HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORTS ON CUBA, OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES, CAMBODIA AND HAITI

The Human Rights Council this afternoon discussed country-specific reports on the situation of human rights in Cuba, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Cambodia, and Haiti.

John Dugard, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, said he wished to speak only about Israeli actions against ordinary, non-militant, non-activist Palestinians who simply wanted to lead a good life with their families and friends, who wished to educate their children for a better life, and who wished to enjoy the basic amenities of life. From a human rights’ perspective the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had deteriorated since 2001, and was intolerable, appalling, and tragic for the ordinary Palestinian. The actions of Israel, and now other States, against the people of Palestine challenged the commitment of the international community to human rights.

Yash Ghai, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, said he was concerned that few of his or his predecessor’s recommendations had been implemented, and that human rights continued to be violated on a systemic scale. He considered that this was not because of carelessness, or lack of awareness of rights or the institutional and procedural rules to safeguard them, or that Cambodia suffered so massively during the regime of Democratic Kampuchea, or because of poverty. It was because the deliberate rejection of the concept of a State governed by the rule of law had been central to the ruling party’s hold on power.

Louis Joinet, Independent Expert appointed by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Haiti, said between drafting the report and today, a number of overwhelming changes had taken place, so the report was now quite obsolete. This was one of the rare times that the Independent Expert had taken the floor at the United Nations with satisfaction, and he had never expected the situation to be so positive. It had been possible, thanks to the spirit of conciliation and reconciliation of the Haitian people, to reach a political consensus, which in turn required considerable efforts to be deployed on a daily basis. A great deal of progress remained to be done, but there had been both ground lost and headway made.

Christine Chanet, Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Cuba, who presented her report in the previous meeting, in concluding remarks after the interactive discussion, said she would not address politicisation, or any questions directly related to that issue. On those questions strictly related to her mandate, she said that she indicated in her report the very negative and disastrous effects of the embargo, and that it was not a path to democracy, and should not continue, in particular with regards to civil, political, economic and social rights, but, as per her mandate, she could only deplore it, but could not include as a recommendation that it be lifted.

Speaking as concerned countries were the Representatives of Israel, Palestine, Cambodia, and Haiti.

Speaking in the context of the interactive debate were China, Finland on behalf of the European Union, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Iran, Byelorussia, Germany, Algeria, Zimbabwe, the United States, Viet Nam, Tunisia, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Morocco, Malaysia, Algeria, Finland, India, Bangladesh, Cuba, Japan, Syria, Senegal, Canada, Indonesia, Ecuador, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Mali, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea.

Speaking in right of reply were Cuba and Cambodia.

Also speaking were the Representatives of Liberal International, Centrist Democratic International in a joint statement with Transnational Radical, Organización de solidaridad de los Pueblos de Africa, Asia y America Latina, Federacion de Mujeres Cubanas, Union Nacional de Juristas de Cuba, Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru” in a joint statement with World Peace Council, Freedom House, Indian Council of South America, Moument contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples (MRAP) in a joint statement with Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, World Young Women's Christian Association and World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Association, and Federacion Sindical Mundial.

The next meeting will start at 10 a.m. on Wednesday 27 September, when the Council is scheduled to take up reports on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Myanmar. The Council will meet on Wednesday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Continuation of Debate on Situation of Human Rights in Cuba

SHA ZUKANG (China) said Cuba was a small country which had been subjected to more than 40 years of blockade and embargo which had seriously affected the livelihood, health, healthcare and enjoyment of human rights of the Cuban people. It was impossible to ignore the disastrous effects of the embargo, and the Special Representative had recognised this. Many non-governmental organizations carried out activities which violated their status, and the Cuban Government was fully entitled to determine which foreign organizations had the right to carry out activities on its soil, and this was a manifestation of the State’s rights. The draft resolution against Cuba had not even gained a simple majority, and the draft mandate should be eliminated.

KIRSTI POHJANKUKKA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked Christine Chanet, Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Cuba, for her report. Finland encouraged the Cuban authorities to extend their full cooperation to all Special Procedures, including Ms. Chanet. Finland wanted to know if Cuba had taken further steps to empower women in the area of employment; whether the question of ill treatment of prisoners had been addressed, and if Cuba had reviewed laws restricting freedom of association and expression.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not see the validity of the report with regard to Cuba. There was no need to maintain the mandate and the report ran counter to a useful dialogue with regard to Cuba. It was high time that the Council saw the current state of affairs. The main factors contributing to the problems of Cuba were the economic embargo of the United States against that country.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said despite all the statements that the activities of the United Nations should be depoliticised, the Commission and now the Human Rights Council had to come back to the issue, which was to establish constructive, fruitful cooperation to ensure the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights. Russia had always spoken against control mechanisms of this kind, and believed they were politicised, counter-productive and confrontational. This was why they ran counter to the purpose of the Council.

FOROUZANDEH VADIATI (Iran) wanted to associate Iran with the statement made by China. Iran asked the Council to terminate immediately the mandate of Christine Chanet, Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Cuba, as it was an illegitimate heritage of politicization, double standards and selectivity of the late Commission on Human Rights.

