COUNCIL TAKES UP VARIOUS ISSUES INCLUDING CHILDREN IN ARMED CONFLICT, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND VIOLATIONS IN CERTAIN COUNTRIES
The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded its discussion of follow-up to decisions by the Council, and took up “other issues” related to the protection and promotion of human rights, under which is discussed the situation of children involved in armed conflict, human rights violations linked to sexual orientation and gender identity, and the situation of human rights in various countries of the world.
It was vital to protect children in all circumstances, and this was especially important during armed conflict where children often were victims of grave human rights violations, speakers said. Children were involved in armed conflicts in many parts of the world, including Sri Lanka. The situation of children under foreign occupation was also raised. The recent report by the Secretary-General on children in armed conflict was welcomed.
There was deep concern at ongoing human rights violations around the world based on sexual orientation and gender identity, speakers said. The principles of universality and non-discrimination required that these be addressed. All Special Procedures and treaty bodies should continue to integrate consideration of human rights violations based on sexual orientation within their relevant mandates, as too often in the past these human rights abuses had passed in silence. Tackling stigma and discrimination was about political and moral leadership: from politicians, religious figures, communities, the media, campaigning organizations, and from individuals, including how each behaved.
Among other issues raised were the situation of human rights in a number of countries, including Darfur, Sudan. Speakers welcomed the calling of the special session on Darfur, and urged each other to hold a comprehensive and constructive dialogue on the situation, as this would give a clear signal that the Council would take action everywhere gross violations of human rights occurred.
Speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Guatemala, Norway, Finland for the European Union, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, Canada, Algeria, Australia, New Zealand, Iran, and Sweden who also spoke on behalf of the Netherlands. The International Organization of the Francophonie also spoke.
Speaking in right of reply were Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Canada, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Iran.
Also speaking were representatives of International Indian Treaty Council (in a joint statement with International Organization of Indigenous Resources Development); International Service for Human Rights; Amnesty International; United Nations Watch; International Commission of Jurists; United Nations Watch; Human Rights Watch; Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network; Indian Council of South America; Amnesty International; Interfaith International; World Blind Union; International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; International Association of Democratic Lawyers; and Action Against Hunger.
The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Monday, 4 December, when it will take up progress reports and further discussion of decisions of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review.
Statements on Follow-up to the Decisions of the Council
CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala) said there was concern for the recent statements made on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the General Assembly. So many efforts had been made in recent years. In the past there had been a dialogue, but it was now impeded, and this for no valid reason. There was concern for the message this sent to the rest of the world. A document recognising the rights of indigenous peoples should be finalised. Governments should work in the same fashion so as to avoid differing standards. The Declaration before the General Assembly had been discussed at great length at the Council and Working Group with Governments of countries with indigenous populations, and there was no need to repeat these further. The cause of indigenous peoples would continue to be supported by Guatemala, both in and out of the Council. The Declaration was a viable one, ensuring the protection of indigenous peoples.
WILLIE LITTLECHILD, of International Indian Treaty Council, in a joint statement with International Organization of Indigenous Resources Development, said that the Human Rights Council had demonstrated the priority it attached to the rights of indigenous peoples by adopting in a resolution on 29 June 2006, the text of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and transmitting it to the General Assembly. By this action, the Human Rights Council also honoured the recommendation of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Global Indigenous Caucus together with the members of the Council who voted in favour of the historic decision. This decision signalled a very important world call for respect. It affirmed the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples being equal to all other peoples.
CHRIS SIDOTI, of International Service for Human Rights, said that in New York last month, the Third Committee voted to support an attempt to kill the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As the Council recognized at its first session, any decision to delay the declaration would be a decision to kill the declaration; that the request for more time would be in effect “never”. The Council saw through that play and overwhelmingly rejected that attempt. But now the Third Committee had swallowed the argument and there was real doubt that there would even be a declaration of indigenous rights.
PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, condemned international humanitarian and human rights violations carried out during the 33-day war between Hezbollah and Israel in July/August 2006 which caused widespread death and destruction in both Israel and Lebanon, with civilians bearing the brunt of military operations. Amnesty International regretted the fact that the Human Rights Council did not give the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon a mandate that would have allowed it to also consider evidence that Hezbollah fighters had committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes such as indiscriminate attacks and direct attacks on civilians, in the context of the recent war.
HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said that the Council was faced with a number of fact-finding missions. The law of justice was being ignored when the process of inquiry started by a verdict. Each of the missions was deciding the verdict first and then entered into the inquiry, which was contrary to the law of justice. States like Iran denied the existence of the Holocaust and was engaged in organizing contests on cartoons drawing against the Holocaust.
REGIANE MARA DE MELO (Brazil) expressed concern over the postponement of the deliberations in New York related to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Brazil expressed support for the proposal made by Ecuador.
