HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL OPENS SPECIAL SESSION ON DARFUR

The Human Rights Council this morning opened its fourth special session, addressing the situation in Darfur. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, urged the council to send a team of experts to investigate the latest escalation of abuses in Darfur and to take action to bring to account those who were responsible for the numerous crimes committed.

1n a video address to the Council, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, said for more than three years, the people of Darfur had endured a nightmare. The fighting had escalated over recent weeks, and conditions for the civilian population had become even worse. Armed militias continued to attack defenceless civilians with impunity, and some four million required humanitarian assistance.

Mr. Annan urged the Council to lose no time in sending a team of independent and universally respected experts to investigate the latest escalation of abuses. It was urgent that the United Nations took action to prevent further violations, including by bringing to account those responsible for the numerous crimes that had already been committed. This was the very least that could be done to show the people of Darfur that their cries for help were being heard.

Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the unrelenting tragedy in Darfur demanded the commensurate engagement and vigilance of the Human Rights Council. Civilians continued to be the target of deliberate and devastatingly brutal attacks. The failure to prevent, to protect and to provide justice should prompt this Council, the whole international community and, above all, the Government of Sudan to enforce all the measures pledged or agreed upon thus far, which taken together and implemented, would help to deliver relief, justice and remedy to the people of Darfur.

Sudan, speaking as a concerned country, affirmed its commitment and firm conviction to promoting human rights and removing any selectivity and politicisation. The present special session was not aimed at protecting human rights, but at undermining the sovereignty of weak States. The roots of the conflict in Darfur were economic, competing for resources and the land that the approaching desert was eating up on a daily basis. This had led to tribal fights which the Government had noticed and had tried to resolve in the Abuja Agreement.
During the general debate, there was widespread condemnation for the violation of human rights in Darfur, calls for the establishment of an assessment mission to visit the area and look into the violations, and statements which stressed the importance of ending impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of the crimes.

Speaking this morning were the representatives of Sudan, Algeria for the African Group, Zambia, Cuba, Finland for the European Union, Pakistan for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, South Africa, Ghana, Germany, Saudi Arabia for the Arab League, Indonesia, Switzerland, Romania, France, China, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, United Kingdom, Argentina, Morocco, Tunisia, Poland, Russian Federation, India, Bahrain, Canada, Ecuador, Nigeria, Uruguay, and the Netherlands.


The next meeting of the Council will begin at 3 p.m. this afternoon when it will continue to hear statements by delegations on the situation of human rights in Abuja.



Message of the Secretary-General

KOFI ANNAN, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a video address to the Council, said he was glad that the Human Rights Council was addressing this crisis, which demanded the full attention of the international community. For more than three years, the people of Darfur had endured a nightmare. The fighting had escalated over recent weeks, and conditions for the civilian population had become even worse. Armed militias continued to attack defenceless civilians with impunity, destroying dozens of villages and displacing thousands more in the last few weeks alone. Large numbers of women were still being subjected to rape and other forms of violence. Some four million required humanitarian assistance - and conditions were such that many of the most vulnerable people could not be reached by humanitarian workers. The violence had now spread to two neighbouring countries.

The Security Council and the Secretariat were actively engaged in seeking agreement with the Government of Sudan on the deployment of a larger, more effective, robust African and international force to protect the civilian population. And there was an intensified effort, led by the African Union and the United Nations, to find a political solution to the crisis. But today’s deliberations were of vital importance, Mr. Annan said. It was essential that the Council sent a clear and united message to warn all concerned, on behalf of the whole world, that the current situation was simply unacceptable and would not be allowed to continue. The killings and other gross violations of human rights should end.

It was now more than two years since the High Commissioner and the Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide first travelled to Darfur, and nearly two years since the International Commission of Inquiry submitted its report. The Commission’s findings were shocking - and what was even more tragic and deplorable was that the crimes it reported continued to this day. Mr. Annan urged the Council to lose no time in sending a team of independent and universally respected experts to investigate the latest escalation of abuses. It was urgent that the United Nations took action to prevent further violations, including by bringing to account those responsible for the numerous crimes that had already been committed. This was the very least that could be done to show the people of Darfur that their cries for help were being heard.


Statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights

LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the unrelenting tragedy in Darfur demanded the commensurate engagement and vigilance of the Human Rights Council. Civilians continued to be the target of deliberate and devastatingly brutal attacks. The United Nations Secretary-General had pointed out that in the past six weeks alone, 80,000 people have been forced to flee their homes, several hundred civilians, including women and children, have been killed. Mass rape and other egregious human rights abuses had not subsided. A lack of accountability allowed and even emboldened perpetrators to hold sway over the population in Darfur. The spillover of the conflict had now engulfed parts of Chad and of the Central African Republic.

The same atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law, which led the Security Council to refer the case to the International Criminal Court in January 2005, kept occurring on a daily basis. The failure to prevent, to protect and to provide justice should prompt this Council, the whole international community and, above all, the Government of Sudan to enforce all the measures pledged or agreed upon thus far, which taken together and implemented, would help to deliver relief, justice and remedy to the people of Darfur.

Ms. Arbour said all information collected since late 2005 pointed to an exacerbation of the previous pattern of abuses, including: increased ground attacks on civilians by the Sudanese Armed Forces and large groups of armed forces; indiscriminate bombardment by Government planes; civilian casualties, civilian displacement, and pillaging of civilian property due to Government, militia, rebel and bandit attacks; hindrance of humanitarian access to people in need; threats of murder, sexual violence, other physical assault and robbery which prevented internally displaced persons from leaving the camps and returning to their land; and arbitrary arrest and detention, as well as torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by Government security forces.

Observations and other available information confirmed that what was unfolding in Darfur could not be simply dismissed as an escalation of tribal rivalries. Moreover, according to the UN Panel of Experts of the sanction committee on Sudan, an inflow of weapons from neighboring countries contributed to fuel the conflict. The gravity of the situation was compounded by the rebels’ abusive conduct. Impunity was rampant. After extensive investigations, the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur had highlighted concrete steps that the Government of Sudan should take to put an end to impunity. As a result, the UN Security Council referred the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. Later, targeted sanctions against Sudan were imposed by the Security Council.

The desperate plight of the people of Darfur had for too long been neglected or addressed with what the victims should rightly regard, and history would judge, as meek offerings, broken promises, and disregard. This Council had taken the important step of convening a special session to tackle the serious and pressing situation in Darfur. Victims and other vulnerable civilians were entitled to expect a credible response.


Statement by Sudan as Concerned Country

FARAH MUSTAFA (Sudan) said Sudan affirmed its commitment and firm conviction to promoting human rights and removing any selectivity and politicisation. Sudan said this as today, the coloniser of yesterday was changing his looks, and was hiding behind the noble ideas of international work. Sudan had national choices, and in particular it had chosen to belong to the African community, the Arab community and the Islamic community. The aim of the present special session was not to protect human rights, but to undermine the sovereignty of weak States. Sudan’s objective had been the constant: to speak the truth. If the Council was trying to have some sort of balance after the three special sessions it had held before, would not it have been better to hold a session to welcome the Abuja Peace Agreement, away from selectivity, he asked.

Sudan was glad to have been availed an opportunity that would not be available in the Western media, which was repeating lies, to speak the truth. The report of the African Commission to the African Council on Peace and Security of 29 November 2006 had showed that violations had been perpetrated by civilian armed groups on African Union troops, including rapes and the recruitment of child soldiers. Sudan reiterated their concern that the reports of the High Commissioner for Human Rights not only overlooked the violations of those armed groups, but repeated that those violations had been perpetrated by the Government. The international community had failed to hold the armed groups responsible for their acts and the High Commissioner had adopted a prejudicial position against the Government. The African Union, in all its documents and statements by the African Council of Peace and Security, had affirmed that the road to resolving the conflict and putting an end to the violence lay in enforcing the Abuja Peace Agreement. The Sudan had three principles: the Darfur Peace Agreement should not be renegotiated; no party should be allowed to undermine its negotiations; and the African Union remained the leader for the implementation of the Peace Agreement.

In conclusion, Mr. Mustafa said that the roots of the conflict in Darfur were economic, competing for resources and the land that the approaching desert was eating up on a daily basis. This had led to tribal fights which the Government had noticed and had tried to resolve in the Abuja Agreement.


General Debate

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that human rights were more in need of protection in Africa than in any other continent in the era of the transatlantic slave trade and during the colonial period. Today, they constituted a challenge no different from that of the recent past in Bosnia and paled in comparison with the Middle East, where the tragedy of Iraq unfolded before the international community carrying in its wake hundreds of thousands of horrendous deaths which increased daily by the hundreds. As was the case in all civil conflicts and wars, the conflict in Darfur was accompanied by far-reaching propaganda campaigns where information was manipulated and the human rights situation was politicized. Thus, an analysis by a major non-governmental organization, headquartered in an advanced country and disseminated at this session, presented the case in terms of an ethnic conflict of apocalyptic proportion between an Arab oppressor Government with its militia targeting non-Arab tribes. There was not a single mention of the true nature of the conflict between herders and pastoralists or of rebel group action using civilian human shields and attacking humanitarian assistance convoys.