SERGEI ALEINIK (Belarus) said that the mandate on the human rights situation in Cuba had been a source of controversy in the past, and under the Council, the mandate had nothing to do with the situation of human rights in Cuba. The mandate was politically motivated to the benefit of some quarters and to serve their interests. The Council should eradicate the mandate, which was a controversial legacy.

MARTIN RANTIM HUDH (Germany) said it appeared from the statement of the Special Representative that she had fulfilled her mandate under difficult circumstances with a sense of balance, and the highest possible level of professional integrity.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) said he had just returned from Cuba, where he had attended the summit of the G15 and the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement. People had been very proud in Cuba that the country was playing such a role. The basic human right was the right to life, and to life in good health, and the longevity of the Cubans was one of the highest in the world today. Cuba was also helping many African countries in improving their health infrastructure. He hoped that the Council could move away from politicisation and towards a serene evaluation of all countries in the context of the universal periodic review, as a democratic exercise to improve each other, while supporting each other.

ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe) aligned itself with the statement made by other delegations about the termination of the mandate of the Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Cuba. Zimbabwe said that there had to be an end to double standards and hypocrisy, and Cuba had to be left to exercise its right to self-determination like any other nation. The Council had to move away from politicising this issue, and should foster cooperation instead.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said Cuba was one of the most repressive countries in the world. It did not respect the human rights of its citizens. Cubans were daily denied their human rights. The United States strongly supported the recommendations of the Special Representative asking Cuba to allow non-governmental organizations to work in Cuba. The economic embargo only denied the hard currency that Cuba would have gained in order to oppress its people.

VU ANH QUANG (Viet Nam) said the headway made by the Cuban people in their economic and social development, and in the promotion of human rights was appreciated. The situation of human rights in Cuba should improve as much as possible, and this mandate should end as soon as possible.

Concluding Statement by Personal Representative on Human Rights in Cuba

CHRISTINE CHANET, Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Cuba, said she would not respond to the personal attacks, and thanked those delegations which sided with justice in that regard. A number of delegations indicated that the situation was very difficult, and she would not address politicisation, or any questions directly related to that issue. On those questions strictly related to her mandate, the delegation of China had asked why she had not requested the lifting of the embargo. She had indicated in her report the very negative and disastrous effects of the embargo, and that it was not a path to democracy, and should not continue, in particular with regards to civil, political, economic and social rights, but, as per her mandate, she could only deplore the embargo, but could not include as a recommendation that it lifted. There was nothing new in terms of prison or detention conditions, these continued to be a source of concern. There were no unknown detainees, all were recorded, and there was nothing hidden. Nor had there been any changes with regards to the legal arsenal.

On why she did not think there was any progress with regards to the rights of women, there was an increase in gender equality in some areas, such as administration, but there was some work that remained to be done. In terms of the right to health, as the delegation of Algeria had said, Cuba was very well qualified. In terms of her mandate, she had said what she thought this morning could be or could not be done.

Right of Reply

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS, (Cuba), exercising its right of reply, said that Cuba could not understand what concerns the European Union was talking about, as the European Union kept secrets prisons and was collaborating with the CIA in their extraordinary rendition policies, in addition to repressing people. Washington did not deserve any replies as the atrocities committed by the Government around the world were well known. Cuba would not pay any attention to the United States mercenaries, and assured the Council that these mercenaries would never be able to conquer Cuba. In addition, the United States had committed barbarous acts in Guantanamo, and should therefore stop making comments that were insulting to the Council’s Member States.

Report on Situation of Human Rights in Occupied Palestinian Territories

The Council has before it a report by the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (E/CN.4/2006/29), which says human rights violations continue. Some 9,000 prisoners remain in Israeli jails. Movement is seriously restricted by the wall, elaborate terminals through the wall, and checkpoints. Although the number of permanent checkpoints has decreased, “flying” or temporary checkpoints are on the increase. Restrictions on the freedom of movement are in large measure responsible for the prevailing humanitarian crisis in the occupied Palestinian territory. Unemployment is high and over half the population lives below the official poverty line. Health and education services also suffer as a result of restrictions on movement. Women suffer disproportionately from the occupation.

Undoubtedly the highlight of the past year, since the Commission requested the Special Rapporteur, in its resolution 2005/7, to report, has been Israel’s successful evacuation of settlers and withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces from Gaza. This constitutes an important step in the direction of the resolution of the conflict in the region. Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza does not, however, mean that the occupation of the territory has come to an end. Israel still retains effective control over the territory through its control of airspace, territorial sea and external land boundaries. It has continued to assert military control by means of sonic booms and repeated air strikes into the territory aimed at targeted militants. Inevitably, such strikes have killed and injured innocent bystanders. On 15 November 2005 an agreement was entered into between Israel and the Palestinian Authority aimed at opening the borders of Gaza to allow the free passage of persons and goods in and out of the territory. This agreement has yet to be fully implemented.

Presentation of Report on Situation of Human Rights in Occupied Palestinian Territories

JOHN DUGARD, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, said that political militants had rights, under both human rights law and international humanitarian law. Today this obvious truth was rejected by Israel and some Western States that should know better. Such States, and their leaders, took the view that all acts, however brutal, were permissible in the so-called war against terror. Consequently they had little sympathy for appeals for respect of the human rights law and international humanitarian law. This explained why today the Special Rapporteur was not going to speak about Israeli actions against Palestinian militants and politicians. Instead, the Special Rapporteur wished to speak only about Israeli actions against ordinary, non-militant, non-activist Palestinians who simply wanted to lead a good life with their families and friends, who wished to educate their children for a better life, and who wished to enjoy the basic amenities of life.

