HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH SPECIAL ADVISER TO SECRETARY-GENERAL ON PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide. It also heard a statement from the Foreign Minister of the Maldives, and concluded its interactive dialogue with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Juan E. Mendez, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, said the prevention of the genocide was a legal and moral imperative. In reaction to the failure of the recent past and the existence of conspicuous gaps in the capacity of the United Nations to provide early warning, on the tenth anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, the Secretary-General had announced the creation of the post of the Special Advisor involving the United Nations as a whole. Prevention of genocide required early warning based on indicators or warning signs for situations that risked deteriorating.
Mr. Mendez said he would collaborate with the Human Rights Council while he provided early warning reports to the Security Council. He would have regular relations with the Council with regard to country situations so that the Council might take urgent action. He underlined that States were responsible for preventing genocide.
Speaking in the context of the interactive dialogue with the Special Adviser were the representatives of Canada, Finland on behalf of the European Union, Switzerland, Azerbaijan, Argentina, Armenia, Israel and China. The following non-governmental organizations also participated in the debate: International Commission of Jurists, UN Watch and Colombian Commission of Jurists.
The Council also heard an address by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Maldives, Ahmed Shaheed, who said that beyond the picture postcard scenery of white sandy beaches and clear blue lagoons, the Maldives was a real country with real people, real hopes and real concerns. The Maldives had achieved a remarkable level of economic growth and development over the past twenty years. In the area of human rights protection, a number of important steps had been taken, including the ratification, in August, of the First Amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act, strengthening the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives and bringing it into line with the Paris Principles.
In response to comments and questions raised during the interactive dialogue with High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, which started in the morning meeting, Ms. Arbour said among other things that the source of information on the basis of which the assessment was made today of the situation in Darfur was the Council’s very own country Rapporteur on Sudan. On an even more systematic basis, the United Nations Mission in Sudan’s human rights section was present throughout Sudan, with offices in Khartoum, Darfur, and Southern Sudan, with highly experienced human rights officials. The reports that had been released were based on first-hand verified information gathered from testimonies and on-site visits.
Speaking in the context of the interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner were the representatives of the Philippines, the Netherlands, Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador, Poland, Palestine, Iraq, Nepal, Sudan, Haiti, Israel, Australia, Chile, Sweden, Iran, Norway, Egypt, Costa Rica, New Zealand, United States, Venezuela and Paraguay.
Also speaking were representatives from Association for World Education (in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism); Women's International Zionist Organization; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, (in a joint statement with several NGO's1); International Commission of Jurists; United Nations Watch; International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (in a joint statement with Amnesty International); Human Rights Watch; Amnesty International; Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru (in a joint statement with World Peace Council); and Colombian Commission of Jurists.
Algeria, United Kingdom, Canada, China and Iran exercised the right to reply.
The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 30 November, when it will hold a discussion on methods of work and the agenda of the Council.
Interactive Dialogue with High Commissioner for Human Rights
ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines) said the updates provided by the High Commissioner were appreciated, in particular those on Haiti, and note was taken of the need to increase and strengthen the rule of law in that country. On the Universal Periodic Review, as discussed by the High Commissioner in the context of the Council’s architecture and in terms of its role in improving the United Nations human rights architecture as a whole, the Universal Periodic Review should be cooperative in nature and have a clear focus on enhancing States’ capacity to promote and enhance human rights, and should be done in a balanced and non-selective manner. Assistance, in particular technical, should be clearly provided in the context of the Universal Periodic Review, and be related only to Universal Periodic Review activities.
Institution building and a holistic review of mandates and mechanisms should be the principal focus in the initial year of the Council. The Council’s working methods, which would be addressed this week, were an important element of the Council’s architecture. Therefore, a structured agenda for each meeting of the Council and clear rules of procedure were required.
BOUDEWIJN J.VAN EENENNAAM (the Netherlands) said that the Netherlands was concerned about the escalation of violence and human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. The Netherlands noted with satisfaction the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry and hoped that a clear reliable mechanism would be set up. It was an important step to combating impunity. Turning to the situation in Darfur, the Netherlands believed that the Human Rights Council had specific responsibility to address the current situation. It would support any credible peace process. The Government of Sudan had a primary responsibility in addressing the human rights situation in Darfur, and bringing to justice those responsible for violations of human rights.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said Argentina welcomed the periodic briefing and updating of the human rights situation by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The process of the review of mandates and the Universal Periodic Review procedure should be supported with adequate financial availability. When the General Assembly adopted the report of the Council, the availability of budgetary support should be ensured. Argentina would support all measures towards the strengthening of the Universal Periodic Review procedure.