As a follow-up action, the Council should obtain first-hand information on the human rights situation in Darfur some six months or so after the Darfur Peace Agreement and to see whether the African Union could be more closely involved henceforth in channelling information on the human rights situation in Darfur to the Council; and to draw up a road map to put an immediate end to violence, to be followed by ways and means to enhance the enjoyment of human rights by the people of Darfur and to promote accountability for authors of violations. That was the objective, which was closely related to the respect of a ceasefire and to the rebels joining the Darfur Peace Agreement, advising against the renegotiation of the agreement. If the Council limited the mission to the assessment of an expert mission, especially if the Council prejudged its outcome in its terms of reference, the status quo would be maintained. For the African Group, that was not the option.

LOVE MTESA (Zambia) said that Zambia supported the people of Darfur, and Sudan in general, as a matter of principle regardless of who was at fault in the conflict. The people of Darfur were entitled to all human rights, especially the right to life, food, shelter, health care, peace, political freedom and above all human dignity. Reports coming from Darfur indicated that the human rights situation there was grave. Although they had an African Union Force of 5,000 troops and 2,500 police, they were too few to do the work effectively. Zambia did not see anything wrong in having a UN force in Darfur. That was exactly the situation in Southern Sudan, where the Sudanese Government had allowed 10,000 UN peacekeepers. Why could the same not be done for Darfur?

They, the Africans, had not hesitated in calling for quick United Nations action when it came to situations outside their continent. When it came to Africa, however, he was afraid that they had adopted the behaviour of an ostrich, burying their heads in the sand. They must, in fact, share part of the blame for the genocide in Rwanda because they had failed to call the United Nations to take action in good time. They had to end their ostrich behaviour. Although he had gone to the Sudan, he had come back to Geneva with no clear picture of the situation prevailing in Darfur. There were just too many conflicting statements coming out of the Sudan on Darfur both from the Government and other stakeholders. In that regard, therefore, Zambia supported the dispatch of a fact-finding mission to the Sudan to assess the situation of human rights in Darfur. They, particularly, the Africans, must not let down the people of the Sudan by putting their heads in the sand.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said the convening of the special session was in itself a categorical denial to the hypercritics of the Council, those who bet on its failure as they wanted to be free to cover up their misdeeds throughout the world. The grave human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur, Sudan, was indeed a matter of concern to the international community. It was a complex and delicate situation with deep roots in the colonial past, in the artificial divisions created in Africa, in the structural poverty caused by centuries of exploitation and plundering, and in current economic and geostrategic interests of the great superpower.

In addition to these elements, there was a persistent campaign of discredit and exaggeration orchestrated against the Government of Sudan, with the clear aim of encouraging the hegemonic pretensions of the West. Cuba could attest to the tireless efforts of the Government of Sudan to face the crisis, and of its permanent commitment to cooperate with the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations. The complex situation in Darfur could never be solved with external impositions from New York or Geneva. The measures of the Council would only be effective if they fully involved and were accepted by the Government of Sudan. It was hoped that the debates and results of the special session would take a different path from the one taken so far in the United Nations: the solution to the situation in Darfur required a long-term strategy for development and cooperation, doing away with inflammatory language and pretensions of imposing sanctions and unnecessary condemnation.

VESA HIMANEN (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that Darfur was experiencing a severe and large-scale human rights and humanitarian crisis. It was against the background of the grave suffering by civilians that the Council was called to do what the UN Secretary-General asked it to do in his statement on 29 November: to come together at the Council, on the basis of the mandate entrusted to it, to scrutinize the situation in Darfur and to decide on immediate measures. The new Council simply should act. The primary obligation of the Government of Sudan to protect civilians, in particular women and children, against all forms of violence, should be emphasized. The Council should call on all parties to the conflict to put an immediate end to the ongoing violations of human rights and humanitarian law, and to ensure full, safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance to those in need. In this special session, it was very important to address different aspects of the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Darfur. One crucial aspect in that regard was to abolish impunity, and another was to focus on the most vulnerable groups in that conflict, including children who had been traumatized by the conflict and violence.

