HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON FOLLOW-UP TO ITS DECISIONS ON THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY AND LEBANON
The Human Rights Council this morning adopted four resolutions and one decision dealing with the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian Territory; preparations for the Durban Review Conference; regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asian and Pacific region; the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon; and implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251 with reference to the Council's agenda, annual programme of work, methods of work and rules of procedure, as well as conference facilities and financial support for the Council.
In a resolution on Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: Follow-up on the Human Rights Council resolution S-1/1, adopted by a vote of 34 in favour, 1 against, and 12 abstentions, the Council called for the speedy implementation of its resolution S-1/1, including the dispatch of the urgent fact-finding mission; and decided to report on the implementation of this resolution at its next session.
A resolution on Preparations for the Durban Review Conference, as orally amended, was adopted with 34 votes in favour, 12 against, and 1 abstention, in which the Council, recalling resolution A/C.3/61/L.53/Rev.1, adopted on 22 November 2006, by which the Third Committee of the General Assembly requested the Human Rights Council to undertaken preparations for that event, decided that the Human Rights Council would act as the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference which should be open to the participation of all Member States of the United Nations and members of the specialized agencies and also with the participation of observers in accordance with the established practice of the General Assembly.
In a decision on Regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asian and Pacific region, the Council, recalling resolution 2005/71 of 20 April 2005 of the Commission on Human Rights, decided to convene the next session of the Workshop on Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asian and Pacific Region in 2007, preferably in the first half of that year.
In a resolution on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon, the Human Rights Council requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to consult with the Government of Lebanon on ways and means of implementing the relevant recommendations contained in the report of Inquiry which were consistent with paragraph 7 of the Council resolution S-2/1 and to report to the Council at its fourth session.
In a resolution on Implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251: agenda, annual programme of work, methods of work and rules of procedure of the Human Rights Council, the Council decided to establish an open-ended intergovernmental, intersessional working group to formulate concrete recommendations on its agenda, its annual programme of work, its methods of work as well as its rules of procedure in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/251, and to undertake transparent, well-scheduled and inclusive consultations, with the participation of all stakeholders.
The Council decided to defer a draft decision on the rights of indigenous peoples for consideration at its next session.
Speaking this morning were the representatives of Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference), Algeria (on behalf of the African Group), Israel, Palestine, Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Canada, Japan, Peru, Switzerland, Argentina, Philippines, Chile, China, United Kingdom, Lebanon and the Russian Federation.
When the Council meets this afternoon, at 3 p.m., it is scheduled to take action on the two remaining draft proposals before it, and to adopt its report to the General Assembly, before closing its third session.
Action on Resolution on Follow-Up to Resolution S-1/1
In a resolution (A/HRC/2/L.13) on Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: Follow-up on the Human Rights Council resolution S-1/1, adopted with 34 in favour, 1 against (Canada), and 12 abstentions, the Council calls for the speedy implementation of its resolution S-1/1, including the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding mission; and decides to report on the implementation of this resolution at its next session.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (34): Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Zambia.
Against (1): Canada.
Abstentions (12): Cameroon, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.
FAISAL NIAZ TIRMIZI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, introducing draft resolution A/HRC/2/L.13, said there had been two draft resolutions on the violation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories at the second session of the Human Rights Council. The Council had postponed consideration of the procedural text to the third session. The Council had decided to dispatch an urgent fact-finding mission to the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967 in resolution S-1/1. It had been five months since resolution S-1/1 had been adopted, and nothing had happened. The violations of the human rights of the Palestinians continued unabated. The text called for the speedy implementation of resolution S-1/1. The text was purely procedural in that regard. The lack of implementation of Human Rights Council resolutions was a matter for concern. It was hoped the text would be adopted by consensus.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), in a general comment, said that the Human Rights Council could not remain silent before the flouting of the decisions and resolutions adopted by the Council during its first session with reference to the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territory. The resolution on the occupied Palestinian territory had remained a dead letter until today. The occupying Power had continued to deny access to the Special Rapporteur to the territories. They were looking forward to the report of the fact-finding mission being led by Desmond Tutu.
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, asked about the real purpose of draft resolution A/HRC/2/L.13 tabled before the Council, and how that draft resolution would help the Council to effectively carry out its function. He was concerned by such actions that the Council was taking against his country. The criticism against his country had continued in the Council in similar way that it had in Commission. Meanwhile, the rockets being fired by the Palestinians had continued to fall in Israel, making civilian victims. What was the intention of the Council in singling out Israel in its draft resolution? He regretted the Council's continued commitment to such resolutions, which was only leading it on downward spiral to its ruin.
MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, said that Israel had placed itself above international law and the decisions of the Council, and that was why it had not implemented resolution S-1/1, and had obstructed the fact-finding mission headed by the Special Rapporteur on Palestine. The authority of the new body was being challenged by a non-complying occupying Power. Their contradiction between their advocacy of human rights and their stance on the Israeli violations thereof was similar to the contradiction between words and action in the final lines of the play "Waiting for Godot". The Council should move and act, and stop the daily killing that was taking place daily in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Palestine was waiting for a brave Israeli General de Gaulle in order to obtain its independence, as had happened in Algeria.
VESA HIMANEN (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of vote after the vote, said they welcomed the ceasefire and called upon the parties to return to the negotiating table. Civilians on all sides should be protected. They fully supported the efforts of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, in keeping the Human Rights Council informed of the situation in the occupied Palestinian Territory. The European Union was of the view that all States were duty-bound to cooperate with special procedures. Hence, they had cast an abstention vote.
PAUL MEYER (Canada), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Canada was committed to promoting the human rights and fundamental rights of all peoples in the region, as well as respect for the rule of law. The recent escalation of violence, the loss of human life and the suffering of victims were of serious concern to Canada. Canada reiterated that the Palestinian Authority should take concrete measures to address Israel’s security concerns and eliminate attacks against Israel. Israel, for its part, should assume its responsibility to exercise utmost caution to prevent civilian causalities as it exercised its right to defend itself against terrorism. Canada would continue to support constructive resolutions, which presented a balanced perspective. At the special session of the Council, Canada had explained that it could not support the resolution that was adopted at that time because it did not go far enough to represent a balanced approach to the human rights situation in Gaza. Canada had therefore voted against the follow-up resolution adopted today.
Action on Resolution on Preparations for the Durban Review Conference
In a resolution (A/HRC/3/L.2) on Preparations for the Durban Review Conference, as orally amended, adopted with 34 in favour, 12 against, and 1 abstention (Ukraine), the Council decides that the Human Rights Council will act as the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference which shall be open to the participation of all Member States of the United Nations and members of the specialized agencies and also with the participation of observers in accordance with the established practice of the General Assembly; reaffirms that the Durban Review Conference will be undertaken on the basis of and with full respect for the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and that there will be no renegotiation of the existing agreements contained therein; and decides that the review will concentrate on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, including further actions, initiatives and practical solutions for combating all the contemporary scourges of racism.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (34): Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Zambia.
Against (12): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
Abstention (1): Ukraine.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, introducing resolution A/HRC/3/L.2, said the Third Committee of the General Assembly had decided to convene the Durban Review Conference in 2009, and that the Council should undertake preparations in that regard, and that was the purpose of the resolution. Preparations for the Review Conference should follow United Nations practice in preparing Conferences. No new body would be created to act as a preparatory body, as the Human Rights Council should act in that role itself. The African Group envisaged two substantive sessions of two days for the Preparatory Committee, and the outcome document should be given a special theme. That was why the resolution had a generic title. As soon as the specific theme had been identified, then it would replace this generic title in future resolutions. The interests of all interested parties had not been accommodated, but the resolution merited the overwhelming support of the Council.
The amendments to the resolution were also introduced by the speaker.
VESA HIMANEN (Finland), on behalf of the European Union, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, wished to confirm its commitment to the fight against racism. The European Union was committed to the Declaration and Programme of Action of the Durban World Conference and aimed for a concrete, realistic and constructive follow-up, which would make a meaningful contribution to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
The European Union could support a review of the Durban Conference. That was why, just some days ago in New York, they had voted in favour of the decision to go forward on such an event to be conducted in the framework of the General Assembly session in 2009. The European Union had thus committed itself to take part in the preparation for a review conference on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. As at present there were already four mechanisms working on the implementation of Durban, and also as the European Union had stressed that the international follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action should be agreed upon by consensus, they must regrettably vote against the draft resolution before the Council.
HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), speaking in explanation of vote after the voting, said that Japan had always put emphasis on the elimination of racial discrimination and had participated in the UN committees working to eliminate it. Japan had voted against the resolution because it did not satisfy its position. Japan was also concerned by the financial implications of the resolution.
ELIANA BERAUN (Peru), in an explanation of vote after the vote, said Peru was committed to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. It had supported the initiative of convening a review of the implementation of the Durban Declaration, and that was why Peru had voted in favour of the resolution.
