HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DECIDES TO SEND MISSION TO ASSESS HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN DARFUR
The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted by consensus a decision to dispatch a high-level mission to assess the human rights situation in Darfur and the needs of Sudan in this regard after expressing its concern regarding the seriousness of the human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur.
According to the decision, the mission will be made up of five highly qualified persons, to be appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council following consultation with the members of the Council, as well as the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan. The mission was requested to report to the Council at its fourth session next spring.
In concluding remarks, Luis Alfonso de Alba, the President of the Council, said the decision would allow for a new situation to be created which would specifically contribute to alleviating the human rights situation in Darfur. He reaffirmed his intention to conduct wide-ranging, albeit informal, consultations before appointing the members of the mission to be sent to Darfur. He recognized the importance of coordinating and cooperating at all times, not only with the United Nations authorities – and he already expressed need for support from the African Union – but mostly with the Government and authorities of Sudan. It was of utmost urgency that this decision be implemented for the good of Sudan and the good of the people in Darfur.
In statements following the adoption of the decision, delegations said that stopping the violence in Darfur would halt the suffering of the civilian population, and criminals had to be brought to justice for peace to be maintained. A consensus agreement for practical action to address the plight of those in Darfur had been reached, and this was to be applauded.
The resolution had a pro-victim dimension, speakers said, and this arose from the very mandate of the Council, and matched a new perspective in international law, which placed the human being and the human being’s dignity above that of States. Delegations hoped the decision would contribute to putting an end to the violation of human rights, international law, and the crime of impunity in Darfur.
The holding of the special session was a positive sign, showing the international community that the Council was doing its duty. It was hoped that the high-level mission would identify ways to allow all parties to alleviate the dire human rights situation, and that the Government of the Sudan would implement recommendations for the better protection of its citizens there, speakers said. It was vital that the mission should live up to the very high standards which were set out by the Secretary-General in his message to the Council - that it be independent, universally-respected, and expert.
Speakers noted that there had been one goal in everyone’s mind: to restore the credibility of the Council, and with the help of all delegations, and the cooperation of Sudan, they had achieved that goal. The most important element in all of this was what could be collectively done to address the situation on the ground and enhance the protection and well-being of the people in Darfur.
The special session on Darfur was the council’s fourth special session and it started on 12 December.
Speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Algeria for the African Group, Finland, France, Germany, Ecuador, Russian Federation, Guatemala, United Kingdom, India, Azerbaijan, Pakistan for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Saudi Arabia for the Arab League, Netherlands, China, Brazil, Zambia, Tunisia, Cuba, and Morocco.
Sudan spoke as a concerned country.
The next regular session of the Council will be held from 12 March to 5 April 2007.
Decision on Darfur
In a decision on the human rights situation in Darfur, adopted by consensus, the Council expresses its concern regarding the seriousness of the human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur. It welcomes the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement, urges its full implementation and calls upon parties who have not signed it to do so, and all parties to observe the ceasefire. The Council decides to dispatch a high-level mission to assess the human rights situation in Darfur and the needs of Sudan in this regard, comprising five highly qualified persons, to be appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council following consultation with the members of the Council; as well as the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan; requests the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all administrative, technical and logistical assistance required to enable the high-level mission to fulfil its mandate promptly and efficiently, in coordination with the President of the Human Rights Council and also requests the latter to consult as appropriate with the concerned country; and requests the high-level mission to report to the Council at its fourth session.
General Comment
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking in a general comment on behalf of the African Group, said this was a great day - the world had just been celebrating the anniversary of the International Day for Human Rights, and what better testimony the Human Rights Council could give that it was rising to its mission than by providing such a message, speaking with one voice, and putting people above politics. Algeria was grateful to belong to the institution, to the African Group, which, from the first day, decided it would join in sponsoring the special session devoted to Darfur, thus demonstrating that it was as concerned as any other regional group about addressing the issue of human sufferings, whether they took place in Africa or in other parts of the world.
