported. According to numerous and consistent reports, there had been marked signs of deterioration in the economic and social sectors that could aggravate the humanitarian situation.

Statement from Myanmar as a Concerned Country

U NYUNT MAUNG SHEIN (Myanmar), speaking as a concerned country, said that, although there were many contentious chapters in the report of Sergio Paulo Pinheiro, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, which Myanmar could argue against, Myanmar believed that in his oral presentation today, he had updated the information in his original report and highlighted important positive developments in Myanmar. That update was indeed important as events had superseded certain portions of the report. In contrast to his past reports, and to Myanmar’s deep disappointment, the Special Rapporteur had only mentioned an instance or two of positive developments in the human rights situation in Myanmar in his report. Myanmar neither agreed to accept the assertions nor felt it was possible to refute each and every allegation owing to time constraints. He would take up a number of cases to shed the light of truth on the situation and to highlight the latest developments.

First, relating to the democratisation process, the National Convention had held three sessions since it reconvened on 11 May 2004. It had completed 75 per cent of its work and when it concluded its mandate the drafting of a new Constitution would commence, which would be put to a referendum and subsequently free and fair elections would be held. Second, on forced labour, contrary to the report which stated that relations between Myanmar and the International Labour Organization were deteriorating, there had been positive developments, and the two persons mentioned in the report in this connection – Su Su Nway and Aye Myint – had been released from prison. Third, regarding the economic situation in the country, the Government had inherited an economy in a state of alarming decline and had laid down and implemented plans to halt the economic downturn and to stabilize the economy. Fourth, Myanmar rejected the allegation that there was a large presence of internally displaced persons in the country. The perception that there were vast violations of human rights in Myanmar was not accurate and were entirely based on information collected from or provided by a few remaining insurgent groups confined to border areas and foreign-funded expatriates with a hidden political agenda.

Interactive Dialogue on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar

ZHOU JIAN (China) said Myanmar was a small country that was confronted with special difficulties, but the Government had made consistent efforts to protect and promote the human rights of its people. The Government had invited the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations to visit the country, and cooperated actively with the ILO, which was evidence of its international engagement. China hoped to see Myanmar, through stabilisation, progress in its economy and the domestic reconciliation process. The country should solve its problems through its own people. China was not in favour of stress and isolation, as this had a negative impact on the human rights situation in a country. The Special Rapporteur should play a positive role in the development of Myanmar.

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said that the Government of Myanmar had been cooperating positively with the United Nations system. India supported the reform taking place in the country. There was an ongoing dialogue with the International Labour Office with regard to labour issues. India was against country specific resolutions because of the fact that they went counter to the spirit of dialogue and cooperation.

MIIA RAINNE (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur and the work he had accomplished in the past six years. The European Union wished to reiterate its commitment to the country-specific procedures. In that context, the European Union strongly encouraged Myanmar to extend its full and unconditional cooperation to the Special Rapporteur. It was clear that Myanmar recognized that the protection and promotion of human rights remained important, and the European Union thanked Myanmar for the update on the situation of political prisoners in the country. Among others, the European Union wished to be updated on the allegations of forced labour practices and forced recruitment in the country involving children.

IDHAM MUSA MOKTAR (Malaysia) said the concerns expressed by the Special Rapporteur on the basis of the national reconciliation process were taken note of, and peaceful reconciliation was hoped for. The challenges of the Government were taken note of, and it was hoped there would be speedy progress. The discussions with the ILO should lead to a concrete programme on resolution of the forced labour issue. Myanmar’s participation in international affairs was noted, in particular in South-East Asia. Given the multi-faceted problems faced, continued international support and cooperation was necessary for the country to continue to progress.

FUMIKO SAIGA (Japan) said that there was still much to be done in Myanmar with regard to human rights. Japan would help the country to engage in dialogue with others and to be able to strengthen its reform efforts. Japan regretted that the Special Rapporteur was not able to visit the country.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) commended the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, and shared his concerns that the situation in that country had continued to deteriorate over the course of his mandate, in particular with regard to the situation of the large numbers of internally displaced persons and refugees. The vast number of the internally displaced persons demanded that the Council also support those activities of non-governmental organizations working within Myanmar and across the border in neighbouring countries. In June this year, along with other Members States, the General Assembly had adopted a political declaration committing to renewed efforts in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. In that context, Canada was particularly interested in the statement in the report that the Government of Myanmar was strongly concerned about the spread of HIV/AIDS in the country.