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said there was no doubt that there was a clear line between the Northern and Southern countries. The rich opulent countries were on one side, and the poor and marginalized countries on the other, in a structural gap that was worsening. It was not intangible – it was a question of hunger, with millions wasted on superfluous luxury before the eyes of those who were suffering. The Council should not ignore this. The rich, powerful countries had been united in the Commission not to promote human rights, but to preserve their insulting privileges. Notwithstanding, all could stand together, working for the construction of a Council which protected human rights and their universality for all. This required doing away with selectivity, double standards, and prioritisation.
The old vices of the defunct Commission should be done away with. Hyper-criticism of the current process came from those who sought to impose once again their control through controlling the Council. Never before had the international community been so close to establishing a body which ignored the bad practices of the past. If anything wrong had been done so far, it was to have continued to work with the same old mechanisms that had been handed down by the Commission, without having reviewed or rationalised these for the new Council. Another mistake was in not clearly defining the agenda and having a programme based on it. Cuba undertook to fill this void as soon as possible. There was a need for a dialogue, and to do away with politicised confrontations. Resolutions on countries that were politically motivated had no place in the Council. There should be a new system, based on the fight for equal treatment.
GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador) said that Ecuador noted with satisfaction the statement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, in which she stressed the human rights component in the phenomenon of migration. With reference to Haiti, Ecuador agreed on the direct link between poverty and human rights. With reference to the human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territory, Ecuador endorsed all efforts to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict. On Darfur, Ecuador supported holding a special session of the Human Rights Council to address this question, and bring to justice those responsible for gross violations of human rights. Ecuador acknowledged the importance of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, and would continue to support the efforts of the Human Rights Council to deal with this matter
ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) said Poland had expressed its concern over the dramatic human rights situation and the atrocities committed in Darfur. The issue of gross and systematic human rights violations should be addressed in accordance to the relevant Security Council resolutions. Poland supported the call of the Secretary-General to hold a special session of the Human Rights Council on Darfur. The Universal Periodic Review procedure and the Special Procedures were two instruments and one should not replace the other. Poland fully supported and cooperated with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine) said the statement made by the High Commissioner on her visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory was in line with the statement made in May in which she attempted to balance the unbalanced, quoting the victims of occupation as well as the occupying power. Her statement should have given justice to the Palestinian people who were suffering the harsh Israeli occupation, while impunity violated their rights. These violations were not spelt out clearly, and the Israeli settlements which punctuated the West Bank were not even mentioned. Jerusalem was mentioned without mentioning that it was occupied. The statement of the High Commissioner was not a fair statement.
The Separation Wall was referred to as a barrier, and the speaker asked whether the Berlin Wall was called the Berlin Barrier. The statement of the High Commissioner failed to even refer to the International Court of Justice opinion that affirmed the illegality of the Israeli apartheid wall, and the division of the West Bank into separate cantons. Today was the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, the day of the partition of Palestine in 1947, which led to the creation of Israel, an aggressive occupying power. There should be international protection of the Palestinian people, and the international community and the High Commissioner should assist in this. All were reminded that were it not for the resistance of occupation, all would now be under occupation, and Palestine was just copying them, and wanted independence. Palestine had talked and negotiated with Israel for more than 60 years, with no results, and had the right to independence.
OMER BERZINJI (Iraq) thanked the High Commissioner for having recognized the seriousness of Iraq to address the human rights situation. She also referred to the poor economic situation and appealed for the international community to help Iraq to combat terrorism. Iraq asked for the international community to assist it in its efforts to fight terrorism. The meeting of Iraqi and Iranian officials offered proof of the seriousness of Iraq to seek peace and security in Iraq and the whole region. Iraq was also working towards national reconciliation, and to promote the participation of all parties in the country. Iraq pointed out that since 2003, Iraq had been facing terrorism. That was why Iraq asked for assistance to extricate the country from this scourge.
GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal) said the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement would enable the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission with the view to investigating human rights violations that occurred during the conflict. The agreement was now starting to be implemented with concrete measures being taken to reinforce the necessary institutions. After 12 years of conflict, the people of Nepal deserved peace and reconciliation. Nepal thanked all the countries that were helping it to consolidate peace and to realize reconciliation.