This was the first time that such a decision had been taken by a concerned region in the context of a special session. The African Group had continued on this line, and was pleased to see that all spoke with one voice, demonstrating that there need not be a division between North and South, East and West, where the rights of human beings were threatened. It was hoped this consensus would guide the work of the Council, of the mission involved, and the whole work of the human rights mechanisms. This was a message of hope for the people of the world, and the Council had risen to its responsibilities.
Comments After Decision Was Taken
VESA HIMANEN (Finland), said Finland had been acting as a focal point for draft resolution L.1, which had been subsequently withdrawn since agreement was reached on the consensus text put forward by the President. This had been an extremely useful and timely special session. Several hundred representatives of the United Nations and other organizations had gathered together to consider the grave situation in Darfur. They had heard a detailed analysis of the situation from the various United Nations bodies and agencies on the ground, and received valuable firsthand information from the various non-governmental organizations. Having also listened to statements by Governments, there could be no doubt: the Council must spare no effort to help to alleviate the suffering of the people of Darfur and to prevent further violations. It was incumbent upon the Council to remain fully seized with the situation in Darfur. Finland was hopeful that the high-level mission to be sent to the region would provide further independent guidance, based on the extensive and indispensable work already undertaken by the United Nations and other organizations on the ground. Finland hoped the mission would identify ways that all parties could alleviate the dire human rights situation, and that the Government of the Sudan should implement recommendations for the better protection of its citizens there.
JEAN-MAURICE RIPERT (France) wished to thank all of those who had worked to achieve the necessary compromise to ensure the credibility and efficacy of the Council in the face of one of the worst human rights situations. France expressed its satisfaction at the adoption of a text that decided to send an assessment mission that would allow the Council to remain seized of the situation, and noted with satisfaction that the mission would rely on the Special Procedures and would be supported by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. However France wished to recall the major importance it placed on the fight against impunity, in conformity with Security Council resolutions. Stopping the violence would halt the suffering of the civilian populations. The criminals had to be brought to justice for peace to be maintained.
MICHAEL STEINER (Germany) said that as a result of the grave human rights situation on the ground in Darfur, the European Union had taken the initiative to hold the current special session of the Council. The sending of the assessment mission, which was agreed to in the consensus text just adopted, was essential to evaluate and assess the situation on the ground objectively. The Council had in the end reached consensus, which was good news to the people in Darfur. The text could have been a better one. What mattered was that the assessment mission should immediately start its work.
GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador) said during the previous session of the Council, commenting on the High Commissioner’s report on the situation in Darfur, Ecuador had requested a special session, and had signed the letter to the President in this regard. The holding of the session was a positive sign, showing the international community the Council was doing its duty. What was important was the outcome of the action taken in the Council on behalf of the victims of human rights violations, and effective follow-up and implementation, rather than mere action condemning.
As regarded the composition of the high-level delegation, this resolution was an urgent, unequivocal signal from the Council to the international community on this humanitarian tragedy. Ecuador would carefully monitor the follow-up required in terms of the resolution’s paragraphs. The resolution had a pro-victim dimension, and this arose from the very mandate of the Council, and matched a new perspective in international law, which placed the human being and the human being’s dignity above that of States.
YURI BOYCHENKO (Russian Federation) thanked the President for his hard work in steering the Council towards a consensus decision. In general, the Russian Federation was satisfied by the decision that had been adopted, and in particularly that it was adopted by consensus. It had been important for Russia to see their thoughts and concerns reflected in the text: that the needs and concerns of Sudan would be taken on board. Russia’s principled position was that the decisions of any of the United Nations bodies on Darfur had to be based on the need to maintain a constructive dialogue between the Government of Sudan and the United Nations to effectively overcome the problems and to fully implement all the provision of the Darfur Peace Agreement signed in Abuja.
CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala) said Guatemala, like many other countries, had called for the convening of the special session of the Council on Darfur. The fact that the Council had adopted the decision by consensus was a good sign for its credibility. The adoption of decisions only by votes should not be the order of the day for the Council. Guatemala hoped that the Government of Sudan would fully cooperate with the five-member assessment mission, which was just approved by the Council.
NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said there had been open-ended consultations with the aim of promoting consensus-building, and this should be a benchmark for the standards of transparency that the Council should maintain in the future. During the Council’s third session, the United Kingdom had said the Council should work in line with the principles of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity, that were set out in its founding mandate. It was right that the Council, in this regard, move its focus beyond the Middle East.
It was right that the composition of the mission to Darfur reflect these principles. Yesterday, the widest possible sampling of views of international organizations, States, and non-governmental organizations had been heard. Many had drawn attention to the terrible situation in Darfur - and the purpose of this debate had been achieved, and the decision was not one of the classic variety. A consensus agreement for practical action to address the plight of those in Darfur had been reached, and this was to be applauded. It was vital that the mission should live up to the very high standards which were set out by the Secretary-General in his message to the Council - that it be independent, universally-respected, and expert.
SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) joined the delegations speaking before him in congratulating the President on his role in moving the Council towards consensus. There had been one goal in everyone’s mind: to restore the credibility of the Human Rights Council. With the help of all delegations, and the cooperation of Sudan, they had achieved that goal. The most important element in all of this was: what could they collectively do to address the situation on the ground and enhance the protection and well being of the people in Darfur. The consensus decision proved that when they put their heads together, and put their hearts together, they could make the Human Rights Council work. India reiterated that the Council was a work in progress, and they needed to work together without being judgemental about it.
MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia) said the consensus decision should be a precedent to the future work of the Council. There was an objective need to send a high-level mission to Sudan to assess the needs of the people in Darfur. It was hoped that the mission would come back with an objective assessment of the facts on the ground.
ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan) said the Council, by this consensus outcome, had sent a positive signal to the people of Darfur, and had laid a solid foundation for a culture of collegiality and mutuality. It had resisted the urge to adopt a document that could have split the membership and would have marginal effect on the people on the ground. It was thanks to joint efforts by many that a balanced text had been created which took into account the concerns of all and allowed for efficient follow-up for those who needed it most: the people of Sudan. It was hoped the boost in morale that had been created would benefit all in this win-win situation.
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the President had been an alchemist during the special session, changing opinions from divergence into consensus. The Council was establishing a new tradition of collective and collaborative decision-making and consensus and he congratulated everyone. Among the lessons learned at this session was that more consultations could yield consensus. The international community should step up its efforts to alleviate the suffering of the people of Darfur. That was best done by strengthening the hand of the Government of Sudan to do so.
ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), speaking on behalf of the Arab League, thanked the President of the Council for leading the Council to reach a consensus decision. The Arab League also thanked all those who positively contributed, including the Government of Sudan, to the constructive work of the Council in reaching a consensus solution.
BOUDEWIJN J. VAN EENENNAAM (Netherlands) said the convening of the special session was welcomed, and the decision that was just taken was appreciated. It was hoped it would contribute to putting an end to the violation of human rights, international law, and the crime of impunity in Darfur. The mission would be independent, and carry out its work in the highest standards, fulfilling its task as set for it by the Council.
LA YIFAN (China) said that the Council had now walked those extra miles and achieved the consensus that they had all so desired to achieve. The Africans had proved that when it came to the credibility of the Council they could face up to the issue; they could put people before politics. He believed that other groups would follow suit. This was a historical moment for the Council. It was a first, and China hoped it would not be the last.
SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said the President of the Council was the architect for the positive construction of the consensus decision. The consensus solution reflected the solid and objective work of the Council. The Council’s decision was an example of mature and objective action. Brazil hoped that the decision would contribute to ease the tension in Darfur.