From a human rights’ perspective the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had deteriorated since 2001, and was intolerable, appalling, and tragic for the ordinary Palestinian. In Gaza, since the capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit on 25 June, the people had been subjected to continuous bombardment and military incursions in which over 100 civilians had been killed and many hundreds wounded. Three quarters of the population was unable to feed itself and was dependent on food aid.

Throughout the West Bank there were checkpoints and roadblocks, now over 500 in number. The West Bank was fragmented into Bantustans by checkpoints and roadblocks. Cities were cut off from each other. A serious humanitarian crisis prevailed in the West Bank, albeit not as extreme as in the case of Gaza.

The actions of Israel, and now other States, against the people of Palestine challenged the commitment of the international community to human rights. If the States and institutions comprising the international community could not recognize what was happening in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and take some action, they must not be surprised if the people of the planet disbelieved that they were seriously committed to the promotion of human rights and the protection of an endangered people.

Statements from Concerned Countries

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said that for over a decade, Israel had persisted in saying that there could be no value in a report pursuant to a one-sided and imbalanced mandate that did not conform to the reality on the ground, a mandate that prejudged key issues and which was in direct contrast to the current wave of reforms at the United Nations. The report, like its predecessors, was characterized by errors of omissions as well as distortions of both fact and law, while advancing a one-sided political agenda. Particularly regretful was the report’s depiction of the complex situation in the territories in an oversimplified manner without providing essential contextual background. At a time when Israelis continued to face the daily threat of Palestinian terrorism, there was an alarming disconnect between the story told by the report, and that experienced by the people on the ground. While it had never been Israel’s intention to disengage from Gaza only to return to it, clearly Israel had the fundamental right and duty to defend and protect its citizens. However, none of the Rapporteur’s reports so far gave any indication of what measures to defer acts of terrorism were permissible in his view. By placing the entire blame on Israel actions, the report absolved the terrorists that had taken Palestinian society hostage, from even the most minimal responsibility.

Alongside the international community, Israel continued to believe that the Road Map remained the best – if not the only – hope for arriving to a solution to the conflict. That carefully phased-approach plan, proposed by the Quartet, had been accepted and endorsed by the Security Council. Its underlying rationale was the recognition that peace was drawn from the vision of the two States, living side-by-side in peace and security. To advance towards that objective, any Palestinian Government should renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept the existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements. To that end, it was disturbing to see that the Rapporteur’s report did not only dismiss that agreed upon framework, but went even further in accusing the Quartet of engaging in a strategy of political appeasement. Israel believed that Israeli-Palestinian relations were, of necessity, a zero sum game. Not every Israeli interest was at odds with Palestinian interests. Any progress began with a genuine dialogue amongst those committed to peace, and genuine determination to confront enemies.

MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, said the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 was thanked for his report, which contained a comprehensive text on the extent of the Israeli violations of human rights. The situation in the Gaza Strip continued to be desperate, and was deteriorating so severely as to have been described by Jan Egeland as a ticking bomb. As a result of the incessant Israeli bombardments, of economic siege, it was clear that Israel’s redeployment from the Gaza Strip was not meant to end occupation, nor to constitute a step towards peace. It was illegal and deceptive that part of the Israeli settlers had been transferred to settlements in the Occupied Syrian Golan. This was not the work of a peacemaker.

Recently, the Quartet had stressed the need to move towards a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. However, this could not happen if Israel continued to build the Separation Wall, and to build and enlarge settlements, all of which constituted hindrances to the Two-State Solution. Plans to change demographic constitutions in order to make Israelis a majority were clear evidence of intent to annex the Palestinian capital. Only recently, tenders had been issued for new housing units in Israeli settlements and in the West Bank. Isolating East Jerusalem from surrounding Palestinian cities would have grave humanitarian consequences, among others. The Middle East was in turmoil, and its ramifications were not limited to the region. No genuine effort had been expended to address its root cause, namely, ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese territories.

Interactive Debate on Situation of Human Rights in Occupied Palestinian Territories

ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) thanked John Dugard, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, for his report. The report showed clearly that Israel continued to violate the human rights of Palestinians in total disregard of international human rights norms, including the Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians in armed conflicts. Israel had total control on the movement of people in Gaza. Israel persisted in building the dividing wall in defiance of the ruling of the International Court of Justice, seeking in addition to the change the demographic composition of East Jerusalem.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said the Special Rapporteur had provided an objective report on the situation in the Palestinian occupied territories. The territories were shrinking every day with the construction of the wall and settlements. The Rapporteur had depicted the real situation of the territories in his report. The human rights violations should be stopped and peace and security should be established in the region.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said some points of the report had particularly drawn Morocco’s attention, including that despite its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Israel still had effective control over the territory, and the continuing building of the wall despite the opinion of the International Court of Justice. Israel’s attacks had focused on civilians, and this called upon the universal conscience when faced with the situation of the Palestinian people, which was tragic and intolerable. The situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories had deteriorated to the point where the Human Rights Council had held a special session. A final solution should be found to the issue, with the founding of an independent State with East Jerusalem as its capital.