HELEN HORSINGTON (Australia) said Australia was gravely concerned at the lack of willingness of the Myanmar regime to arrest the economic decline, and to install genuine democratic reform. It should immediately and unconditionally release all political prisoners. The regime should install international standards of human rights, and resolve ethnic conflict through a process of national reconciliation. Myanmar should work with the Human Rights Council in order to provide a safe environment for all people in Myanmar.

AMY LAURENSON (New Zealand) said the Special Rapporteur was thanked for his report and update on the human rights situation in Myanmar. There was great concern for many of his findings, in particular the assessment of the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. There should be resumption of dialogue with all political actors and representatives of ethnic groups. All political prisoners should be freed, and all allowed to participate in the political process.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) thanked Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, for his well-informed report. The situation of human rights in Myanmar continued to be a source of great concern for the United States. The situation of hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons was worrisome, as the Government had failed to assist them. Furthermore, the situation as stated by the Special Rapporteur had deteriorated. The United States asked the Special Rapporteur how could the international community assist the work of civil society and human rights defenders in Myanmar, and how to attain the release of all political prisoners.

ELIANA BERAUN ESCUDERO (Peru) said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar had been comprehensive and had dealt with the serious and systematic violations of civil and political rights and the alarming humanitarian situation in that country. Peru agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s assessment that there had been no tangible progress on human rights in the country. Peru, however, was most concerned about the lack of a true desire for cooperation and dialogue that had been shown on the part of the Government. Also, the non-compliance of Myanmar with the ILO Convention regarding forced labour was of particular concern. In September the Security Council had decided to include the subject of Myanmar on its agenda, and she would like to know the Special Rapporteur’s view on that decision. In addition, after six years of work, did the Special Rapporteur consider that the situation in Myanmar constituted a threat to the whole South East Asian region?

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said the efforts made by the Government of Myanmar to engage with the international community had been noted. The positive elements referred to by the Permanent Representative of Myanmar had been noted. In this transitional phase, the Human Rights Council should remain engaged with the Government, and not engage in selective finger-pointing.

Concluding Remarks by Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Myanmar

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, thanked the Ambassador of Myanmar for his kind words, and also other Members of the Council. He assured China that the Special Rapporteur was always ready to play a constructive role in the participation of the international community in promoting human rights in Myanmar. The Special Rapporteur agreed with India on the need to encourage the political process in the country.

With reference to forced labor, the Special Rapporteur had continued to receive allegations of cases of forced labor. There was a dialogue underway between the Government and the ILO, and some improvement had taken place.

To improve cooperation with Myanmar, it was essential to have a coordination of policies vis-à-vis Myanmar. Coordination had been lacking. In addition, the international community did not need to wait for democracy to arrive before engaging in selective partnerships to promote democracy or combat HIV/AIDS, for instance. The Special Rapporteur had repeatedly told the Government that there could not be a meaningful political transition while there still remained political prisoners.

With reference to the issue of Myanmar having been under consideration in the Security Council, the Special Rapporteur said that it was important for this matter to be discussed in different forums.

Report on Human Rights in Extreme Poverty

The Council has before it the report of the Independent Expert, Arjun Sengupta (E/CN.4/2006/43) on human rights and extreme poverty which explores the link between human rights and extreme poverty and aims at showing the distinct added value of looking at extreme poverty in terms of a violation or denial of human rights. In section I, the Independent Expert describes the value added of looking at development in terms of human development and making the elimination of poverty an explicit objective of economic development. In section II, he explains that viewing extreme poverty as a deprivation of human rights would add a further value to efforts to combat extreme poverty, making poverty eradication a social objective which would “trump” other policy objectives. The Independent Expert makes the case that, apart from appealing to moral entitlements to a life in dignity, it is possible to appeal to “legal obligations”, as poverty can be identified with the deprivation of human rights recognized in international human rights instruments. In section III, the Independent Expert stresses that a distinct advantage of looking at extreme poverty is that it reduces the number of persons involved to a manageable subset of the population and focuses on the need to give priority to the poorest of the poor. Referring to the distinction between “core rights” which a State needs to implement with immediate effect, and rights which may be implemented progressively over a period of time, the Independent Expert proposes that removing the conditions of extreme poverty should be treated as a core obligation which should be realized immediately and given the same high priority as other human rights objectives.

