HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL OPENS SECOND SESSION

The Human Rights Council opened its second session this morning, hearing a message from United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and an address by High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour as well as a series of statements which addressed the situation of human rights in a number of countries.

High Commissioner Louise Arbour, reading out the message of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said the Council was established by a resolution of the General Assembly, but Member States themselves would lay its true foundations, through the decisions they took during these crucial weeks. In particular, they would be discussing the new universal periodic review mechanism and the strengthening of the special procedures – two vital elements of the Council’s work. To reach agreement on these would not be easy. It would require patience and determination. Member States would need to foster an atmosphere, not of confrontation and distrust, but of cooperation and mutual respect. The Member States should not disappoint the hopes of humanity.

Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, President of the Human Rights Council, wished to take the opportunity to recall the commitment that each and every member had undertaken whilst seeking membership of the Council, to work to strengthen the system, to work for the victims of human rights violations in all circumstances and all places, and it was important to bear in mind these purposes while starting the work. There should be a collective sense of commitment to the cause to make progress. There should be promotion of an extensive and respectful debate, with innovation whenever it was necessary with regards to methods of work, but practices and procedures that had proved useful should not be abandoned.

Ms. Arbour said migration was a pressing issue of international concern on which progress was urgently needed. Violence, depravation and human rights abuses triggered migratory flows to the real or imagined lands of plenty. But such factors played an even greater role in the forced flight of people within countries devastated by conflict, or in their desperate exodus to neighbouring States that were likely unable to provide them with minimal security. This often occurred because the international community’s action was either unforthcoming or hamstrung. The deteriorating situation in Darfur stood out as a tragic reminder of such protection failures. In Iraq, despite positive developments, the human rights situation remained alarming with a break down in law and order. The situation in Sri Lanka had also flared up again and scores of extra-judicial killings continued. In Nepal, significant positive developments had taken place and the declaration of a mutual cease-fire and the beginning of a peace process gave hope that the conflict may be ending.

Speaking this morning were the representatives of Pakistan for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Holy See, Peru, Canada, Sudan, Finland for the European Union, Switzerland, Sri Lanka, Cuba, Iraq, Nepal, Colombia, Republic of Korea, Palestine, Indonesia, Jordan, the Philippines, Argentina, the United States, Bangladesh, and Azerbaijan.

Also speaking were representatives of Pax Romana, Amnesty International, the Colombian Commission of Jurists, and International Service for Human Rights Organizations.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 3 p.m., when the Council will listen to the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Working Group of Experts on people of African descent, and the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, present their reports, and this will be followed by an interactive dialogue.

Statements

LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, reading out the message of KOFI ANNAN, Secretary-General of the United Nations, said that the Secretary-General had recalled that this time last year, Heads of State and Government took the remarkable step of deciding to create a new Human Rights Council, to promote universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner. They looked to the Council to give voice to the voiceless victims of abuses throughout the world. Today, the Council was meeting to pursue the task of reforming and investigating the United Nations human rights machinery. The Council was established by a resolution of the General Assembly, but its Member States would lay its true foundations, through the decisions they took during these crucial weeks. In particular, the Council would be discussing the new universal periodic review mechanism and the strengthening of the special procedures – two vital elements of the Council’s work. To reach agreement on these would not be easy. It would require patience and determination. The Council would need to foster an atmosphere, not of confrontation and distrust, but of cooperation and mutual respect.

Mr. Annan’s message said the founding resolution of the Council explicitly recognized the importance of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity, and of eliminating double standards and politicization. In the Council’s inaugural session, and again in the Special Session it held in July, the Council was rightly concerned with the tragic events in the Middle East. He trusted the Council would focus the same vigilance on violations and abuses wherever they may occur. At the present time, he felt he must draw attention especially to those to which the people of Darfur were being subjected, and which threatened to get event worse in the near future.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA (Mexico), President of the Human Rights Council, said the second session of the Council was beginning this morning, and he did not intend to speak in anyway addressing details, but he wished to take the opportunity to recall the commitment that each and every member had undertaken whilst seeking membership to the Council to work to strengthen the system, to work for the victims of human rights violations in all circumstances and all places, and it was important to bear in mind these purposes while starting the work. There should be a collective sense of commitment to the cause to make progress. The programme should allow for dealing substantively with all matters that had been handed down by the Commission. A lot of reports would be examined, and these should have been examined in March last year, and this was why it was urgent for the Human Rights Council to take them up. In many cases, there would be updates to the reports, and delegations would be able to respond to these.