IDHAM MUSA MOKTAR (Malaysia) thanked John Dugard, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, for his report. Malaysia was deeply concerned about the deterioration of the human rights situation in the Palestinian occupied territories, as Palestinians continued to suffer hardship at the hands of the occupying power. There was a sense of urgency and commitment by the international community to bring an end to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian occupied territories. The Special Rapporteur should continue with his independent and objective work until there was an end to the Israeli occupation.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) said that the report was valuable and it reflected the sad situation on the ground. Algeria’s position with regard to Palestine was tantamount to the position of the Council. Certain countries were not in agreement with the resolution of the human rights violations by Israel. Should one remain in that position of double standards? The Security Council took actions on resolution on a political basis but the Human Rights Council was taking actions on human rights grounds.

TAPANI KIVELA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the situation between Israel and the Palestinians had been and continued to be a great concern for the European Union, which was closely following the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. How would the Special Rapporteur comment on the human rights situation in the Palestinian Territories since his last report, and what were the most meaningful measures for both sides to take to remedy the situation? What role could be envisaged for Palestinian NGOs to play in efforts to improve the human rights situation; and with regards to the children in Israeli jails, how would the Special Rapporteur comment on their situation?

MUNU MAHAWAR (India) thanked John Dugard, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, for his report. India was greatly concerned by the destruction witnessed in Gaza and Lebanon, and the ensuing polarization and negative effect brought upon to the region. Lasting peace would only be reached in the region if the legitimate concerns of all involved parties were taken into account. India remained committed to the cause of the Palestinian people and supported the creation, in accordance with United Nations resolutions, of a viable, sovereign State, side by side to the Israeli State. The international community should bring to an end the long suffering of the Palestinian people.

MUSTAFISUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said the Council was meeting at a time when the Palestinian people were suffering at the hands of Israel’s army. A number of resolutions had affirmed Palestinians right to self-determination. The International Court of Justice had also provided an advisory opinion on the building of the separation wall in the Palestinian territories. Israel should return to the negotiating table and start the peace process.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the report was of high quality. It was no random event that an extraordinary session of the Council was devoted to the lamented and painful situation in Palestine, and Cuba expressed its solidarity for the ongoing fight of the Palestinian people, and intended to contribute to the presence and importance of the mandate. Normally when these issues were raised, the very least was done to protect and promote the rights of the Palestinian people, namely their right to live free from occupation, and in human conditions. Cuba was determinedly in solidarity with the just cause of the Palestinian people and the Arab people.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) thanked John Dugard, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, for his report. Nevertheless, the United States disagreed with the Special Rapporteur on his remark that the Road Map was out of date. The United States believed that the Road Map was the only international plan that counted with the endorsement of both parties. The United States considered that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice was not useful.

FOROUZANDEH VADIATI (Iran) said that the Palestinian people were being punished for democratically electing their Government. The international community, particularly those members of the Council, had a responsibility with regard to what was going on in Palestine.

SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said the improvement of the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories in the first place required stability in the region, and to this end Israelis and Palestinians should both demonstrate their political commitment towards such stability, refrain from attacks and retaliation, and make their utmost effort to resolve the issues of, among others, releasing the Israeli soldiers abducted in Gaza as well as the ministers of the Palestinian Authority under detention.

Upholding the idea of the establishment of a Palestinian State which could coexist with Israel, Japan had been actively providing assistance, including aid for strengthening the governance of the Palestinian Authority.

AYMAN RAAD (Syria) associated itself with the statement made by Pakistan, and thanked John Dugard, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, for his report that contained a factual analysis of the situation of human rights in the Palestinian occupied territories. The report had also exposed Israel’s actions in the Syrian Golan. Israel continued with the detention of women and children, demolitions, annexation of land and forceful movement of people. It was incumbent upon the international community to study the violations and ramifications of the violations to human rights in the Palestinian occupied territories, and help end the Israeli occupation immediately.

ABDOUL WAHAB HAIDARA (Senegal) said the Palestinians had been suffering and frustrated for decades by the Israel occupation and violence. The economic, social and human conditions of the people had reached a degree of serious concern. It was urgent that the international community should launch effective means to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said with regards to the statement made by the Special Rapporteur in paragraph 20, Canada continued to bring humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, and requested for note to be taken of this.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said the Special Rapporteur was commended for his informative presentation and detailed report. Indonesia associated itself with the statement of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and urged the Council to exert its full influence to ensure that respect for the fundamental freedoms and human rights of the Palestinian people was exercised in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Efforts to persuade all parties to the conflict to return to negotiations should succeed, but the humanitarian crisis could not wait. It was up to the members of the Council to act cohesively to protect the rights of the Palestinian people. The Quartet should put safeguard of the rights of the Palestinian people as a first priority, before even a solution to the conflict.

GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador) expressed deep concern about the deteriorating situation in the Palestinian occupied territories, and asked for further information from the Special Rapporteur on the implications of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice with reference to the building of the wall. It was key to reach a lasting solution through negotiations that took into account the unconditional respect of both the Palestinian and Israeli populations.