MUSTAFA FARAH (Sudan) said there was an intentional campaign to offer false information and inaccurate data to the Council about Sudan. International resolutions were based on this information, and these did not help countries and States, but undermined them. The information about hundreds and thousands of killed was untrue. The Government would like evidence with regards to those killed by the militia. The Peace Agreement had led to very positive changes. The pull-out of Governmental forces and the armed groups that were most influential in the field had led to a decrease in mutual violence, and it was difficult to believe that the security situation in the field was worse than in 2004. Those who were responsible for the acts of violence were those who had refused the ceasefire, and the High Commissioner had not mentioned this.
The African Union had the greatest role in the area. The food rations offered to people in Darfur and the increased levels of nutrition showed that things were not as had been alleged. International statistics could be shown to this access. Internally displaced persons had better access to water than those in other areas. The remaining conflicts would be resolved later in the year. United Nations investigations had proved that the rumours on rape were not true. The Government had drawn up a well-established plan to eliminate violence against women, and this was being implemented with the help of the international community. The High Commissioner should not interfere in the work of the International Criminal Court.
JEAN-CLAUDE PIERRE (Haiti) said Haiti shared the sentiments expressed by the High Commissioner with reference to poverty affecting the country, and the need for the international community to help address this urgent matter. Haiti agreed on the importance of setting up a follow-up mechanism for the reform of the police forces, but lack of financial resources had made it difficult for Haiti to implement these measures. This question highlighted how vital international assistance was for the development of Haiti. Haiti thanked Canada for its support in strengthening Haiti’s democratic institutions.
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said that the visit of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to Israel and the Palestinian territories would open the eyes of the Council – the eyes which had remained closed since the inception of the new Council. The visit had permitted her to see firsthand that human suffering was not the monopoly of either side, that human distress was equal on both sides of the divide, and also that placing blame on one side only was a distortion of reality. If the Council would like to gain legitimacy and credibility, then it should be equitable. If the Council sought the truth, that it should have a non-selective approach. The visit of the High Commissioner was coincidently in parallel with a significant development between the Israelis and the Palestinians, raising again the torch of hope. The cease-fire established at the beginning of this week was holding – not without some violations – but still giving the hope that even more positive developments might yet be on the horizon.
The Prime Minister of Israel had extended a hand of peace to the Palestinians. A hand of cooperation and a way to end the conflict. It was a call to the Palestinian people, who stood on the threshold of a historic crossroads. A different path, which offered a chance for a different future. A path leading to peaceful coexistence, tranquillity and mutual trust. He hoped that the Palestinians would reciprocate by grasping Israel’s extended hand of peace, that they would stop the vicious cycle of violence and that they would work towards realistic solutions that would lead both to a permanent and durable peace.
CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) said the report was an important contribution to the work of the Council, and could only inform and advance its deliberations. The message of the Secretary-General had also been very useful and encouraging. On the situation in Sudan and Sri Lanka, the establishment of an independent human rights mechanism was supported. The work of the High Commissioner was supported, and it was hoped it would have a positive effect on the international human rights environment. It was very clear that the situation on the ground in Darfur was not improving. The High Commissioner had clearly identified the responsibility of the Government of Sudan, militias and rebel groups in this regard. Her observations on the continuing tragedy reinforced that made by Jan Egeland to the Security Council, which made clear that the obligation of the Government of Sudan to protect the human rights of all its inhabitants were not being met.
Australia was disappointed that the Human Rights Council had failed to address the serious situation of human rights in Darfur. The resolution adopted did not recognise the serious situation, did not address the critical issue of impunity, and did not protect the people of Darfur. The call for a special session on the situation of Darfur was supported, and it should take place soon, paving the way for the Council to continue to deal with the situation regularly in the future.
JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said Chile appreciated the attention given by the United Nations High Commissioner to the situation in Haiti. Chile shared her concerns over the violations of human rights, including civil, political as well as economic and social rights, and supported her call for Haiti to make special efforts to reform the judicial system. With reference to the High Commissioner’s visit to Israel and Palestine, Chile expressed its concern over the grave situation there and indicated the responsibility of the principal local and extra-regional actors to bringing a solution to the question. Chile had supported holding special sessions on Palestine and Lebanon, and would continue to support the efforts of the Human Rights Council to address urgent and grave human rights situations wherever they arose, including the current situation in Darfur. Chile stressed the importance for the Council to realize its fundamental objective of promoting human rights and protecting victims objectively, and also keeping in mind the universality of human rights.