There would also be opportunities to gauge the progress in consultations on establishing new mechanisms. There would be an opportunity to follow that process between the second and third sessions, and an opportunity to contribute to the discussion which had been taking place. Substantive analysis of human rights issues would be combined with constitutional architecture. This would allow the Human Rights Council to work the process of transition, which was a process which should be fully understood. There should be self-discipline, and there was a need to act with moderation when approaching tasks that were moving in a certain direction, and also there was a need for specific impact in the field. There was a need to not prejudge any of the exercises currently underway, such as the review of the mandates. There had been decisions in the first session, such as that concerning mandates being extended for a year. Issues that required urgent attention and practical solutions should not be neglected.

An extensive and respectful debate should be promoted, with innovation whenever it was necessary with regards to methods of work, Mr. de Alba said, but practices and procedures that had proved useful should not be abandoned. The process would be mainly within the framework of interactive dialogues, which had in the past produced satisfactory results. All should be objective and responsible, as this would allow for the building of a stage which would allow the Council to perform, and to do so whenever it could in a manner which achieved consensus. Seeking consensus would be adopted as a working method. He hoped he could rely on all members in that regard.

LOUISE ARBOUR, High Commissioner for Human Rights, said she would have an opportunity later in the session to update the Council on the situation in the field, and would also introduce the range of reports that had been left unaddressed by the Commission. These would provide substantive continuity, along with the reports of the Special Procedures. The forthcoming adoption of the draft Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would be new milestone in the pursuit of substantive equality and as a human rights community, there was every reason to rejoice in the explicit connection which this new instrument made between needs and rights.

Migration was another pressing issue of international concern on which progress was urgently needed. The High Commissioner said she had participated last week in New York in the high-level dialogue on international migration and development. The inextricable connection of migration with human rights had yet to permeate the discussion and policy-making. The International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers, which offered the most comprehensive framework, suffered from a very low level of ratification, and all members of the Council that had not yet done so should ratify it and encourage other Governments to follow this example.

Violence, depravation and human rights abuses triggered migratory flows to the real or imagined lands of plenty. But such factors played an even greater role in the forced flight of people within countries devastated by conflict, or in their desperate exodus to neighbouring States that were likely unable to provide them with minimal security, let alone with adequate shelter and other means of survival. This often occurred because the international community’s action was either unforthcoming or hamstrung. The deteriorating situation in Darfur stood out as a tragic reminder of such protection failures. Members of the Security Council had urged the belligerents to protect civilians, in particular women. A peace agreement had been agreed upon in May, and yet the situation had steadily deteriorated. Humanitarian access was more restricted than ever, and despite the peace agreement, human rights violations were perpetrated on a large scale by Government forces and their associated militia, as well as by rebel groups. The level of sexual violence continued to rise, and no progress was being made to hold anybody accountable for these or other crimes.

Ms. Arbour said the Government had refused the international assistance that the Security Council deemed essential for the protection of civilians in Darfur, and in the face of this, there was a need for unflinching accountability. The International Criminal Court (ICC) should be allowed to exercise its mandate in this regard, and the international community should remind the Government of Sudan that its cooperation with the ICC was not optional. Such cooperation should include unfettered access for exhaustive investigations to be carried out in Darfur, and for testimony to be collected freely, and that witnesses could come forward without fear of retribution.

Violent ethnic strife was not unique to Sudan - it affected many countries, looming large over progress towards peace and security and undermining fundamental human rights. Iraq was a point in case. The Government’s commitment to national reconciliation had recently been reinforced, with plans to address human rights abuses of the past. Despite these positive developments, the human rights situation remained alarming, with a break down in law and order, extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, arbitrary detentions and torture, among other things. It was paramount that the Government of Iraq, political parties, religious and tribal leaders and civil society worked together to bridge the divides in the country, and the security of all civilians should be addressed as a priority.