ABDULLA ABDULLATIF ABDULLA (Bahrain) said there was chaos in the Palestinian territory through the measures of collective punishment, checkpoints and destruction of houses, killings and arrests of Palestinians. Israeli was still continuing its expansion by building walls and occupying Palestinian lands. The people were suffering all aspects of human rights violations by Israel. The humiliation of the people’s deputies and the demolition of infrastructure continued. The construction of the separation wall did not cease despite the condemnation of the international community and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice against its construction.

ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said the clear report elaborated the tragedy and suffering of the Palestinian people. The worst violation of human rights was occupation, but today there was violation of all kinds of rights in Palestine. The Council should assume its responsibility to put an end to the violations of the rights of the Palestinian people and terminate the occupation. World stability and stability in the region would not be achieved until the Palestinian people were given all their rights which had been approved and endorsed by international legality.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said that the logic of military action and occupation had to come to an end. Israel had to guarantee freedom of movement and the right to residence of the Palestinian population. Brazil was deeply concerned about the deteriorating living conditions of the Palestinian population, and condemned the use of violence. Violence only bred conflict.

A Representative of Mali affirmed its solidarity with the Palestinian people and thanked the Special Rapporteur for his frankness in his report.

Concluding Statement on Situation of Human Rights in Occupied Palestinian Territories

John Dugard, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, said he apologised to the Government of Canada for the statement in paragraph 20, but many people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories had informed him that Canada had withdrawn funding for NGOs working with the Palestinian Authority. The representative of Finland had raised a number of questions, first whether the situation was worse, and there was a clear yes to this. The Council could contribute by emphasising the human rights dimension, and it was hoped this would have some impact upon the work of the Quartet, which paid too little attention to this dimension. On who was responsible for the decline of social and economic rights, Israel was largely to blame, but those States who had withdrawn funding had also contributed largely to this situation. Palestinian NGOs should continue to monitor the situation and advocate respect for human rights. On the position of children in Israeli prisons, he had, on previous occasions, called for an inquiry into the situation of children in Israeli prisons, and the Israeli judiciary should carry out such an inquiry.

On the comments by the Israeli Ambassador, who had accused the Special Rapporteur of being one-sided, this was inevitable, as the Special Rapporteur investigated human rights and described them. There were unfortunately many of these violations by the Israeli authorities, and it was the Special Rapporteur’s duty to report on these. The report therefore could appear to be one-sided, but it was due to his commitment to the mandate that he held. Israeli justifications for their actions, namely the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier and the firing of rockets into Israeli territory, had been offered, but the response had been excessive. In the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Palestinians accused Israelis of terrorism, and in Israel the Hamas Government was accused of terrorism. The use of the term was not helpful, and both sides should use other terms to describe each other and justify their actions in terms of other norms.

With regards to the Road Map, which the Special Rapporteur had criticised, he had two main complaints, including that it failed to adopt the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which should guide the work of the Quartet. The Quartet took the view that it would not talk to Hamas, as it did not like it, and this should be changed, although the Special Rapporteur said he understood the point of view of the Quartet. However, it would be more constructive and helpful were it to engage with Hamas to persuade it to change its policies, as the current attitude did not help the cause of peace in the region.

Report on Situation of Human Rights in Cambodia

The Council has before it the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, Yash Ghai (E/CN.4/2006/110), which says the Special Rapporteur gave particular attention to the Constitution of Cambodia, the justice sector and the rule of law, and to freedoms of association, assembly and expression. He found a deteriorating environment for democratic participation and practice. At the time of finalizing this report, well known public figures and activists were either unable to return to Cambodia, or were in prison awaiting trial, charged variously with defamation, disinformation and incitement.

Cambodia has a good Constitution, which incorporates the core international human rights instruments to which the State is party, but the Constitution has been massively disregarded and its safeguards weakened. Cambodia continues to operate under a transitional code of criminal law and procedure adopted by the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia that was intended to be temporary. However, laws that make up the basic legal framework, which are essential to establishing the rule of law in Cambodia, still have not been enacted. The Special Representative believes that there is also a pattern to the current enforcement of the law in Cambodia which suggests that the law is abused for political purposes. The present report also notes that there is a pervasive practice of impunity for persons who are politically or economically well placed.

An addendum to the above report (E/CN.4/2006/110/Add.1) says the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia was finalized on 10 January 2006. Since then, there have been some encouraging developments, particularly in relation to creating an environment conducive to the conduct of legitimate political activity. They include the release from pre-trial detention of persons active in public life, whose cases are mentioned in the report, the pardoning and restoration of parliamentary immunity to members of the Sam Rainsy Party, and a statement from the Prime Minister in favour of decriminalizing defamation. The Special Representative has acknowledged these positive events, and continues to follow developments with interest. He will undertake a second mission to Cambodia in March to obtain an updated understanding of the situation and to discuss his report and recommendations with the Government before he presents them.