ELISABET BORSIIN BONNIER (Sweden) said that the violence and flagrant human rights violations in Darfur should be stopped. The situation in Darfur was a grave concern to the Government of Sweden and the Council should take all actions to deter the ongoing human rights violations. The international community should be able to offer hope to the victims. The Council should take seriously the suggestions of the Secretary-General to hold a special session of the Council on Darfur. Sweden would concur to his suggestion and would contribute to its realization.
MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran), speaking in a right to reply, said that there was a campaign of disinformation on the statements of the President of Iran. The statements of Israel and some non-governmental organizations referred in a selective manner and misquoted the words of the President of Iran. The President had clearly distinguished between a regime that was based on oppression, expansionism and bloodshed not only against the Palestinian people, but also against the Muslim and Arab people in the Middle East. He did not refer to the Jewish people, but to the regime. This regime should be removed, but by democratic means, not genocide, through elections with the participation of the people of Palestine, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and anyone living in Palestine.
The situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was tantamount to crimes against humanity, and the criminal acts of the occupying acts should not be compared to the sporadic acts of a people resisting occupation. The report of the High Commissioner was not fully balanced, and Iran hoped the next report would be, whilst reflecting the emerging situation on the ground. The High Commissioner should elaborate on her visit to Canada and the situation of the indigenous community there.
ASTRID HELLE AJAMAY (Norway) noted with satisfaction the remarks by the Secretary-General calling on the Council to hold a special session in Darfur, and shared the concern of the High Commissioner over the international component of the crisis and its impact on regional stability. Regular reporting by the High Commissioner, the Secretary-General, the Security Council and the African Union constituted the basis for their assessment. Norway had been a strong supporter of the peace negotiations in Darfur. The Addis Ababa Agreement was a key instrument and Norway urged all parties to abide by it.
SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt) said for decades, the occupying power, Israel, had been perpetrating gross and systematic violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in blatant defiance of United Nations resolutions. Reports by the United Nations and the Special Procedures provided clear evidence of Israel’s indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force against Palestinians civilians and civilian targets, and to its deliberate attacks resulting in the destruction of homes, civilian property and infrastructure, and incurring a devastating impact on Palestinian civilians, particularly women and children. The humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories was appalling according to all reports. Only few weeks ago, Israel’s military shelling led to the massacre of Beit Hanoun where 19 innocent civilians, mostly children, were killed and 60 injured. Against that dismal backdrop, the statement of the High Commissioner appeared, to say the least, as deficient and lacking.
LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Costa Rica) said the importance of the report of the High Commissioner should be acknowledged, in particular the result of her missions to Haiti and to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Her concern on the grave deterioration of economic and social rights in Haiti was shared, and the international community should contribute in solidarity with the people of Haiti. It was hoped Haiti would continue to progress towards the full realisation of its civil society.
With regards to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, peace worldwide was dependent on peace in the Middle East, and all countries involved should unconditionally support talks for a peaceful settlement. Cessation of violence would contribute to observance of human rights in the region for the Palestinian people and the people of Israel. The appeal made for the Council to work creatively and constructively to promote the strengthening of human rights was supported. The violations of human rights reported by the High Commissioner as taking place worldwide were noted with concern.
WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) said New Zealand reaffirmed its support of the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. A culture of impunity remained in some areas, and New Zealand called for an end to that, including ending gender violence. With reference to Universal Periodic Review, New Zealand was looking forward for input from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, on how she envisaged a robust and effective mechanism for the protection of human rights.
WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said the suffering of the victims of the ongoing violence in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza attested to the urgent need to press forward and reinvigorate peace efforts in the Middle East. That remained a key goal of the United States Government, one which was being promoted this week through senior-level travel to the region. The Road Map with its principles remained the only agreed international basis upon which to move forward towards the goal of two states: Israel and Palestine, living side by side, in peace and security. It was crucial that the Palestinians implement the ceasefire fully, and that they be supported in their efforts to do so, lest one returned to indiscriminate attacks on victims in Israel by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations. The United States urged the Palestinian Authority Government to renounce terror, accept the Quartet principles, and become a legitimate partner for peace.
The United States urged the Government of Sudan to shoulder its primary obligation to protect all individuals against violations – and to prevent the use of rape as a weapon against the women of Darfur and the unlawful recruitment of child soldiers.
GABRIEL SALAZAR (Venezuela) said the message of the Secretary-General and the statement by the High Commissioner were taken note of. The Arab-Israeli question should be dealt with in an impartial way. It was now, with the new Council, that effective action could be ensured in compliance with international law. In Darfur, there had been progress, and this should be acknowledged. The grouping of developing countries was a positive contribution for the future functioning of the Human Rights Council, and there was a possibility for enhancing diversity and the consideration thereof. States should ensure the universality of human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development.
