COUNCIL HEARS FROM NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ON REPORTS ON MISSIONS TO LEBANON AND ISRAEL AND OTHER ISSUES

The Human Rights Council this afternoon heard statements from non-governmental organizations on the two reports of its Special Procedures on their missions to Lebanon and Israel as well as on other issues.

Commenting on a joint report by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, and the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, on their mission to Lebanon and Israel, Human Rights Watch said it fell far short of the impartial, independent and comprehensive investigation that Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for. Nord-Sud XXI said the joint report was not objective. United Nations Watch praised the report, saying it was a distinct pleasure to see such a change of method of work in the Council and to see a balanced report which considered the situation in both parties.

Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru” praised the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food on his mission to Lebanon, saying it was objective. Both reports were presented and discussed in the morning meeting (see press release HR/HRC/06/58).

Other issues raised by speakers included the rights of gays and lesbians, the right to water and the defamation of religions.

Sri Lanka exercised the right to reply.

Participating in the discussion on other issues were non-governmental organizations from : People's Decade of Human Rights Education, Coalition of Activists Lesbians-Australia, in a joint statement with Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, in a joint statement with Earthjustice, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Foodfirst Information, Franciscans International, Human Rights Advocates and International Commission of Jurists, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Interfaith International, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Association for World Education in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Human Rights Watch, Nord-South XXI, in a joint statement with Arab NGO Network for Development, Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, in a joint statement with World Peace Council, United Nations Watch.

The Council was scheduled to reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 5 October, to start the concsideration of draft resolutions and decisions. It was later decided that the following meeting would br held on Friday, 6 October, the closing day for this session.


Statements by Non-Governmental Organizations on Initiatives, Issues, Decisions and Resolutions

WALTER LICHEM, of People's Decade of Human Rights Education, said that it was important to keep in mind the very important and fundamental institutional challenge of integrating, not only mainstreaming, the human rights and societal development agendas both in the broader development policies and with regard to security and peace related polices and action. There also was a need to recognize the fact that the human rights agenda had been focusing increasingly on the essential importance of human rights not only for the relation between the State and citizen but even more on the relations between human beings.

KIM VANCE, of Coalition of Activists Lesbians-Australia, in a joint statement with Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network, commended the numerous Special Procedures that had presented extensive evidence of human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, including, but not limited to, death, torture, rape and denial of freedom of expression. Special Procedures should continue to integrate consideration of these violations within their relevant mandates. The Human Rights Council’s success in addressing persistent human rights violations against marginalized groups would be a litmus test of the credibility and effectiveness of the reform process.

NATHALIE MIVELAZ, of Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, in a joint statement with Earthjustice, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Foodfirst Information, Franciscans International, Human Rights Advocates and International Commission of Jurists, said that more than a billion people lacked the most basic water supply and 10,000 people died each day due to diseases causes by a lack of clear water and sanitation. The implementation of the right to water had important practical benefits. It emphasized the need to prioritise available resources on people without basic access to water and on the most vulnerable and marginalized communities. It confirmed that water was a legal entitlement, rather than a mere charity or commodity. The right to water would also empower communities to be fully consulted and to participate in decision-making processes affecting them.

RAYMOND MERAT, of International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said that 17 workers of the French non-governmental organization ‘Action contre la Faim’ were murdered in Sri Lanka. Since all the members of the Council agreed that this type of odious crime against humanitarian organizations was the worst violation of human rights, the Association suggested that a resolution condemning these murders be voted before the end of the session and that the High Commissioner follow the legal proceedings closely.

CHARLES GRAVES, of Interfaith International, said one of the so-called other issues that should be presented continually before the Council was the situation of the Baluchi people vis à vis the Pakistani Government. The complaint of the Baluch was that although they were the original inhabitants of Baluchistan, the Pakistani Government was exploiting their resources, especially gas, and their port of Gwadar, without sufficiently sharing the resources with the local Baluch population. The Pakistani Human Rights Commission had raised this issue. Giving the epithet of terrorist to the Baluch did not truly describe the situation.

ROY BROWN, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, said that with reference to A/HRC/2/L.25 concerning incitement to racial and religious hatred, such a resolution should include language that deplored the use of religion to justify or incite any form of violence and hatred. The Union urged members of the Council to give due consideration to their recommendations that would significantly improve the wording of any future resolution on combating defamation of religion.

DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, said that on two earlier occasions, the Association had raised the question of “defamation of religions”, asking the three Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion, freedom of expression and racism to request the Council to condemn all who killed or called upon others to kill, terrorize or use violence in the name of God or religion. Was there not a grave risk that silence here and now on this major issue might be construed by some as acquiescence in this defamation. If appeals on issues like the killing in the name of Allah, crimes of genocide in Darfur and the Iranian President’s repeated statement that Israel should be “wiped off the map” went unheeded, was there not a risk that the Council might out-commission the Commission?

ANGELA C.WU, of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said regarding the resolution on incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance, the defamation of religions could not be explored without consideration for the fundamental rights of religious expression and free speech. Anti-conversion and anti-defamation laws had proliferated in response to the outcry of religious communities that found offence at the free expression of others. As a diverse body, the Council could appreciate the importance of critical dialogue. There could be no freedom to search for the truth where anti-defamation laws criminalized issues based on whether a person of one religion took offence at the expression of another.


Right of Reply

O. AMEER AJWAD (Sri Lanka), in a right of reply, said that with reference to a non-governmental organization which raised the killing of 17 humanitarian workers in Sri Lanka, the Government had condemned the incident and Australian forensic workers were now in the country to assist the inquiry in this regard.


Statements by Non-Governmental Organizations on the Two Reports on Missions to Lebanon and Israel

PEGGY HICKS, of Human Rights Watch, said Human Rights Watch welcomed the report of the four Special Rapporteurs and the work of the investigators into Israeli violations during the recent conflict. However, these efforts fell far short of the impartial, independent and comprehensive investigation that Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for. The research conducted by Human Rights Watch showed that both the Israel Defence Forces and Hezbollah had committed widespread violations of the laws of war, and that those violations amounted in a number of cases to war crimes. The seriousness of the violations committed demanded an independent and comprehensive Commission of Inquiry similar to the investigations set up in the Balkans and in Darfur.


MOHAMMED SAFA, of Nord-South XXI, in a joint statement with Arab NGO Network for Development, said the report of the four Special Rapporteurs had been very surprising. There was a Lebanese network against Israeli crimes, which contained many organizations, and their report would be submitted to the Council. The joint report was not objective, and sought to hide many of the events that were even seen on the media, including crimes against Lebanese civilians. The hundreds of declarations by the Israeli military should have been included in the report, such as the intent to completely eradicate villages in Southern Lebanon. An international tribunal for those responsible in Israel should be created, and Israel should be made to pay compensation. The United States should have stopped the war.

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, in a joint statement with World Peace Council, said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food on his mission to Lebanon was objective. With reference to the conflict in Lebanon, a third of the population had been displaced during the occupation of the country by Israel. Israel had bombed power plants, television stations, and other civilian infrastructure. The military action in Lebanon had serious consequences for peace and security in the region.

HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said that it was rare for the Council to encounter a report such as the one by the four Experts on their mission to Lebanon and Israel. It was a distinct pleasure to see such a change of method of work in the Council and to see a balanced report which considered the situation in both parties. The important aspects of the situation had been stressed. All parties in the conflict should implement the Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1701.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06059E