Presentation of Report on Situation of Human Rights in Cambodia

Yash Ghai, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, said he had undertaken two missions to Cambodia since his appointment in November 2005. In discharging his mandate, he had seen as his primary responsibility entering into constructive engagement with the Royal Government and the people of Cambodia. After his first visit, he had prepared a detailed report, analysing the state of human rights and democracy and making a number of recommendations. He was concerned that few of his or his predecessor’s recommendations had been implemented, and that human rights continued to be violated on a systemic scale. He considered that this was not because of carelessness, or lack of awareness of rights or the institutional and procedural rules to safeguard them, or that Cambodia suffered so massively during the regime of Democratic Kampuchea, or because of poverty. Many policies of the Government had subverted the essential principles of democracy and due process, deprived people of their economic resources and means of livelihood, and denied them their dignity. The Special Representative had come to believe that these policies were integral to the political and economic systems through which the Government ruled, had manipulated democratic processes, undermined legitimate political opposition, and used the State for the accumulation of private wealth. He believed that the deliberate rejection of the concept of a State governed by the rule of law had been central to the ruling party’s hold on power.

The international community, through the United Nations and other multilateral and bilateral means, bore a special responsibility to support Cambodia and its people in their quest for justice and accountability. But its engagement should be based on a hardheaded analysis of the underlying causes of the sorry state of human rights and social justice in Cambodia. Its neighbours and influential Governments in the Asian region should be far more active in discharging their responsibilities towards Cambodia and its people, as parties to the United Nations Charter and international human rights treaties, as well as the Paris Peace Accords. With aid giving came the responsibility to ensure that it helped the people.

The Special Representative was informed that this morning the Prime Minister had opened a conference on establishing a national human rights institution in Cambodia, and he hoped this would mark the beginning of a genuine dialogue for human rights, and agreement that basic laws and independent institutions needed first to be in place. The Government would no doubt think he had been unfair, the Special Representative said, but he would invite it to inform the Council about the concrete measures it had taken and intended to take to address the issues he and others had raised and to respond to the recommendations he and his predecessors had made. He recognised the progress that had been made in rebuilding Cambodia; however, fifteen years after the adoption of the Paris Peace Accords, the provisions relating to human rights had yet to be fulfilled, and he believed that concern about the human rights record of the Government of Cambodia needed to be expressed in unambiguous terms if these promises were to be kept.

Statement from Concerned Country

VUN CHHEANG (Cambodia), speaking as a concerned country, said Cambodia acknowledged the assistance and cooperation provided by the United Nations to the country. The tragic events that took place from 1970 onwards had seriously affected Cambodia. The country came out of the crisis ruined because of the war, terrors and famine. It had lost most individuals with knowledge and know-how. The economic and social infrastructure had been annihilated. A greater deal had been done since the Paris peace agreements and the general elections under the auspices of the United Nations in 1993; the country had traversed a long route. A democratic system had been founded and developed on the basis of national reconciliation and understanding among the political parties. Cambodia had now leaped from a culture of conflict to a culture of dialogue and national unity. Cambodia continued on a daily basis to work for the strengthening of social peace, national reconciliation, economic development, democracy and human rights.

The Government aspired to provide responses to the aspirations and demands of its citizens. Legislative and municipal elections had been organized between 1998 and 2003 and beginning 2006. The elections had been declared free and fair. The Government was in favour of free press, freedom of expression, the right to strike, the right to assembly and freedom of association as long as they were exercised within the context of the law. Particular efforts had also been made by the Government to fight against impunity. A special tribunal had been set up to judge the main leaders of the Khmer Rouge for crimes against humanity.

Interactive Debate on Report on Cambodia

PAUL MEYER (Canada) welcomed the first report of Yash Ghai, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, and looked forward to an update to his report based on the results of his last visit to the country. With reference to the independence of the judiciary, Canada wanted to know of the link between his work and the work of the High Commissioner on Human Rights on the strengthening of the judiciary in Cambodia.

KIRSTI POHJANKUKKA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the work of the Special Rapporteur was commended, and it was important to solidify the democratic development in Cambodia, and an important role was played by the Special Rapporteur in highlighting issues of concern. The issue of impunity was of particular concern for the European Union, in particular for persons who were politically and economically well placed, and the Special Rapporteur was asked what he would suggest in this regard. What should be pursued in order to protect freedom of expression and the participation of civil society, the speaker asked, and could he elaborate more on the overall strategy to address land grabbing.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said that the Special Rapporteur had indicated in his report that the Cambodian Constitution was a good document but that it was not implemented. What practical measures could the Rapporteur suggest in order to ensure that the Constitution and other laws were implemented.

JOAN MOSELY (New Zealand) thanked Yash Ghai, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, for his insightful report. The addendum to the report mentioned the work being done by Cambodia to create an enabling environment to legitimate political activity, including free speech and media. In this respect, New Zealand wished to know if there was information available on progress made in this area and recommendations on how to assure their sustainability. With reference to the Tribunal on the Khmer Rouge, Canada asked what was the likely impact of the work of the Tribunal on the people’s attitude towards human rights.

FUMIKO SAIGA (Japan) said Japan had been supporting the democratisation of Cambodia through cooperation in many areas, including improving the judicial system. While recognising that many issues remained in the field of human rights in Cambodia, there were also some positive elements, including the invitation of the Special Rapporteur by the Government, which was a sign of the latter’s intention to dialogue with the international community. The Tribunal on the Khmer Rouge should bring a prompt solution to the issues of the past, and the process should contribute to the strengthening of the judicial system. It was strongly hoped that the Government, in cooperation with the international community, including the United Nations, would continue its positive efforts towards building a stable nation, including the holding of fair elections, and would accelerate its efforts to solve the situation the country was facing.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said the United States was encouraged by the improvements made in Cambodia. The United States supported the close collaboration of the Representative and the Government. The Special Representative had expressed concern that the country’s indigenous people had difficulties in accessing water and land; what measures had he suggested to resolve this problem? Had the areas of concern changed since the Rapporteur’s last visit?

MUSTAFISUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) thanked Yash Ghai, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, for his report, and particularly with reference to the constitutional framework, judiciary and land reform. Cambodia had suffered from a bloody civil war for a long time. Cambodia was now on the way to recovery thanks to the will of the Cambodian people and the assistance of the international community. In spite of the efforts of the Government, more time was needed to strengthen democratic institutions.

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea) said the report was detailed and useful. The initiatives of the Special Rapporteur were appreciated, and the Government of Korea welcomed recent positive events in Cambodia, including Parliamentary events. The assertion that the Government would consider decriminalising defamation, which would constitute a very positive element in the increase in democracy, was appreciated. The Government was expected to make further efforts to solve issues related to land management in an impartial and fair way, taking into account the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. The Government should be encouraged to strengthen its progress in democratic elements through cooperation with the Special Rapporteur and other international mechanisms.


Concluding Statement on Human Rights in Cambodia

YASH GHAI, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, in concluding remarks, said that the situation of impunity did not improve since his visit because of the Government’s lack of commitment. The Government systematically ignored the provisions of the Constitution. It was important that a series of laws should be enacted. Little progress had been made in acting and adopting laws. Some draft laws were blocked in the office of the Prime Minister. The Government did not repeal the legal provisions on criminal defamation. The application of the criminal defamation law to the speech made in parliament had reduced the status of the parliamentarians to ordinary citizens.

With regard to the indigenous people, the attention of the Government had been drawn to ILO Convention no. 169 on the rights of indigenous peoples. On the question of implementation of the Constitution, many of the human rights issues would have been resolved had they been effectively implemented. The Government had been advised to maintain the independence of the Constitutional Court. The “iron fist”, aimed at fighting corruption, had reduced the power of the judiciary by implicating it with corruption. The independence of the judiciary was significant for a democratic system.

Right of Reply

VUN CHHEANG (Cambodia), exercising its right of reply, thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her support to the work of the Government in pursuit of the realization of human rights. Cambodia asked the Office of the High Commissioner to extend its support to consolidate the human rights situation in the country. Cambodia thanked Japan, the United States and the Republic of Korea for their support. It also thanked Australia, Canada, Australia, the European Union, and in particular Japan, for their contribution to eliminate poverty in the country. Cambodia did not wish to make further comments on the report and its summary as the delegation had already expressed its position in its previous statement on the floor.

Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti

The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/115) entitled situation of human rights in Haiti, which was prepared by the Independent Expert, Louis Joinet, and gives an account of his sixth, seventh and eighth visits to Haiti in 2005.

In terms of civil and political rights, with regard to insecurity, while there has been a gradual improvement in the provinces, the situation in the capital is increasingly disquieting, owing in particular to the daily increase in kidnappings. The situation concerning the rights of children has deteriorated as a result of poverty (2,500 street children in the capital) and violence (use of children by armed factions). In 85 per cent of cases of interpersonal violence, women are involved, there being a disquieting increase in rape. There have been two essential gains: an obligation for doctors to issue a medical certificate in the case of injuries which may be linked to sexual assault, and the criminalization of rape. The Independent Expert has also observed a significant increase in mass expulsions by the Dominican Republic of residents of Haitian origin, frequently in conditions that are incompatible with human rights, as well as “deportations” – mass expulsions from abroad, in particular the United States, of convicted persons of Haitian origin at the end of their sentences who transit under arrest, devoid of any legal basis. In addition to the serious damage to judicial facilities in the insurrections of February 2004, the recurrent abuse of extended pre-trial detention has worsened: as of 12 December 2005, only 412 of 3,742 prisoners had been convicted. There is ongoing interference with the judiciary by the executive, as attested to by the dismissal, covered up as retirement, of five judges from the Court of Cassation, which has become increasingly discredited.

With regard to economic and social rights, the Independent Expert has focused on four sectors: reform of the land register; development of stand-alone, small-scale water supply projects; significant social progress as the result of the signing of a collective agreement in the customs-free zone; and reform of the civil register on the basis of forgery-proof identity documents issued for elections.

Presentation of Report on Situation of Human Rights in Haiti

Louis Joinet, Independent Expert appointed by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Haiti, said between drafting the report and today, a number of overwhelming changes had taken place, so the report was now quite obsolete. This was one of the rare times that the Independent Expert had taken the floor at the United Nations with satisfaction, and he had never expected the situation to be so positive. It had been possible, thanks to the spirit of conciliation and reconciliation of the Haitian people, to reach a political consensus, which in turn required considerable efforts to be deployed on a daily basis. A great deal of progress remained to be done, but there had been both ground lost and headway made. There was a horrific event in July, and a sharp increase in kidnapping and sexual violence. There was further negative stabilisation in terms of crimes committed by the police, and there was corruption, creating impunity.