The situation in Sri Lanka had also flared up again, involving an increasing number of civilians. Scores of extra-judicial killings continued. Restrictions on humanitarian access had been imposed by both sides, and there were grave breaches of human rights and humanitarian law. Significant positive developments had taken place in Nepal, Ms. Arbour said, and the declaration of a mutual cease-fire and the beginning of a peace process gave hope that the conflict may be ending. The human rights situation had improved significantly.

In all instances of raging or unresolved conflict, as well as fragile transitions to peace, it was readily apparent that a range of factors undermined hopes for stability and development. Expectations around the Council’s willingness to comprehensively address these challenges required an answer, as well as the support of all United Nations Member States. A considerable amount of effort had already been given to drawing the contours of the universal periodic review. Undoubtedly, a working consensus on this issue would be found, but ultimately, it would be the willingness of countries under review to submit to scrutiny which would show its effectiveness. The Council needed to respond innovatively through preventative action. The Human Rights Council should be equipped to seize itself of perilous situations, as well as long-neglected conditions, and to intervene to defuse them before they tilted for the worst or escalated into full-scale brutality or irreparable damage. Factors fuelling disempowerment and vulnerability demanded preventive vigilance by the Council and remedial initiative. Poverty, discrimination, impunity and lack of accountability fell into this category, as well as torture, incitement to hatred, weak, and corrupt institutions and Governments. The Council should face this reality with determination and fairness.

Masood Khan (Pakistan speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, OIC), said that the Council was in a formative and transitional phase. In that sense, the Organization of Islamic Conference was intent in creating a constructive atmosphere so that the Council would not slide back to the practices of double standards and politicization that brought down the Commission on Human Rights. It was against this backdrop that the Council would consider reports of the Special Procedures and their recommendations. The Organization of Islamic Conference would participate in the dialogue, and expected these reports and their operative parts to be handled carefully so as not to politicise the Council or prejudice the work of the Working Group on the Review of Mandates.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference would recommend dealing with subjects covered by the Special Procedures on an ad hoc basis rather than as omnibus texts. In addition, in order to avoid problems the Council had already encountered during its first session, adopted resolutions by the Council had to become operational, notwithstanding reservations of a minority. There were two pending issues from the previous session, namely, a) substantive consideration of the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: and b) reports by the relevant Special Rapporteurs and the High Commissioner on the defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred and its recent manifestations, particularly its implications for Article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The statement of Pope Benedict XVI referring to the Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, had hurt the sensibilities of the Muslims all over the world. The OIC was reassured that the Pope had expressed regrets, distanced himself from the text that caused offence, and renewed his invitation for a frank and sincere dialogue with mutual respect. Still the statement was regrettable as it showed a lack of understanding, albeit inadvertent, about Islam and its Prophet. The OIC requested that time be set aside this week to discuss religious tolerance and related issues.

SILVANO TOMASI (Holy See) said religion, not for the first time, took on a significant role in human affairs, and that was not without some ambivalence by various segments of society. A wise approach seemed to require a thoughtful balance between respect for faith convictions and freedom of expression on the one hand, and, on the other, a sincere respect for the human rights of every individual believer and faith community in whatever cultural and religious context they might live in. In recent days, there had been a rather articulate public reaction to some expression used by the Holy Father Benedict XVI. His Holiness spoke at the University of Regensburg in an academic context and with one clear objective: while recognizing the positive aspects of modernity, to enlarge the horizon of reason to include in it the dimension of religion, and thereby, to start a universal dialogue based on reason, in view of defending the value of humanity’s religious cultures, including Islam. Yesterday, the Pope had reconfirmed that the aspect of the quotation from the medieval text referring to the Founder of the Islamic religion did not in anyway expressed his personal thought. In fairness, the text of the Pope’s university lecture should be read in its entirety.

MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS (Peru) said as the second session began, this was a first opportunity to endow the Council with substantive decisions which would outline its structure and define its commitment, and it was in the first substantive session that negotiations would take place to endow the Council with content. This was an opportunity to think about its position in history. The Council was designed, in the practice of the protection of human rights, to replace the Commission, in order to strengthen the United Nations’ capacity to protect, prevent, and do away with impunity with regards to human rights violations. The Council was a sui generis international organization, in which the relations were between States and human beings who enjoyed inalienable rights, and States who should guarantee the enjoyment of these rights. Whilst defining mechanisms and procedures for the Council, the Member States should be aware that its primary task was to create international capacity to restore the human rights of those whose rights had been violated by the States themselves.