Right of Reply
MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran), in a right to reply, recalled that in the morning, the representative of the United States had accused Iran of destabilizing Lebanon. Hostility did not start with Hezbollah, rather it started with the occupation of Palestine in 1948.
GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon), speaking in a right of reply, said that Israeli attacks were meant to cause destruction to Lebanon; they were deliberate attacks and could not fall under the concept of collateral damage. On intimidation, it would only suffice to look at the leaflets dropped by Israel in Lebanon. With reference to allegations made concerning Syria and Iran, Lebanon reaffirmed its commitment to continue exercising its sovereign rights.
MOHAMMED ABU-KOASH (Palestine), in a right to reply, said terrorism was implanted in first place by the British in Palestine. The Jewish were the first terrorists in the region. Three quarters of the Palestinian territory was occupied by Israel. The weapons for the killing of Palestinians and Lebanese were imported from outside. In the face of the killings and destruction, Palestine had the right to come before the Council and the Council should be able to stop the killings being committed by Israel.
TERRY CORMIER (Canada), spoke in a right of reply with reference to a remark made by the non-governmental organization International Service of Human Rights alleging that Canada had been fear mongering during the deliberations over the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in New York. Canada had had a frank and open dialogue with delegations and other organizations on this matter. It had proposed, at the time the Human Rights Council undertook this question, to hold further consultations to reach agreement. Canada had a long tradition in the promotion and protection of human rights of indigenous peoples both at home and at the international level.
Statements on Other Matters
WEGGER STROMMEN (Norway) said it was making a statement on human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity on behalf of 54 States. At a recent session, the Human Rights Council had received extensive evidence of human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, including deprivation of the right to life, freedom from violence and torture. The attention paid to these issues by the Special Procedures, treaty bodies and civil society was commended. All Special Procedures and treaty bodies should continue to integrate consideration of human rights violations based on sexual orientation within their relevant mandates.
There was deep concern at these ongoing human rights violations. The principles of universality and non-discrimination required that these be addressed. The Human Rights Council should pay due attention to them, and the President should provide the opportunity for a discussion of these important human rights issues.
VESA HIMANEN, (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union welcomed the exchange of views taking place under other issues. An essential part of the mandate and responsibility of the Council was to address the rights of the most vulnerable. In this context, the European Union stressed the need to protect children in all circumstances, and it was especially important during armed conflict where children often were victims of grave human rights violations.
Children were involved in armed conflicts in many parts of the world. The deteriorating human rights and humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka had left children in an insecure situation. The LTTE should immediately cease the deplorable and inhuman practice of recruiting children. Acts of violence against vulnerable groups in Darfur, especially women and children, should end immediately. The Council should exercise its responsibility to address adequately the situation in Darfur. The declared willingness by the Government of Myanmar/Burma to cooperate with the United Nations and other international organizations to address concerns relating to child soldiers was welcomed. Engagement with international organizations would be crucial for Burma in addressing human rights violations. While combating terrorism, human rights and humanitarian standards had to be maintained.
NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) welcomed the recent report by the Secretary-General on children in armed conflict. The United Kingdom strongly condemned the violence and violations that continued to be committed against children.
Today was World AIDS Day. It would be wrong not to take this opportunity to draw attention to the human rights issues that continued to have an impact on this epidemic. Progress was being made, but it needed to be faster. More should be done to reach the agreed upon targets for 2010 on universal access to prevention, care and treatment. Tackling stigma and discrimination was about political and moral leadership: from politicians, religious figures, communities, the media, campaigning organizations, and from individuals, including how each behaved.
FAISAL NIAZ TIRMIZI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that at the time that the Council was engaged in institutional building, Pakistan put much importance to contradictory issues invoked in the Council.
TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said when the General Assembly adopted resolution 60/251, the United Nations had made a new start in the protection and promotion of human rights, recognising these should be based on cooperation and genuine dialogue, and on States’ abilities to protect human rights for all human beings. Advisory services, technical services and capacity building should be promoted. Seeking to identify practical steps and cooperative measures for enhancing human rights should be the goal of all United Nations organizations and bodies.
The international community had agreed on the Afghanistan Compact at the beginning of 2006, providing the framework for international cooperation and support of Afghanistan, including the protection and promotion of human rights, and the building of a sustainable and democratic state, in which the rule of law and respect for human rights was thriving. The Council could play a constructive role in supporting international cooperation for promoting human rights, and could work on ideas and proposals for future action. The Human Rights Council was an ideal forum to promote constructive cooperation and dialogue on the ground. Interactive and collaborative round-tables should become part of the Council’s work.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) noted with sadness, with reference to the rights of children, that the long statement made by Finland had omitted mentioning the fate of children in Lebanon. The report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon indicated that children accounted for one third of the victims during the recent conflict. Member States should stop dealing with human rights in a selective manner.