It was also essential to have effective follow-up to this session. The Council should make sure that its work was geared towards concrete and operational outcomes – and not settle for statements delivered for their own sake. Extensive and detailed information based on independent monitoring, notably by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other agencies, on the human rights situation in Darfur already existed. The African Union had also been active on the ground and reported regularly. The suggested mission should therefore build on those existing efforts, and seek to identify ways in which the Government of Sudan should implement recommendations for the better protection of the human rights of its citizens, and in which all parties could alleviate the dire human rights situation. The cooperation of the concerned country, the Government of Sudan, was essential for those efforts to lead to any improvement on the ground in Darfur.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC countries cared for the people of Darfur and Sudan, and supported the efforts of the Government of Sudan, the African Union and the United Nations to resolve the internecine, economic strife that had wracked Darfur for the last three years. Without a doubt, the people of Darfur had suffered. Relief had been provided to them, but more relief needed to be sent to the region. Human rights abuses by all parties should come to an end. This special session of the Human Rights Council was important. It would be a mistake to project it as a tit-for-tat for the three Special Sessions held on the Middle East earlier this year. This was as though holding a special session was a panacea, considering that the decisions taken by two of the three special sessions had not been implemented at all.

It was important that the session should not prejudge the outcome of a mission being established which would make a definitive, impartial determination about the situation. The session’s resolution/decision should not be one-sided - it should fully reflect and respect the views of the Sudanese Government which was cooperating with the human rights machinery. The situation in Darfur was serious, and the steps taken by the Government to resolve the crisis were commended. The Security Council had upheld the sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity of the Sudan - and this made the Government the principal actor. The Human Rights Council was a new body - it should build bridges, not create new fissures. It should look at the broader, strategic, and long-term picture so that human rights norms, standards and laws were strengthened, and implemented effectively. It should not become a battleground for pushing narrow, parochial or neo-provincial agendas.

GLAUDINE J. MTSHALI (South Africa) commended the African Union for its endeavours to bring about peace, security, stability and reconciliation in Darfur since the outbreak of the crisis in 2003. It was a well-known fact, however, that the African Union’s peace support mission in Darfur was under-resourced. In addition, its effectiveness was dependent on the level of cooperation that it received from the parties to the conflict, which had not always been optimal. It was therefore imperative that the Darfur Peace Agreement, signed in 2006, was fully implemented by all concerned parties. South Africa believed that the restoration of peace and security and the resultant addressing and reversing of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur could only be achieved through political will. South Africa thus welcomed the conclusions on 16 November 2006 of the High-Level Consultation on the Situation in Darfur involving Secretary-General Annan, the African Union and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Those conclusions, which the African Union Peace and Security Council had endorsed on 30 November, called for, among others, an all-inclusive political process based on the Darfur Peace Agreement and mediation under the African Union and United Nations leadership.

Furthermore, South Africa welcomed the further extension of the mandate of the African Union Mission in Sudan for a period of six months beginning from 1 January 2007. South Africa called on the international community to assist in making logistical and financial resources available to sustain that mandate. When the African Union’s Peace and Security Council’s decision on the situation in Darfur was successfully implemented, there would be significant movement in achieving peace and security in Darfur. Without prejudging the outcome of the fact-finding mission to Darfur, South Africa requested that the Human Rights Council ensure that it give effect to the outcome and recommendations of that mission.

KWABENA BAAH-DUODU (Ghana) supported the proposal to send a team to Darfur to assess the human rights situation there. The good news was that all had agreed on that. The bad news was that the Council was divided on the composition of such a team. Ghana’s interest and desire to assist the sisterly country of Sudan to deal with the human rights situation in Darfur demanded no less than sending a team with the capacity to make an accurate and objective human rights assessment. Ghana was of the view that the composition of the delegation should be made with that in mind. If the Council was to make the right proposal on the situation in Darfur it could only do so on the basis of accurate information. No matter how the team was composed, it should possess the competence and capability to make an accurate and unbiased assessment of the situation. Anything short of that might further complicate the situation in Darfur as well as create credibility problems for the Council itself.

Ghana wished to express its deep appreciation to the Government of Sudan for the cooperation it had established with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Sudan, and appealed to the Government to extend the same cooperation to the assessment team, which might be sent there, by granting it unfettered access to all areas and parties to discuss how to improve the human rights situation in the region. The fact that the Council could work by consensus on issues that were of great concern should be demonstrated to the whole world.