The Council should be the forum in which the voices of victims should be heard, and this should give force to the United Nations system of protection. Whilst preventing violations and protecting human rights, this should be done without double standards and politicisation, protecting the principles of universality and equal treatment. The Council’s major task would be to reconcile greater protection of victims and non-selectivity through decisions, and reinforce immediacy and opportunity. Without early-warning systems, some violations would not be prevented. All should work together to that end.
PAUL MEYER (Canada) thanked the High Commissioner for the update on the work of the Council, in particular relating to equality and enjoyment of human rights. Canada was supportive of the strategic plan that had a focus at the national level, which was aimed at supporting national efforts in the implementation of human rights. Country offices were most effective in carrying out human rights obligations. In that sense, Canada had increased earmarked funds in this area. Genuine commitment by States was essential to implement human rights obligations. Canada had engaged in a constructive dialogue and had extended numerous invitations to the Special Procedures to visit the country, and their observations had been welcomed. Monitoring presence in the field was important to provide protection and guarantee accountability. Canada wondered if the Office of the High Commissioner was considering expanding its presence at the country level and whether the Council could be of assistance in that respect.

OMAR DAHAB MOHAMED (Sudan) said Sudan was always willing to contribute to human rights. Despite its difficulties, Sudan had been endeavouring to implement the peace accords signed in Abuja. The calls made by the United Nations, the African Union and the Arab League for peaceful resolution of the crisis had been welcomed by Sudan. The Security Council had issued warnings to those groups refusing to implement the peace agreement. The armed groups in Darfur were the only culprits and were making obstacles to the peace process. In addition, Sudan was making efforts to implement the peace agreement signed between the Government and the armed groups. However, it was lacking financial resources to fully implement the agreements.

VESA HIMANEN (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the dialogue with the High Commissioner had proved to be at the first session a very positive element. The agreement on the Convention on the Rights of Peoples with Disabilities was a positive step, and all States should ratify it. Non-discrimination was at the core of the European Union’s policy, in particular with regard to discrimination based on sexual orientation. There was a need for increased understanding of this issue in the context of human rights. Among encouraging developments and examples, the European Union supported the continuing strong role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia. The European Union underlined the importance of extending the mandate of the Office in the current form, as this would be important in ensuring continuity and predictability.

The signing of the memorandum of understanding between the Office and the Government of Uganda was a positive sign of that Government’s commitment to reinforcing and promoting human rights. The European Union also supported the monitoring and reporting mandate of the Office in Afghanistan, and asked for further information in this regard. The European Union welcomed the announcement of the President of Sri Lanka to invite an international mission to investigate the situation in certain respects in that country. The European Union attached great importance to the Council’s mandate to contribute to prevent humanitarian emergencies, and was concerned about the continuing situation in Darfur, including the bombing of villages.

BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) said Switzerland was concerned about the deterioration of the human rights situation in a number of countries, in particular Sudan. All parties to the conflict should respect their international humanitarian obligations as well as human rights, and Switzerland called upon all parties to do all possible to protect the civilian population and guarantee the safety and protection of humanitarian staff. The parties to the conflict should resume negotiations to find a political solution to their differences. The dramatic impact on the civilian population of armed conflict between the forces of the Sri Lankan Government and the forces of the LTTE was also of serious concern. The parties should cease fighting and resume negotiations. The Government of Sri Lanka was congratulated for its determination to combat impunity, as this, along with the respect for human rights, were a special duty for the Member States.

The extension of the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia was welcomed, and it was important to maintain a strong presence there, and the Government should continue to make use of its services. With regards to Nepal, the report of the High Commissioner was interesting, and efforts to promote and protect human rights there were welcomed and deserved support. Switzerland wished to know what would be the involvement of the Office in Nepal after the expiry of its mandate.