LIBERE BARARUNYERETSE, of Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, said that the objective of the creation of the Council was to strengthen the universal promotion and protection of human rights in their universality, interdependence and indivisibility. The Bucharest Summit of the Francophonie had reaffirmed its attachment to the whole norms and principles of human rights and called for their concerted intensification within the new Council with the view to promote constructive dialogue. The Summit also affirmed its attachment to freedom of the press and the promotion of good democratic governance. The participants of the Summit had also expressed their will to contribute to the fight against corruption and impunity, as well as to the independence of the judiciary.
ROBYN MUDIE (Australia) said the valuable update on specific human rights situations and issues in Sri Lanka, Darfur and Nepal by the High Commissioner had been very interesting. It was very welcome that the Human Rights Council had decided to call for a special session on Darfur. Council members and non-members should add their voices to the call for this session.
Nepal was a clear demonstration of the practical groundwork that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could do. The comprehensive peace agreement was a positive step towards bringing peace back to Nepal. Both sides should view this as an opportunity to re-establish respect for human rights in the country. Considerable challenges remained to consolidate the rule of law and strengthen the protection for human rights victims.
WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) said New Zealand remained ambitious on the future of the Human Rights Council and reiterated its commitment to deal with urgent human rights matters. The Human Rights Council should not fall prey to the north-south divide discussion. Cross-regional cooperation should provide an opportunity for the international community to engage in a constructive dialogue to deal with the situation in Darfur. This would give a clear signal that the Human Rights Council would take action everywhere gross violations of human rights occurred. New Zealand called upon the Human Rights Council to discuss implementation of the rights of children and women, and also to take up the question of violence against women.
MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said that the Council should deal with the issue of incitement of religious hatred by some States properly. Such an issue would result in clashes of civilizations. The second issue concerned foreign occupation and the two issues should be given higher places in the future agenda of the Council.
LEILA KARIMI, of International Commission of Jurists, said that in Sri Lanka civilians were suffering the consequences of deepening conflict, and reports were being received of torture, execution, forced displacement, and forced recruitment of children. Many of these had taken place since the announcement of a Commission of Inquiry into specific past violations, underlining the urgent need for measures to prevent and stop ongoing human rights violations by all parties to the conflict. A full-fledged international human rights field operation would play a significant role in helping to protect lives.
ELIZABETH CASSIDY, of United Nations Watch, welcomed the upcoming special session on Darfur and urged the Human Rights Council to consider the human rights situation in the other 16 countries and three disputed territories that were listed by the leading NGO Freedom House as being the world’s worst. These included violations of freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and association in Belarus; persecution of political activists, journalists, and ethnic and religious minorities in “Burma”; and continued impunity for the Andijan massacre and restrictions on independent media and civil society in Uzbekistan.
MARIETTE GRANGE, of Human Rights Watch, highlighted the human rights situations in Afghanistan, Belarus, Myanmar, China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United States, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe. Human Rights Watch urged the Council to take strong action on Darfur in the upcoming special session. On Sri Lanka, Human Rights Watch urged the Council to help develop with the Government a plan to place an international human rights monitoring mission on the ground at the earliest opportunity.
JOHN FISHER, of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, said the statement on human rights violations based on sexual orientation, made by Norway, was welcomed. It was hard to imagine that any State committed to human rights could disagree with the principle that no person should face death, torture or violence because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. All Special Procedures should integrate these important issues of human rights concern into their relevant mandates, as too often in the past these human rights abuses had passed in silence. This issue would not go away, and the Council should hold further discussions on the topic with a view to safeguarding the principle of universality, and ensuring that all persons were treated as free and equal in dignity and rights.
RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, called upon the United Nations system to adopt a declaration that did not discriminate against or reduce the rights of indigenous peoples. The Indian Council called upon the United Nations system to avoid creating a declaration that gave license to continue the sad legacy that had dispossessed and marginalized indigenous peoples, making them exiles in their own territory. The Indian Council called upon the Government of Mexico to deal with the situation on Oaxaca in a fair, just and peaceful manner.
PATRIZIA SCANNELLA, of Amnesty International, said the human rights situation in Sri Lanka had been marked by decades of impunity for perpetrators of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. The creation of the Inquiry Commission could be timely and potentially valuable. Unfortunately, the Government had cut too many corners in establishing its current national commission and the accompanying International Independent Group of Imminent Persons. Amnesty was concerned that serious shortcomings in the mandates of the commission and the Group would undermine their effectiveness.