The innovation of the Universal Periodic Review was supported, and this was an exercise in transparency and an attempt at cooperation and dialogue to enhance national solidarity, eliminating politicisation and double standards. Human rights violations took place not just because of States, but were also perpetrated by non-State actors. The imbalance between the situation of Sudan and Iraq and how much attention they were given should be repaired. The functioning and work of the Human Rights Council should not be criticised at this early date.
UNA ALFU DE REYES (Panama) said Panama believed that there should be further cooperation from Member States in the implementation of human rights obligations, in particular relating to the rights of women and children. The Human Rights Council should face the tremendous task of consistency and promote the cause of the United Nations in the human rights sphere everywhere. The Human Rights Council had a number of initiatives to be implemented regarding the implementation of human rights worldwide. With reference to the Universal Periodic Review, it should have independent financial backing. Panama was firmly committed to strengthening the human rights machinery within the United Nations system.
DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, said the human rights violations in Darfur should be stopped. The Secretary-General had recommended that the human rights situation in Darfur should be examined by a special session of the Council. The Association asked again whether there was not a grave risk that the lack of a clear condemnation on that major issue might be construed by many as acquiescence in that ugly defamation and might provoke more manifestation of Islamophobia. It was time to speak out here to condemn any use of violence in the name of God or religion.
RAMA ENAV, of Women’s International Zionist Organization, said only two days after the High Commissioner’s departure, the citizens of Israel woke up to the news of a ceasefire between the Palestinian Authority and Israel: a ceasefire that might change the horrifying reality. This truce, however, was already broken three times over the last few days. The Palestinian authority should accept Israel’s call for peace and contain the terrorist groups that were attempting to sabotage the already fragile ceasefire. The Human Rights Council should support the recent attempt to resolve the on-going conflict by promoting an atmosphere of reconciliation.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, speaking on behalf of several NGO's1,appealed to the High Commissioner to intervene publicly in the case of the 30 September killings of Tibetans in the Himalayas, and wished to know of the steps taken by the High Commissioner, including her Office in Kathmandu, regarding this grave matter.
SUSAN APPLEYARD, of International Commission of Jurists, said the Commission was deeply concerned about the human rights and humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka and welcomed the update provided by the High Commissioner. Civilians were caught in the middle of an escalating conflict in the country, a conflict in which the distinction between civilians and combatants was not being respected. The situation had not improved since the Council met in October and justified continued and special scrutiny by the Council.
TOBY FRANKENSTEIN, of United Nations Watch, said on Darfur, the increasing calls for a special session on the atrocities there were supported, and it was regretted that various nations including Sudan were challenging the interpretation of the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner on the issue. The majority that ruled the Council would reject an attempt to hold Sudan accountable. A special session alone, even without a resolution, would put a spotlight on the situation. On Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, there should be accountability for those who used civilians as human shields to launch attacks. The question of the Council’s fact-finding missions should be examined for impartiality.
SOUHAYR BELHASSEN, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, called upon the Human Rights Council to convene a special session to take the most appropriate measures to address the question in Darfur. With reference to the situation in the occupied Palestinian Territory, they called for dispatching an international protection force, under the aegis of the United Nations, to ensure the protection of the Israeli and Palestinian civilian populations.
RAMNI MUTTETUWEGAMA, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, in a joint statement with Amnesty International, said it was with great concern that the Forum was taking the floor to draw attention to the human rights and humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka. In October, over 500 civilians had been killed. The lack of credible investigation into the human rights violations of thousands of civilians remained with impunity. The Asian Forum called upon the Council to ensure that regular reports from the Government and the UN human rights system were brought before the Council.
MARIETTE GRANGE, of Human Rights Watch, said the only change in the situation in Darfur had been for the worse, and the Human Rights Council should call upon the Government of Sudan to cease offensive military flights, end its support to the Janjaweed, and consent immediately to a strengthened international force in Darfur. The Council should also support targeted United Nations sanctions. There was concern that the situation in Sri Lanka had also deteriorated significantly, and the Council should put an international human rights monitoring mission on the ground at the earliest opportunity.
PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International said that the Human Rights Council had failed the civilian population in Darfur yesterday. The majority of Member States had passed a weak resolution that failed to properly address the main concerns related to the necessary urgent measures to be adopted to guarantee the protection of the population in Darfur. It was another dark day in the work of the Human Rights Council. Amnesty International asked what further information should be presented to assert the clear links between the militias and the Government of Sudan.
LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, in a joint statement with World Peace Council, said there was no political will from States to end the human rights violations of Palestinians. The Israeli Government kept on imposing walls of separation and other sanctions against the Palestinians. Only statements could not solve the acute problems of Palestinians, concrete action should be taken.
Response of High Commissioner for Human Rights
LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the many speakers had shown the common concerns and search for solutions that should engage the attention of the Council. There would be further opportunities to consider various issues, therefore two questions would be answered. On the source of information on the basis of which the assessment made today of the situation in Darfur, one of the sources was the Council’s very own country Rapporteur on Sudan. On an even more systematic basis, the United Nations Mission in Sudan’s (UNMIS) human rights section was present throughout Sudan, with offices in Khartoum, Darfur, and Southern Sudan, with highly experienced human rights officials. The reports that had been released were based on first-hand verified information gathered from testimonies and on-site visits. The human rights office of UNMIS worked very closely with local authorities. In the report released, the figures were corroborated by investigations done by the Government. If human rights officers could not have access to a scene, then allegations received were cross-checked with other organizations operating in the area to verify information. The allegations received were systematically brought to the attention of local authorities.
Two missions to Darfur had been conducted by the High Commissioner herself, when she had the opportunity of speaking to victims of human rights violations, to local officials, and members of the Government. However, these short visits in and of themselves were not a basis for definitive evaluation of the facts, and she relied greatly on the extensive United Nations presence on the ground. The assessment of the humanitarian colleagues was also relied on regarding access and delivery of humanitarian assistance.
On the capacity in Iraq, Ms. Arbour said the human rights office within the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) had been established in 2004. It was structured around two units dealing with monitoring of the human rights situation and reconstruction of Iraqi human rights institutions. To date, despite the difficult security situation, it played an essential role in monitoring and reporting on the human rights situation, with regular human rights updates every month. The Office had repeatedly called on the multinational force in Iraq to comply with international human rights and humanitarian principles, and to avoid any excessive use of force.
Right of Reply
IDRISS JAZAIRY, (Algeria), in a right of reply, said that the Representative of the United Kingdom, with reference to the update of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, had hoisted himself on the moral high ground to lecture Algeria on the United Nations and to express regret at the fact that Algeria had allegedly claimed that the United Nations was out to impose an international tutelage on Sudan. Algeria took strong exception to this false statement that Algeria could not consider as being involuntary or attributable to an insufficient command of the Queen’s English by this eminent delegate. Algeria said it had no lesson to receive from the United Kingdom about the United Nations, which the Algerian delegate started serving as a permanent staff member in 1959 and later as President of a United Nations specialized agency. Algeria doubted that the Ambassador of the United Kingdom could beat this track record.
NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom), in a right of reply, said he could indeed confirm that the representative of Algeria was older than him.
TERRY CORMIER (Canada), speaking in a right to reply, said the Representative of Iran had referred to Canada, saying that he was waiting for the report of the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in Canada, in particular the situation of indigenous peoples. Canada was a vibrant, pluralistic democracy, based on the rule of law and human rights. Canada supported and advanced the rights of indigenous peoples, but recognised that there were human rights challenges that it had to address at home, and was committed to this end. It engaged in frank dialogue with civil society and aboriginal communities. The Government of Canada was held accountable by the people of Canada, by the free and independent media and by the independent judiciary. The indigenous peoples in Canada were not in jail for having expressed themselves or for having claimed their rights. Canada was up to date in its reports to the treaty bodies, and had a standing invitation to all special mechanisms. All States should extend such invitations, and accept and facilitate these visits.
LI NAN (China), in a right of reply, said that this afternoon a non-governmental organization (NGO) said that China had allegedly shot Tibetans in the Himalayas. China had decided not to make use of its right of point of order. Nevertheless, this NGO’s statement was not appropriate, and China expressed disappointment at the violation of proper procedures. The Human Rights Council was at a key institutional building process. NGO participation of such nature raised concerns to the Chinese delegation.
Statement by Foreign Minister of Maldives
AHMED SHAEED, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Maldives, said that beyond the picture postcard scenery of white sandy beaches and clear blue lagoons, the Maldives was a real country with real people, real hopes and real concerns. This in turn meant that the Maldives, like all countries, was faced with real difficulties and challenges: from facing-down the risks posed by rising sea-levels to meeting the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals; and from “building back better” after the Asian Tsunami to creating a modern democratic system in the country that would effectively protect and promote human rights.