But there was some good news - some continued courageously to fight both crime and corruption. Tribute was paid to the courage of the magistrates of the Prosecutor’s Office, who held a hearing to examine 84 cases, and who had begun to seriously convict offenders, including members of law enforcement. This showed that it was possible to combat the negative points. All the reforms the Independent Expert had called for earlier were now in evidence, and the Government had begun concerted action, with the participation of civil society, which was a source of great satisfaction. A Parliament had been put into place, and people’s mindset had to move forward to encompass this.

However, there were still issues that remained to be resolved, primarily the protection of civilians, the Independent Expert said. The Office for Civilian Protection, which did not have credibility yet, needed to be completely overhauled and strengthened, as it was bringing along the human rights section. This was the work of the United Nations: to transmit to Haitians the way of promoting their own solutions. A number of reforms remained to be done, for example with regards to women’s rights, and the international community needed to start to tackle these issues, in particular the more sensitive ones, such as abortion. There were two other key long-term reforms: the reform of the civil state and of the registry.

Statement by Concerned Country

JEAN-CLAUDE PIERRE (Haiti), speaking as a concerned country, said Haiti paid tribute to the Independent Expert who had shown constant interest to the country. The Government had endeavoured to implement his recommendations. The State had reinstated equality between men and women in the society. A national plan of action had also been adopted to further implement social and economic programmes. In order to curb violence, the Government had launched a programme to disarm armed groups. Those who had been carrying arms were ordered to lay down their arms. The Haitian Government was keen to receive international assistance for training of judges and strengthening the judicial system. A certification system had been set up to provide identity cards to all Haitians. At least 10 per cent of the population had no income whatsoever. Only few of the country’s rich held the country’s wealth. The Haitian people were also hungry for justice and for that reason the Government was making every effort to strengthen its judiciary.

Interactive Dialogue on Reports on Cuba, Cambodia and Haiti

NATAYLIA BELLUSOVA, of Liberal International, said that on repeated occasions the Government of Cuba had been asked to join the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The response of the Cuban Government had been silence and its refusal to accept the mandate of the High Commissioner’s Personal Representative to visit the country. Liberal International asked what measures would the Council take with reference to the Cuban Government.

JOHN SUAREZ, of Centrist Democratic International, in a joint statement with Transnational Radical Party, said it had addressed the Government of Cuba several times, appealing to the authorities to respect human rights, and so had Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Cuba had committed itself to respect human rights, and this was not the case. There had been people detained and imprisoned without trial and human rights were also being flagrantly violated. The political prisoners had described the conditions in this prison. Ms. Chanet should say whether such a country could still be a member of the Council.

LOURDES CERVANTES, of Organizasion de Solidaridad de los Pueplos de Africa, Asia y America Latina, asked why once again Cuba should be examined by the Council. Cuba had been a victim of the United States that had killed many people. It was also suffering from chronic economic scarcity because of the economic embargo imposed by the United States. Cuba was always defending its independence and sovereignty against the aggression coming from the United States.

CAROLINA AMADOR, of Federacion de Mujeres Cubanas, said that the report had nothing to do with human rights in Cuba, but had to do with the policy of double standards and the chronic effort of the Government of the United States to continue imposing an anti-Cuban policy in Geneva. The women of Cuba, representing 47 percent of the active work force would not allow the situation of human rights in Cuba to be put into question.

YVONNE PEREZ GUTIERREZ, of National Union of Jurists of Cuba, said the Union had hoped for progress, but it had become clear that the same thing was being seen here in the Council, under a different title. The report of Ms. Chanet was the same as the earlier one, it just had a different title, and continued to aim to destroy a political system. The United Nations Government was continuing to ignore the United Nations resolutions and the calls of the international community with regards to Guantanamo. Justice should be given for those Cubans in prison in the United States. The change from a Commission to a Council did not make human rights protection better respected.

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, in a joint statement with World Peace Council, said that with a clear purpose of destroying Cuba, the United States had continued its aggression against that small country by imposing economic sanction for more than 40 years. It had refused selling food and medicine to Cuba. The report of the Special Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was biased and one-sided.

PAULA SCHRIEFER, of Freedom House, regretted that Cubans could not travel to Geneva to stand before the Council. Freedom House thanked the President for this opportunity to speak on behalf of hundred of thousands of “North Korean” victims of Kim Jong II’s dictatorial rule. Over the past 18 months, Freedom House had advocated for the specific human rights improvement in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. With respect to the rule of law, Freedom House asked if the Expert believed that comprehensive list of reforms, including the direct training of “North Korean” law enforcement personnel to respect human rights, was the best approach to address human rights concerns.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, said it was no secret to many that the defence of the territory of Cuba and the integrity of its right to self-determination had cast a dark shadow on the history of failures to take over the territory, leaving the superpower with a legacy of sometimes embarrassing failures. The highly-charged political manoeuvring that resulted in the polarisation and selectivity was why the Human Rights Council convened: to attempt to put an end to the old battle lines and look at ways of addressing human rights violations in a fair and more consistent process.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Moument contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples (MRAP) in a joint statement with Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, World Young Women's Christian Association and World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Association, said life for the Palestinians in the occupied territory was worse and more dangerous today than ever before. It was shocking that the international community allowed the gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law not only to continue but also to worsen daily.

JULIO AVELLA, of Federacion Sindical Mundial, said that the mandate of Christine Chanet , Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the situation of human rights in Cuba, should be terminated as it represented a policy of double standards targeting developing countries.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06048E