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) recalled the special challenges posed in Sri Lanka as a country affected both by conflict and by unprecedented natural disaster, such as the tsunami of December 2004. In coping with these challenges, the experience had brought out the vulnerability of women and children as being particularly affected in such situations. Therefore, the Council could count on Sri Lanka to support any initiatives to bring the issues of violence against women and the rights of children into sharper focus in this body.

It was important to keep abreast here in Geneva of the initiatives in New York to bring to the forefront the issue of children and armed conflict. In that respect, Sri Lanka had been associated for many years as an affected country where the LTTE had been engaged in forcible conscription of children. Sri Lanka was committed to the protection of human rights while combating terrorism. In this regard, President Mahinda Rajapakse had announced the establishment of an international independent group of eminent persons to act as observers of investigations into such allegations. Sri Lanka remained fully committed to the ceasefire and was appreciative of the efforts by the international community to resume peace talks. It noted however that the LTTE had always used peace talks as a period to enhance its military capabilities.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said it was worth mentioning the agreements made by the Heads of States of the Non-Aligned Movement that ended yesterday in Havana. Among the agreements was to consider civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights on equal basis. Promoting capacity building was essential in order to enable all countries to reinforce their respect for human rights and dignity of human beings. The Human Rights Council should take into account the needs of States for capacity building. The objective of the Council should also be to avoid selectivity in its approach. The agenda of the Council should promote the elimination of extreme poverty and encourage the right to development. The reform of the various treaty bodies should also be done in full cooperation with States parties to those treaties. The Havana Declaration by the Non-Aligned Movement should be reflected in the work of the Council.

BAHA H. AL-SHIBIB (Iraq) said with regards to the statement of the High Commissioner on Iraq, she had been very objective and realistic. The Government of Iraq was making enormous efforts to grapple with the violations of human rights, but there were constant killings by criminals, in particular foreigners who had infiltrated the country and carried out suicide attacks against civilians and police officers. Religion was used as an excuse for this, and radio and satellite channels in neighbouring countries incited hatred and murder, sabotaging efforts to achieve national reconciliation.

Iraq’s people were silent today - hundreds were falling victims to terrorism, and it was necessary for the international community to support Iraq’s Government in its efforts to fight terrorism. The international community should confront countries who allowed terrorists to infiltrate Iraq, and the regimes should be exposed, and this duty fell on the shoulders of the Council. Pressure should be brought to bear on all neighbouring countries to put an end to these practices, as they harmed the international community as a whole, and they would be the first victims of terrorism. The people and the Government of Iraq should be helped in this war - the victory over terrorism would contribute to the cause of human rights around the world.

GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal) said Nepal was optimistic about the progress being made in the country. There was a continued dialogue between the Government and the Maoist Movement. People were eager to see a positive outcome from such dialogue and the resolution of the conflict. The Government was confident that the conflict would be resolved soon. The end of the conflict would allow the full enjoyment of human rights by the people. Without the establishment of peace in the country, human rights could not be respected and observed.

CARLOS FRANCO (Colombia) wished to make some clarification with respect to the human rights office present in Colombia. This office had been in the country for many years at the invitation of the Government and Colombia believed that it should remain there. It was important to take stock of the changes that had taken place in the last few years, and the Council should engage in joint thinking with Colombia to find the best way to apply resolutions and decisions of the Council that had already been adopted. Furthermore, Colombia supported efforts to make most effective the work of the Office, increase international cooperation and emphasize the importance of transparency. Colombia was fully supportive of extending the current agreement to keep the human rights office in the country.

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea) said the interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner would provide a balanced analysis that would be of help with the formulation of a balanced human rights agenda. The Republic of Korea was greatly concerned for the situation of human rights in the countries which the High Commissioner had mentioned, and supported the plans to increase the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ presence in the field, and supported efforts to enhance the credibility of the Office. The Office should forge stronger partnerships and relationships with Governments and civil society. The Office had achieved significant results in Nepal.

In addition to increasing presence in the field, the Office should be equipped with the capacity to respond to urgent situations, and should play an important role in protection. The High Commissioner should provide an update on the current situation of implementation of the Action Plan in addressing challenges to human rights, including the establishment of the Rapid Response Unit. The strengthening of the Office was whole-heartedly supported, and the implementation of its mandate in the promotion and protection of human rights for all and the prevention of human rights violations around the globe should be supported by all, in a spirit of partnership, including with the work of the Council. The first principle which should be adhered to in the conduct of the universal periodic review would be its universality, and that it was mandatory to all States. It should be a cooperative mechanism, and should do more than reviewing and criticising, with the main focus on assessing the capacity of each Member State and identifying areas requiring the support of the international community.

MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine) said the High Commissioner had devoted a full page of her statement to the human rights situations in the developing countries. The statement was short of words in mentioning the Israeli practices. Palestine was the victim of a most aggravated form of human rights violations perpetrated by Israel. The High Commissioner should focus on the means to end the occupation. With regard to religious harmony, Palestine thanked the Representative of the Holy See for the explanation he provided to the Council earlier concerning the speech made by the Pope.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said the significant role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be strengthened and made more efficient to be able to respond to the challenges facing it. The adoption of the new Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was welcomed, and this was a new tool for the commitment of the promotion and protection of human rights. The participation of NGOs as observers in the Council was an important element in the promotion and protection of human rights, although States would always be the primary movers in the implementation of these. National Human Rights Institutions attached particular importance to the role of civil society in helping move the promotion and protection of human rights forward.

Indonesia took its commitment to engaging with the Office and the High Commissioner herself very seriously, and collaborated on all human rights issues in a spirit of openness and transparency, and would make constructive inputs and views to assist the High Commissioner and the Office to work effectively for the common cause, namely human rights throughout the world.

MOUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan) said Jordan attached great importance to the protection of human rights everywhere, but it wanted to put emphasis on the situation of civilians, as referred to by the High Commissioner, in Darfur, Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine. With reference to Sudan, Jordan was fully confident that the Government of Sudan would implement the current resolution, which had the support of the League of Arab States.

Jordan welcomed the cease-fire in Sri Lanka as a contribution to the peace process. Jordan believed the Government of Sri Lanka was keen to keep channels of communications open. Furthermore, it was necessary to avoid politicization and selectivity in the work of the Council, and therefore Jordan welcomed the comments by the High Commissioner with relation to the situation of civilians in Darfur and Iraq. Jordan was particularly concerned about the situation of civilians in Lebanon, Palestine and the occupied Arab territories. Jordan welcomed the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry in Lebanon and was awaiting a report from it. Lastly, Jordan asked the High Commissioner whether the situation of civilians in Palestine and Lebanon had deteriorated or improved, as this was of great importance. Jordan would also like the High Commissioner to express her views on religious intolerance, and in particular with reference to discrimination suffered by the Muslim population worldwide.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines) said the Philippines looked forward to the constructive work of the current session in reforming the mechanisms and other issues pertaining to the effective work of the Council. It was looking forward to the adoption during this session of the Convention on the Rights of Disappeared Persons. The issue of rights of migrant workers and their families was also a matter that should be discussed by the Council. In the promotion and protection human rights, preventive measures should be taken with a call for the strengthening of national mechanisms.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the High Commissioner had mentioned the reform process in her statement, and in examining mandates, the Office could play a more active role, engaging in self-assessment in order to avoid overlapping. The gaps and emerging themes should be further examined, and in this, the experience of the High Commissioner herself would be very useful. The prompt operation of the body supervising the Convention against Torture should be examined, and the intentions of the Office in this regard.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said the report of the High Commissioner had been very interesting, and the situation in Darfur was of great concern to the Government of the United States. The growing violence in Sri Lanka was also of concern, and these were only two of the instances of human rights violations that the Council needed to respond to urgently. All shared a duty to respond to the cries of those whose human rights had been violated. The High Commissioner was asked what the Office could do to contribute to the situation in these countries. The universal periodic review, and the review of mandates were of interest to the United States, and the efforts of the High Commissioner in this regard were appreciated.

MUSTAFISUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said the situation of human rights around the world, as reported by the High Commissioner was very interesting, but an update had been expected on the situation in Lebanon and the West Bank. All were for a stronger Human Rights Council which would be able to propagate human rights for all in a non-selective, and impartial manner. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be supported in its efforts for humanity. Some elements should be addressed if human rights were to be universally respected, and these should be examined through constructive dialogue and the cooperation of the countries concerned. The dialogue with the High Commissioner had been a welcome development, and such interaction should continue in the future.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan), endorsing the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, asked about the measures to be taken by the Council in the faithful implementation of resolutions passed by it.