LOVE MTESA (Zambia) wished to pay personal tribute to the efforts of the President for reaching consensus. Zambia had aligned itself with the resolution as it was a consensus resolution, and hoped that it would help to ensure that all the activities given rise to by the conflict in Darfur would be ended, and the rebel groups would be brought on board to sign the Peace Agreement. All should be done and provided to help the Government of Sudan to bring the activities of the notorious Janjaweed to an immediate end, and that all the people of Sudan could enjoy human rights in peace and dignity.
SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia) expressed satisfaction that the Council had adopted by consensus the decision on Darfur, which showed maturity on the part of the Council, displaying its sagacity and even-handedness. It showed that the Council wished to carry out its mandate without selectivity or partiality. Tunisia thanked the President, the delegation of Sudan, which had shown seriousness and flexibility, and all the regional groups. Finally, Tunisia thanked all the delegations from the States of the African Union.
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that Cuba was satisfied by the outcome of the consensus solution. Cuba saw new language in the decision just adopted: a sincere concern for human rights violations had also been expressed in the text. Also, consultation with the concerned country had been emphasized in the decision. The nomination of the five members of the assessment mission might not be an easy task and it was hoped that the mission would accomplish its work with transparency and objectivity.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said the consensus that had been achieved would not have been possible without four key factors: the courage and commitment of the Government and delegation of Sudan; the flexibility and realism of the African Group; the flexibility and spirit of compromise displayed by the co-sponsors of the draft resolution that was tabled; and the fact that there had been support and encouragement by the members and non-members of the Council. The encouragement, sympathy and friendship that had been demonstrated to those involved in consultations should be underscored.
The resolution was not an end in itself, it was just the beginning of the path, but there was confidence it would be properly implemented. All present in the room shared a sense of satisfaction. This decision should be a resolution in the generic sense of the word. There should be a resolve to ensure interaction between the different groups as soon as possible, and to exhaust all possible means to ensure consensus between them in good faith, so that confidence and trust could be built up between the members of the Council, as they should have.
Statement by the President of the Council
LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA, President of the Council, in concluding remarks, agreed with the statements made by delegations as to the importance of the decision that the Council had just taken, both for the situation in Darfur and for the Council itself and for its consolidation. The decision had placed an enormous responsibility upon the Presidency, which was owing to the context in which it was reached. It would allow for a new situation to be created which would specifically contribute to alleviating the human rights situation in Darfur. The President reaffirmed his intention to conduct wide-ranging, albeit informal, consultations before appointing the members of the mission to be sent to Darfur. He recognized the importance of coordinating and cooperating at all times, not only with the United Nations authorities – and he already expressed need for support from the African Union – but mostly with the Government and authorities of Sudan. It was of utmost urgency that this decision be implemented for the good of Sudan and the good of the people in Darfur.
It was important to show how they could interact, not just in assessing the situation, but in addressing it. There, cooperation was very important, and all would need to be involved, in particular, the donor countries. Economic resources were important for achieving the results they sought. He hoped that after six months since its establishment, the Council was entering a reflective phase. The appeal made by Morocco was a most reflective one: they had to make a greater effort to dialogue and find ideas on which they could converge to build a new culture of human rights. When heads of State and Government had adopted General Assembly resolution 61/250, instituting the Council, it had not been just about establishing a new body, but about a change of culture.
Statement by Sudan as a Concerned Country
IBRAHIM MIRGHANI IBRAHIM (Sudan) expressed deep appreciation for those who recognized the full cooperation of the Government of Sudan and confirmed that the Government’s cooperation would be maintained. Sudan considered that the task of the mission was not easy or small in assessing the facts on the ground. Sudan hoped that the work would be transparent, impartial and accurate. The rebels would also appreciate such a mission aimed at establishing peace, which was the interest of all parties. The Government of Sudan allowed more than 160 non-governmental organizations to operate in Darfur. Sudan urged the donor countries to maintain their commitments in assisting the Government of Sudan in its endeavour to bring peace in the region. Sudan thanked all those who worked to promote peace in Darfur and also expressed thanks to the President of the Council and the African Group for their contribution to ensure the success of the work of the session.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC06092E