An addendum to the above report (E/CN.4/2006/43/Add.1) contains an account of the Independent Expert’s mission to the United States.

Presentation of Report on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty

ARJUN SENGUPTA, Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, introducing his report, said that removing poverty had been accepted in practically all societies, their Governments, religious authorities and civil societies, as a cherished objective, at all times and in all forms. In spite of that, poverty existed in most countries as a failure of social action. In his reports, he had tried to indicate how a human rights approach could contribute to the removal of poverty. His purpose was not to blame or shame anybody or any Government authority, although that often played a major role in a human rights approach. He had tried to be constructive – to find ways to solve the problem. Towards that end, he had tried to provide a working definition of “extreme poverty”, building on the earlier work of the Sub-Commission and Special Rapporteurs on this subject as “basic insecurity” so that the existence of extreme poverty could be seen as a violation of human rights.

Mr. Sengupta very much welcomed resolution 2006/9 of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on “implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against extreme poverty” of 24 August 2006. That resolution had been adopted some time after his reports had been circulated, but it had incorporated much of the thinking reflected in them. If those guidelines were followed, they would go a long way towards ending the state of extreme poverty.

One of his major contentions, Mr. Sengupta stressed, was that most societies with or without international cooperation could eliminate poverty by adopting specific and targeted policies to remove extreme income poverty, deprivation of particular indices of human development such as health, education and shelter and discriminatory social exclusion, within their existing institutions. What was lacking was political will. To demonstrate that, he had chosen the case of the United States as a country which was no doubt committed to eliminating extreme poverty and had all the resources in the world to do so, but was still allowing the conditions of extreme poverty to afflict 12 to 14 million of its population. When it was possible for the authorities to take feasible steps to remove those conditions, but they were still not doing so and the conditions of extreme poverty persisted, it became a clear-cut case of human rights violations.

Statement by the United States as a Concerned Country

STEVEN HILL (United States), speaking as a concerned country, said the United States had been pleased to welcome the visit of the Special Rapporteur to the country, and that he had the opportunity to visit. His report had been read with great interest, and it was noted with satisfaction that it mentioned over 80 anti-poverty programmes at the Federal level, and that it was also a major priority of the Government. There were also many programmes at the State and local level. On the report’s methodology, at times it drew conclusions that were based on limited information, and it had been hoped that the Special Rapporteur would include a wider range of information that was available, such as from academia and private sources.

Transparency was a key or part of the solution to problems. It was hoped the Special Rapporteur would visit the country again, and take advantage of the broad array of information available. What were the Special Rapporteur’s intentions to address this severe problem as it appeared in other countries throughout the world?

Interactive Dialogue on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) thanked Arjun Sengupta, Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, for his outstanding report. Poverty was a human rights issue because poverty was an issue of empowerment. The non-material aspects of poverty were the ones more difficult to address. They had to do with the lack of imagination of policy makers in unleashing the whole potential of small farmers and fishermen. An added difficulty was constituted by international policies such as those of rich nations, such as subsidies, that had a negative impact on the lives of the poorest communities of the world, especially the lives of small farmers and agriculturalists in West Africa.

FATOUMATA DIALL (Mali) said that Algeria, in its comments, had already expressed some of the ideas that Mali had wished to make. Mali welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur. The Government of Mali had a strategic plan to fight poverty and exclusion, which included a wide range of social policies. Mali noted that its agricultural community in rural areas faced severe climactic challenges. In that connection, the subsidies that rich countries gave to their farmers impacted negatively on the brave farmers and their living conditions in countries such as Mali. Indeed, Mali had been surprised that the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty had chosen to go to one of the richest countries in the world to make conclusions for his report. It would have been more appropriate, she felt, if he had gone to poorer countries where his concrete and targeted suggestions and innovative ideas could have been of most help.

SÉRGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said the report was innovative, as was the view that “when development was seen as human development, its objectives were described in terms of freedoms comparable to human rights”, and this was the view of Brazil on development and on the fight against poverty. Extreme poverty still existed in Brazil, however, the country had achieved some concrete results, with 11.2 million families or 44 million people covered in a total population of 185 million. Social investment had increased to 2.5 per cent in 2006, as part of a very focused social policy. Brazil also participated in different initiatives at the international level. How could focused policies to fight poverty be created with the idea of broadening the concept of extreme poverty by incorporating the human rights perspective?

JESUS ENRIQUE GARCIA (Philippines) thanked Arjun Sengupta, the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, for his very important report, and constructive approach. The Philippines considered key the participation of the international community in the eradication of extreme poverty. The Philippines asked the Special Rapporteur on the possible role of civil society and the private sector in programmes aimed at eliminating extreme forms of poverty; and also on suggestions on how to articulate and promote the elimination of extreme poverty in a participatory manner.

DEDE A. RIFAI (Indonesia) welcomed the recognition in the report of the Independent Expert of extreme poverty as a human rights violation. For its part, Indonesia stood ready to fulfil its commitment to the promotion and protection of all human rights – including that of eradicating the phenomenon of extreme poverty. Even the richest country could not claim that its population was free from the scourge of extreme poverty. The political will to address that challenge was what was needed.

ODETTE MELONO (Cameroon) said the Independent Expert’s report was of high quality. Poverty, in particular extreme poverty, continued to be present around the world. In the context of poor and highly indebted countries, what were the specific concrete measures which could be taken to alleviate the conditions that caused extreme poverty?

ALEJANDRO NEYRA (Peru) thanked Arjun Sengupta, the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, for the important analysis offered in his report. It was important to provide a legal approach to the issue by defining poverty in terms of deprivation of human rights as those affected by poverty were also deprived of their human rights. It was necessary to go beyond the diagnosis of extreme poverty to attain the full respect by States of their obligations on social and political rights. A set of indicators on the right to food, education, drinking water, and health, among others, could be set up as a way to gauge the effectiveness of social policies towards the elimination of extreme poverty.

ABDOUL WAHAB HAIDARA (Senegal) said there was one reality that no one had ever denied: that there were millions of individuals living in extreme poverty and social exclusion. Those living on under $1 a day were effectively deprived of their civil, political and cultural rights. Extreme poverty was one of the issues at the heart of the concerns of the international community. The challenge of effectively eradicating that phenomenon, however, was still one that was highly topical in today’s increasingly polarized world. It needed sustained and coordinated efforts of the whole of the international community in order to overcome it. Furthermore, those living in extreme poverty were stigmatized, which was dangerous, because their feelings of frustration and abandonment had consequences that were impossible to predict. The Council needed to take concrete actions to ensure progress in the fight against extreme poverty within a human rights context.

MIIA RAINNE (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the report was welcomed. The Special Rapporteur should express his views on the fact that persons affected by extreme poverty were often victims of social exclusion, and had no access to social justice. What measures did he consider appropriate to ensure that those suffering could access social justice; and what concrete measures should be applied to tackle extreme poverty?

GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador) thanked Arjun Sengupta, the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, for his excellent report. Ecuador underlined that poverty was the result of the failure of economic models, in particular the neo-liberal model. There was an obligation of the international community, in particular the developed world, to help combat extreme poverty in developing countries.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said Cuba agreed with the comments made by Mali. Indeed, it would be appropriate to have a study on third world countries where the degree of poverty was infrahuman. However, he also felt that it had been worthwhile for the Independent Expert to have visited the United States. Indeed, there was a third world within the United States, where an underclass was deprived of its rights. Following his visits to places like New Orleans, had the Independent Expert formulated any specific recommendations for those people, including the victims of Hurricane Katrina? Had he observed the existence of a racial pattern in terms of poverty in the Southern States?