SUNILA ABEYESEKERA, of Pax Romana and Asian Forum, said the concern expressed by the High Commissioner regarding what she had identified as grave breaches of human rights in Sri Lanka today was appreciated. Sri Lanka was one of the most dangerous places for civilians today. Over 200,000 persons had been displaced. The situation had been compounded by restricting access of humanitarian agencies and NGOs to conflict areas. Investigations into human rights abuses had been stalled, reflecting the climate and culture of impunity within the country. There were no avenues for justice and redress for victims of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka today, and there should be an independent international human rights monitoring mechanism. Mechanisms for monitoring and investigating human rights should be institutionalised, with international support.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said the attention drawn to the situation of ongoing gross and systematic violations of human rights in Sudan was welcomed. The Council and its Members should live up to their responsibility and create effective measures to protect the civilian population of Darfur. In Eastern Chad, the patterns that characterised the beginning of the situation in Darfur were being repeated. The Office should assist the Council to ensure that this deteriorating situation was brought to its attention and to that of the international community. Any Commission of Inquiry constituted to investigate the situation in Sri Lanka should be international in nature, for this to be effective.

ANDRES SANCHEZ, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, said the Colombian Commission of Jurists appreciated the maintaining of the human rights office in Colombia which was essential in prompting human rights in the country. Grave and massive human rights violations had been committed in the country by the 40,000 paramilitary personnel, who still continued their acts with impunity.

CHRIS SIDOTI, of International Service for Human Rights Organizations, thanked Indonesia for the comments on participation of non-governmental organizations. While the International Service for Human Rights Organization did not focus on a particular country situation, it welcomed the work of Council focusing on country situations. Lastly, the organization wondered what guidance the High Commissioner could provide to assure the full implementation of human rights in the field.

LOUISE ARBOUR, High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding to the questions and comments, said the presentation of the update and dialogue had been structured with regards to the timetable that had been adopted to govern the session of the Council. One group of interactions later in the month gave an opportunity to go further into detail on the activities of the Office. The later meetings would include a presentation of a report on incitement to religious intolerance, and therefore this issue had not been addressed in her earlier presentation, and it was a similar case with regards to issues that had been raised during the earlier special sessions of the Council.

A report would also be given on the progress with regards to the Office’s efforts with regards to the Commission of Inquiry in Lebanon, which was entirely independent and the master of its own substance. Subsequent reports were entirely within its discretion, and she could not report on the substance of its work, or the process it wished to follow. Between the 11 of August and the 11 of September, the Office had undertaken many tasks that were crucial to the deployment of the Experts in the Commission. The Commissioners had begun to arrive in Geneva for pre-briefings, and to decide how they wished to conduct their work. They planned to travel to Lebanon on September 23 for an initial period of two weeks.

An opportunity would be later in the session when reports were presented to update on many of the country-specific issues that had been raised by various delegates, Ms. Arbour said. At this stage, discussions regarding a monitoring presence in Sri Lanka with regards to the activities of the LTTE had not yet begun. To be effective, a Commission of Inquiry investigating serious reports of human rights violations required unimpeded access to information and the full confidence of both sides of the issue, and thus membership of any investigative body required to be impartial and to have broad powers. On Nepal, there was optimism that the presence of the Office would continue past the expiry of the mandate in Spring 2007. The report prepared for the Commission on Colombia would also be before the Council during the session.

One of the major preoccupations of the Council would be to equip itself adequately with mechanisms to ensure that it could promote and protect human rights, and Ms. Arbour said she was very optimistic with regards to the ongoing discussions on the 1503 procedure, the universal periodic review and others, and that they would ensure that the Council was responsive to critical human rights situations as they unfolded. The Office had an integrated presence in the mission in Sudan and the work that was being done in Darfur was being done in the context of providing assistance to civilians. A lot of progress had been made with regards to the Rapid Response Unit, and this had been instrumental in establishing the Commissions of Inquiry into Lebanon and into Timor-Leste. One of the instruments the Office wanted to put into place was a well-funded contingency fund to support any emergency in this regard.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06036E