The Maldives faced unique development challenges. Over 99 per cent of the country was made up of the sea—only 0.3 per cent of its surface was dry land. That dry land was in turn divided among 1,190 small, low-lying coral islands. The population of 300,000 was spread widely and unevenly across 200 of these islands, creating significant problems vis-à-vis communication, transport, trade and social service provision. Yet despite these challenges, the Maldives had achieved a remarkable level of economic growth and development over the past 20 years. The economy had advanced by an average annual rate of nine percent since 1978, with the result that the Maldives now had the highest per capita GDP in South Asia. This robust economic performance had in turn allowed the country to invest in its social development. Since 1978, infant mortality had been reduced from 120 per thousand live births to just 14, while life expectancy had increased from 48 years to 72 years. Impressive progress had also been achieved in the field of education: the literacy rate in the Maldives now stood at 99 percent, the highest rate in the South Asia and Indian Ocean regions.
In the area of human rights protection, a number of important steps had been taken, including the ratification, in August, of the First Amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act, strengthening the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives and bringing it into line with the “Paris Principles;” the right to assembly was now well established with a provisional regulatory framework based on due notice and reasonable hours and reasonable route limitation, pending the passage of the Bill on Freedom of Assembly, which was before the Parliament; accession, in September of this year, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocol, and to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture; and extension, in April, of an open invitation to the United Nations special procedures to visit the Maldives.
Statement by Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide
JUAN E. MENDEZ, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, said the prevention of the genocide was a legal and moral imperative. In reaction to the failure of the recent past and the existence of conspicuous gaps in the capacity of the United Nations to provide early warning, on the tenth anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, the Secretary-General had announced the creation of a position of the Special Advisor involving the United Nations as a whole. Prevention of genocide required early warning based on indicators or warning signs for situations that risked deteriorating. He had decided not to rely on quantitative statistical models in evaluating the risk of genocide or establishing an early warning system for genocide prevention within his office. In accordance with his mandate, serious violations of human rights or humanitarian law, which might become massive or serious, should be taking place or be imminent. Therefore, he had concentrated on the most egregious cases of massive violations that threatened to evolve into genocide, rather than adopting a more diffuse approach predicated on early involvement in situations where discrimination might exist, but massive and serious violations were not present.
In all his activities in the interest of preventing genocide, he required the support cooperation and advise from Member States, civil society and UN institutions. The help of States was crucial, for instance, in the effort to identify situations of risk and possible solutions. States might have information on situations of concern and analysis of situations which might be available in the UN system and which could be useful in genocide prevention efforts. States might also play a key role in helping to defuse situations of conflict or in supporting the Special Advisor or UN efforts.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide
TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said the important work of the Special Advisor was to be commended, and he should have a strong office, report directly to the Secretary-General, and have access to the Security Council. Not long after the office was established, world leaders endorsed the responsibility to protect populations from genocide and crimes against humanity at the 2005 World Summit. The international community also had the responsibility to act when a State was manifestly failing to protect its citizens from such acts. The Office had an important role of monitoring events on the ground as they evolved. As it developed, care should be taken not to duplicate activities of other United Nations offices, but to give clear added value to the United Nations system. Questions were on how the establishment of a new set of principles on the responsibility to protect had affected the work of the office; and what was the role of the Human Rights Council in supporting its work.
JOHANNA SUURPAA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union reiterated its commitment to fight human rights violations that could result in genocide. Central responsibility to protect the population was that of the government of the country in question. It was important to protect civilian populations and end impunity. The European Union wanted to know what practical measures could be taken in the protection of civilians in the ground, and how to ensure the independence of the judiciary, and how the cooperation between civil society and Member States could be strengthened on the prevention of genocide.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said that it was necessary to complement the legal procedure by the work of the Special Advisor. It was also essential to detect early any situation that might lead to genocide. Measures of early warning and special steps should also be taken within the United Nations system. The Special Advisor could also collaborate with the special agencies of the United Nations in order to strengthen his findings.
ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan) said Azerbaijan was a country whose population had frequently been subjected to ethnic cleansing and genocide over the last century, was determined that this should not happen again, and therefore supported the Special Adviser and his Office. The root causes for this were widespread, and should be effectively addressed. On paragraph 49 and the need for guidelines, and the mention of the International Commission on State Sovereignty, could the Adviser please clarify where he stood in regards to these guidelines, the speaker asked, also inquiring what was the current situation of affairs and criteria guiding his choice for membership of an advisory panel, and how this would help him in fulfilling his mandate.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said Argentina expressed full support for the work of the Special Adviser based on the thematic link. Argentina expressed the hope that further meetings would take place to address this question. Argentina wanted to know the impact of the work of the Advisory Council in relation to his role.
ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia) said the mandate of the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General, Mr. Juan Mendez, was endorsed by the entire UN membership. Armenia noted with satisfaction his interactions and close contacts with numerous human rights procedures, including relevant special procedures of this body, as well as the human rights treaty bodies. Armenia would appreciate the views of the Special Adviser with respect to the present status, as well as to expanding and streamlining such interactions. The Special Adviser had drawn particular attention to the question of data collection and assessment, including the question of methodology and Armenia would appreciate further comments from the Special Adviser on this issue. The history of genocide still haunted Armenia. It endorsed the view of the Special Adviser that there was a de jure responsibility to protect contained in the legal obligation to prevent and punish genocide in accordance with the 1948 Convention.
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said the Special Adviser had not addressed certain incidents of hateful invective, such as when the President of Iran had applauded calls for the destruction of Israel, and had said that Israel had invented the Holocaust, and used this for blackmail. These alarming calls were common knowledge and available in the public domain. They ran counter to the United Nations Charter and the United Nations as a whole, and should raise alarm among United Nations Members, and should be addressed by the Adviser. When did the Adviser intend to inquire into this issue as a matter of urgency?
KE YOUSHENG (China) said China had read carefully the report of the Special Adviser and appreciated his work. China appreciated in particular the Secretary-General’s Five Point Action Plan to prevent genocide and the establishment of a Special Adviser. China said that they should focus on the elimination of poverty to guarantee peace and security. Poverty was the root cause of conflict. Therefore efforts should be made to achieve development. The international community should contribute positively to the eradication of hatred. China supported the work of the Special Adviser on the prevention of genocide by addressing early-warning signals of such a danger.
FEDERICO ANDREV-GUSMAN, of International Commission of Jurists, said that prevention of genocide was one of the tasks of the United Nations and the Council should also deal with it in accordance with the mandate given to it by the General Assembly. As the Special Advisor stressed, it was necessary to establish an early warning system to prevent genocide and to detect signs that might lead to genocide.
TOBY FRANKENSTEIN, of United Nations Watch, said serious concern had been expressed over the President of Iran’s call for genocide against Israel, an event which had not taken place since the speeches of Hitler. Given the conjunction between the call for genocide and nuclear weapons, this matter was very serious, and required far more high-level diplomacy and public education. What had the Special Adviser been doing in this regard, as it was not mentioned in his report?
ANDRES SANCHEZ, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, attached great importance to the identification of early warning signs that might result in situations of genocide. Nevertheless, this early warning system would not be enough. It was also necessary to implement proposals and practical recommendations to enable the international community to adopt the necessary preventive measures to avoid genocide. It was the obligation of all States to prevent genocide.
Response by Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide
JUAN E. MENDEZ, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, said he would collaborate with the Human Rights Council as he provided early warning reports to the Security Council. He would have regular relations with the Council with regard to country situations so that the Council might take urgent action. The responsibility to protect individuals from genocide was the role of States. The developments in Darfur were of concern and measures had to be taken. There was also a need to reinforce the projection mechanism through a peacekeeping force and to disarm the militias. The international community should take action to protect the people in Darfur. Further, a ceasefire should be observed in order to allow peace talks to take place.
Right of Reply
MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran), speaking in a right to reply, said that there was a campaign of disinformation on the statements of the President of Iran. The statements of Israel and some non-governmental organizations referred in a selective manner and misquoted the words of the President of Iran. The President had clearly distinguished between a regime that was based on oppression, expansionism and bloodshed not only against the Palestinian people, but also against the Muslim and Arab people in the Middle East. He did not refer to the Jewish people, but to the regime. This regime should be removed, but by democratic means, not genocide, through elections with the participation of the people of the region, including Palestinians, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and anyone living in Palestine.
Joint statement1: Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development ; Society for Threatened Peoples; International Fellowship of Reconciliation; Interfaith International; World Organization against Torture; Pax Romana; International Educational Development; International Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities; France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand; Habitat International Coalition; Saami Council; International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements (FIMARC); International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (Rights and Democracy); and Transnational Radical Party.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC06073E