PAUL MEYER (Canada), speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, said that combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at the national and international level was a priority for Canada. Canada hoped the Human Rights Council would take a fresh approach, focusing on dialogue, collaborative work and implementation. The current resolution was not the result of a general consensus. Therefore, Canada had voted against it. They believed regional gatherings would be a concrete and effective way of sharing experiences to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland), speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, said Switzerland regretted that the resolution which had been adopted today did not reflect the one already adopted on the same issue in New York. For that reason, Switzerland had voted against the resolution.
ALBERTO J. DUMONT (Argentina), in an explanation of vote after the vote, said it had voted in favour and consistently supported progress in this area by the international community. The vote in favour reflected Argentina's intention not to create obstacles to decisions that, in their view, ought to be adopted by consensus. In future, countries should all be incorporated in a commitment for the adoption of universal norms that would eliminate racial discrimination.
JESUS ENRIQUE GARCIA (Philippines), speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, said that the Philippines had voted in favour of the resolution as it was important to set up a meaningful review mechanism to implement the Declaration and Programme of Action of the Durban World Conference.
Statements on Draft Resolution on Global Efforts for the Total Elimination of Racism
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, introduced draft resolution A/HRC/3/L.3, on Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive follow-up to decisions of the Human Rights Council to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. The recent resurgence of racism and racial discrimination occurring in many places all over the world had been of great concern that the African Group, and had led it to table the draft resolution before the Council. The draft resolution would be a contribution to the global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. He hoped that the Council would adopt the draft by consensus. The speaker also introduced amendments to the draft resolution.
JUAN MARTABIT (Chile), although an observer State, was given the floor following a request by Cuba as a co-sponsor of draft resolution A/HRC/3/L.3, as Chile had worked tirelessly in favour of the draft. Chile observed the Working Group on the follow-up to the Durban Declaration had worked patiently, taking things step by step, and had conducted an intelligent process on these issues. The work done by the Working Group was welcomed, and delegates had met to discuss these sensitive issues over months and years. The same trust should continue over months and years to come. Consensus should not be abandoned as regarded follow-up to Durban Declaration.
However, the follow-up process was entering dangerous ground. Work should be focused on building trust, giving a voice to all. He called on the co-sponsors of the draft and those who would be taking a decision to devote a few minutes to negotiation, discussion and dialogue to try and approve the draft from the African Group, so that it could be adopted by consensus. If there was no consensus, then the Council would be entering very dangerous ground on these very important issues which affected millions of people in the world.
Action on Decision on Regional Cooperation for Human Rights in Asia and the Pacific
In a decision (A/HRC/3/L.4) on Regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asian and Pacific region, adopted without a vote, the Council, recalling resolution 2005/71 of 20 April 2005 of the Commission on Human Rights, decides to convene the next session of the Workshop on Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asian and Pacific Region in 2007, preferably in the first half of that year.
LA YIFAN (China), introducing draft decision A/HRC/3/L.4, said the workshop on regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asian and Pacific region was an annual event in their region. Topics included national human rights institutions, national human rights plans and thematic issues, such as human rights and trafficking in women. However, due to phenomenal change and the transition from the Commission to the current Council, the annual workshop for this year had to be postponed. For that reason, it was highly necessary for the current session to adopt a procedural decision as contained in L.4 to kick-start preparation.
Action on Resolution on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon
In a resolution (A/HRC/3/L.5) on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon, as orally amended, adopted without a vote, the Human Rights Council requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to consult with the Government of Lebanon on ways and means of implementing the relevant recommendations contained in the report of Inquiry which are consistent with paragraph 7 of the Council resolution S-2/1 and to report to the Council at its fourth session.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, introduced draft resolution A/HRC/3/L.5. The precise message of the draft resolution was to set up an appropriate follow-up mechanism to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon.
They had brought on board a number of suggestions from several delegations. In that sense, operative paragraph 2 should now read as follows: “ Request the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to consult with the Governments of Lebanon on ways and means of implementing the relevant recommendations contained in the report of Inquiry which are consistent with paragraph 7 of Council resolution S-2/1 and to report to the Council at its fourth session." They hoped that by having taking into account the input of several delegations, the text would be adopted by consensus.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), in a general comment, said that Algeria supported the statement made by Pakistan. There was concern for what was happening in Lebanon, a country of co-existence and brotherhood between divine religions. Those who saw evil should try to change it, either by action or by words. In the present situation, the least that could be done was for the Council to adopt a consensual recommendation to the High Commissioner, calling upon her to consult with the Government of Lebanon in order to implement the relevant recommendations to provide assistance to the innocent victims who were dying every day due to cluster bombs. It was the Council’s humanitarian duty, and if it did not act it would be failing in that duty.