DRISS ISAYENE (Morocco) said the Independent Expert’s report was excellent. The question of human rights and extreme poverty was one of human dignity in terms pf proper employment and others. It was also an international challenge, which all should act to remedy, in this interdependent world. The King of Morocco had launched a National Initiative for Development, which integrated the economic, social and cultural development with different stages for methodological follow-up. Morocco supported Mr. Sengupta in his efforts to go further into detail on this topic.

ABDUL AZIZ AL-HUNAIDI (Saudi Arabia) thanked Arjun Sengupta, the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, for his report. Saudi Arabia underlined the importance of international cooperation in addressing extreme poverty. Poverty was one of the worst threats endangering humanity. It was also important to develop educational programmes to combat ignorance and thus empower poor people. Saudi Arabia endorsed the Indian programmes and said that they should be applied elsewhere.

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) welcomed the report of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty and the degree to which he had gone to establish the linkage between extreme poverty and human rights. That was historic. In India that concept had been institutionalised. As the Council began to address issues of human concern, he asked the Independent Expert how the Council should take on board that linkage between poverty and essential human rights and fundamental freedoms and institutionalise it.

ZHANG YI (China) thanked the statement made by the Special Rapporteur. There was a kind of point of view that extreme poverty had no inter-relation with civil and political rights. But according to the experience of China, when poor people led a better-off life, the level of their enjoyment of civil and political rights was accordingly improved. China wanted to know the Independent Expert’s idea on how he evaluated the relation between extreme poverty and civil and political rights.


CHERI HONKALA, of Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, said that the Centre was a multi-generational movement of the poor and homeless from the United States. She knew what it was like to sleep in cars and in stairwells and stated that every day people in the United States died of preventable causes owing to poverty. For that reason the Centre welcomed the report of Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty.

XAVIER VERZAT, of International Movement ATD Fourth World, in a joint statement with International Association against Torture, International Council of Women and International Federation of Social Workers, said that extreme poverty was a challenge to many countries. Men, women and children were condemned to live in absolute poverty. What public steps should be taken in order that the rights of those poor people were respected?

VIJAV K. SAZAWAL, of Interfaith International, said that the work of Arjun Sengupta, the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, deserved the full support of the Council. However, the definition of poverty went beyond the realm of economic deprivation. As the Secretary-General himself had noted, poverty was not only a deprivation of economic or material resources but a violation of human dignity too. The Commission of Human Rights had noted that the eradication of poverty was inter-related with the full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights of disenfranchised people around the world. A case in point was the fate of Kashmiri Pandits, the aboriginal people of the valley of Kashmir.

Concluding Remarks by Independent Expert on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty

ARJUN SENGUPTA, the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, responding to questions and comments on his report, noted that the reason he had chosen the United States and not a developing country was because he wanted to point out that the problem of extreme poverty was not one of per capita income or development, but it was essentially one of societal and political will. He was glad the comment had been made that human rights were essentially a question of empowerment. If every country implemented civil, political and cultural rights, the problem of extreme poverty would disappear. He called for an international consensus to work together to eliminate extreme poverty. All it required was the identification of the mechanisms to do so, combined with the political will.

Mr. Sengupta also drew attention to the phenomenon of social exclusion, which went hand in hand with extreme poverty. It was necessary to take a human rights approach and the Council should try to work out such methods. He agreed with Mali that there was a need for a variety of approaches and to pay attention to the interlinkages between all rights and extreme poverty. Those were the kinds of issues they could tackle right now in the Council. An example of a concrete problem was the suffering of Tanzanian peasants, who were dying because of a lowered price of cotton. In that connection, they needed to review the various national policies that could correct that situation. Regarding Hurricane Katrina, the failure to protect the poor population in the rescue efforts could be taken as a case in point and important lessons could be drawn from that experience. The richer were taken care of and the poorer people had remained untouched. Americans could take that as an opportunity to review the mechanisms that had caused that situation and prevent it in the future.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06049E