AZER ALIEV, of Interfaith International, said formerly a source of Islamic spirituality, Russia today had become a State that was largely dependent on foreign educational centres. Today, when Islam was turning into a serious instrument of political games, the profession of Islamic faith by Russian citizens opened the possibility of their transformation from loyal Muslims into marginals and terrorists. In order to restore the spiritual vertical, Muslims of Russia had to build anew an educational system that would be capable of training highly qualified theologians and imams, independently and in conformity with the norms of traditional Russian Islam. The problem of Islamic theological education demanded an undelayable resolution as a top priority task to ensure stability in Russia and other countries.
KICKI NORDSTROM, of World Blind Union, said that the proposed new United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had been finalized in draft format at the end of August in New York, and was expected to be adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December of this year. Persons with disabilities hoped that this Convention would make a significant difference to their lives and would mark out improvement on the human rights for the estimated 600 million persons with disabilities around the globe. The Union called upon the Human Rights Council to put the issues of persons with disabilities as a regular item on its agenda and help the world to finally put an end to the severe discrimination, neglect and human rights violations, which persons with disabilities faced.
SOUHAYR BELHASSEN, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said that the twenty-fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would be celebrated during the current year. While existing legislation and discriminatory practices were the main origins of violence against women, their eradiation required the effective implementation of the provisions of Convention. As of today, the 184 States had ratified the Convention and 79 had ratified its Optional Protocol. However, the incorporation of the Convention into the domestic law remained a subject of concern. Among the States, one-third of them made reservations at the time of ratifying the treaty. The Federation urged the Council to include an item in the future agenda concerning women’s rights.
YORIO SHIOKAWA, of International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said article 9 of the Constitution of Japan was a clear promise by the people of Japan to the world to never repeat its history of war and colonisation. The Japanese Prime Minister had recently declared his intention to change this within five years. It was important to uphold the Constitution of Japan nationally and internationally. There was a need for clear-cut steps in educating people, and new initiatives by the Human Rights Council were expected.
BENOIT MIRIBEL, of Action Against Hunger, called upon the Human Rights Council to guarantee the independence and freedom of action of the members of the Commission of Inquiry in Sri Lanka throughout their investigations; assure the protection of witnesses all along the investigation process, and also after the publication of the report of the presidential Commission; and the mandate of the international observers had to be made public and ensure the freedom of action and expression with reference to the investigations.
CHRISTOPHER BERG (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the Netherlands, said that Sweden and the Netherlands were deeply concerned by the plight of children. They pointed out the need to implement the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Security Council resolution 1612. They praised the crucial role played by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour. Sweden and the Netherlands also welcomed the role of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the protection of vulnerable groups, including children, in Colombia.
Right of Reply
SUMEDHA EKANAYAKE (Sri Lanka), in a right of reply, said Sri Lanka was a party to the Convention on the Rights of Children and was devoted to respecting its provisions. With regard to the statement of the European Union, the Government of Sri Lanka was willing to investigate the allegation of the recruitment of child soldiers, which was forwarded in the statement.
ELSADIG MUSTAFA ALMAGLY (Sudan), speaking in a right to reply, said there were situations that saw violations in many parts of the world. In addition to the question of Darfur, there were many others that worried the conscience of the world. What distinguished the question of Darfur, was that it was highly politicised. The special session that had been called for by the African Group was looked towards as a positive call, as it could be a beginning for setting right information and removing the bias in the media, and it should not be a basis for international resolutions. The new human rights structure should be built on truth alone. Many of the interventions tried to ignore the Abuja Accord, which was signed in May 2005. The settlement of any dispute in the world could not take place without the implementation of a well-negotiated accord, and this was what had taken place in Darfur. It was hoped that the resolution taken by the Council on 28 November on the situation in Darfur would be referred to, as this also noted that the peace treaty was the basis for putting an end to human rights violations. The Security Council had endorsed the peace accord, and called upon parties who had not signed it to do so and to end their fight.
OMER BERZINJI (Iraq), in a right of reply, said Human Rights Watch had alleged that torture was being committed by Government officials in Iraq, which was far from the truth. Although some elements had infiltrated into the governmental structure, those who committed crimes would be brought to justice. Iraq was marked by blood because of the involvement of foreign elements that were enemies of Iraq.
FERNANDO SHARINDRA (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right to reply, said with regards to the statement of Amnesty International, it was clear that it had not considered at all the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate alleged human rights violations. If a request had been made of the Government, then the document would have been provided, and then Amnesty would not have entertained the stipulated concerns, including on non-publication of reports. The Government of Sri Lanka had engaged in detailed and wide-ranging discussions with Governments, representatives of international organizations and of Sri Lankan civil society, and it was only after broad agreement and consensus on the terms of reference that the Government had finalised these. There was no basis for the concerns of Amnesty.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC06077E