VESA HIMANEN (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in a general comment, reiterated the European Union’s commitment to assist and support Lebanon and the Lebanese people in the aftermath of the conflict. The democratically elected Government had the Union’s full support in its efforts to reconstruct the country and maintain stability and democracy. The EU was committed to a stable and prosperous Lebanon. It continued to have concerns on the scope of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry, however. Any inquiry conducted in the aftermath of a military conflict should encompass the conduct of all parties and all aspects of the conflict. A number of recommendations in the report did not fall strictly within the mandate of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom), in a general comment, said that it was deeply tragic that there had been loss of lives of on both sides of the border in the conflict. The United Kingdom would continue to play an important role in the recovery and humanitarian work in the reconstruction of Lebanon. It was fundamentally important to give fair and unbalanced consideration to all the issues under consideration by the Human Rights Council. In addition, the Council’s task was to encourage solutions, and to deal with situations of human rights violations wherever the arrived, in a manner reflecting universality, non-selectivity, and objectivity.
Draft resolution S-2/1 was one-sided, and that was why the United Kingdom had not supported it. The mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon was one-sided. The Human Rights Council in discharging its duties and responsibilities
had to be fair, objective and even-handed. The text before them had been amended a great deal, and the efforts of the sponsors of the draft resolution were appreciated. The follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon had to be conducted in a fair and even-handed fashion.
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said too much ink had been spilled on the terrorist activities in Lebanon, and too much time had been spent on it in the Council. The culmination of all that had been the so-called report by the so-called Commission of Inquiry. The resolution before the Council was the culmination of this farce. The facts did not change. The first was that the premeditated military build-up of Hezbollah in Lebanon violated all international norms and laws. The second was that Lebanon could not be exonerated from responsibility. New intelligence, including film taken by Israeli jets during the conflict and confiscated documents demonstrated that the vote was anachronistic. Hezbollah had put rockets in civilian buildings and public institutions, with the goal of constituting a deterrent balance to Israel. It had also aimed to conduct guerrilla warfare with anti-tank weapons and others, and had disposed weapons and ammunition in private homes, public and religious sites. Hezbollah was a criminal terrorist organization, whose commission of war crimes had been well documented and categorically proven.
GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon), speaking as a concerned country, said that when one read the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon, the resolution was justified. The Israeli delegation was putting international law to a test. The Israeli military operation in Lebanon had resulted in untold sufferings to the population. He thanked the high-level Commission that had established the facts on the ground. No country was allowed to flout international law. Lebanon had lost lives and properties; however, it had not lost its spirit and hope.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, expressed satisfaction over the amendment of paragraph 2. Argentina had already expressed its view that the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon should have been more balanced. The Commission should also have taken into account the damage caused by Hezbollah attacks on the civilian Israeli population. It was incumbent upon the Council to ensure the full realization of all human rights by all.
PAUL MEYER (Canada), in an explanation of vote after the vote, said that, when the Commission of Inquiry was established, Canada had made it clear that it was not in favour of the limited and one-sided position of the mandate. Canada retained this position, and therefore disassociated itself from the resolution. It hoped the body would in the future consider this issue impartially. The conflict had had a far-reaching effect on civilians in both Israel and Lebanon, and had resulted in action that was contrary to international humanitarian law. The Council, in order to be credible, should protect the human rights of all persons, wherever they were.
Action on Resolution on the Agenda, Programme of Work, Methods of Work and Rules of Procedure of the Council
In a resolution (A/HRC/3/L.6) on Implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251: agenda, annual programme of work, methods of work and rules of procedure of the Human Rights Council, adopted without a vote the Council decides to establish an open-ended intergovernmental, intersessional working group to formulate concrete recommendations on its agenda, its annual programme of work, its methods of work as well as its rules of procedure in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/251, and to undertake transparent, well-scheduled and inclusive consultations, with the participation of all stakeholders; requests the President of the Council to chair the working group with the assistance, if necessary, of one or more facilitators; and requests the working group to report to the Council at its fourth session on progress made thereon.
HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), in an explanation of vote after the vote, said Japan had joined the consensus in adopting the draft resolution, but was not convinced about the need for the resolution.
YURI BOYCHENKO (Russian Federation), in an explanation of vote after the vote, expressed Russia's satisfaction at the adoption if the resolution. All of the important issues raised in the resolution had not been resolved yet due to time constraints. At the same time, Russia welcomed the resolution and was ready to contribute to the work of the group. Implementation of this decision would make the Human Rights Council more efficient, and also improve international cooperation in the promotion of human rights.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC06086E