MICHAEL STEINER (Germany) said the human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur had been alarming for months, and was still deteriorating. That the Human Rights Council had finally acknowledged the seriousness of the situation by convening the special session was welcomed. For nearly half a year there had been an increase in air raids, fighting, and indiscriminate killings of civilians, costing the life of thousands of men, women and children. Tens of thousands had been forced to flee. Violent attacks aimed at relief workers further undermined living conditions. There was also concern at the danger of a deepening regional crisis. More and more, the neighbouring countries were affected.

The fact that the special session found the support of so many countries from all regions showed the growing conscience of the international community that something had to be done to put an end to the suffering in Darfur. The session was a valuable opportunity to bring together information on what was going on - but, faced with the devastating situation on the ground, the Council could not just talk. There had to be an effective operational follow-up to the session, a credible assessment mission was urgently called for. The task of the mission should be to assess the situation in an objective manner building on existing efforts, and should draw conclusions and provide concrete recommendations on how to improve the protection of human rights in Darfur. The Council had the obligation to address the crisis in Darfur urgently and effectively.

ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), speaking on behalf of the League of Arab States, said the signing of the Abuja Peace Agreement had been the deciding line in the conflict. The Abuja Agreement included the necessary basis for dealing with the human rights violations as well as putting an end to the conflict. Therefore, the Human Rights Council should work towards ensuring the implementation of that agreement. As the African Union had been named to implement the agreement, therefore, Saudi Arabia also supported the decision of the African Union and of its Peace and Security Council in that regard.

While facing horrendous discrepancies in the information coming from the media, the Council had to find impartial and verifiable means for finding out what was happening on the ground. They had to recognize the positive achievements of the Government of the Sudan – first and foremost, the conclusion of the Abuja Peace Agreement.

MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia) said the situation in Darfur was an issue that was complicated, multidimensional, and involved many actors and groups. It encompassed tribal conflicts, conflicts between farmers and herders, and conflicts between political interests, all of which had resulted in the existence of a high number of internally displaced persons in the region. The existence of many displaced persons camps established in various affected areas reflected the extent and seriousness of the problem. Indonesia, as a country that had committed itself to the promotion and protection of human rights, was very much concerned about the human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur. It certainly hoped to see an improvement in the situation in Sudan and that a state of normalcy would return as soon a as possible. The existing humanitarian issues had been addressed by the Government of Sudan in an open manner. That could be seen in the fact that many international organizations, including UN specialized agencies and other relevant humanitarian organizations, had come in and were working in Sudan.

In facing its internal problems, the Government of Sudan was also open to the outside world, as illustrated among others by its invitation to groups of ambassadors and officials from African and non-African countries to visit the country. During the visits of the ambassadors, the groups not only met with high-ranking government officials and representatives of international organizations, they also had the opportunity to talk with the displaced persons in their camps and were free to discuss the problems those persons were facing. In addition, the Government of Sudan cooperated with various UN human rights mechanisms, including with former and current UN officials as well as with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Sudan.

BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) said there were grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law in Darfur on a daily basis. The civilian population was continuing to pay a heavy price in human lives and in suffering. Deliberate and repeated attacks had been made on both local and international humanitarian staff. Further, the crimes committed by the parties in the conflict were only rarely investigated, and the administration of justice, as well as access by the population to judicial institutions were suffering from grave lacunae. This situation was alarming and intolerable. All parties to the conflict, in particular the Government of National Unity of the Sudan, were reminded of their duties under international humanitarian law, in particular the primary responsibility to respect and promote human rights.

Due to the alarming degradation of the situation of human rights and international humanitarian law, Switzerland saluted the holding of this special session. This fourth special session showed that, in agreement with its mandate, the Council had the capacity to intervene when the situation of human rights in a country or a specific region required it. The mission to be sent by the Council should be able to make concrete proposals and recommendations in order to substantially improve the protection of vulnerable people and groups, in particular women, children, the internally-displaced, and those who remained out of the reach of humanitarian aid and protection mechanisms set up by the United Nations and the African Union.

DORU ROMULUS COSTEA (Romania) said since the signature of the Peace Agreement in Darfur, the situation had continued to deteriorate. In the region, some 84,000 people had been displaced. Some hundreds had recently been killed, and numerous villages burned and completely destroyed. The fights among different factions continued to cause victims among the civilian population. The Human Rights Council should act immediately, using the instruments and mechanisms available to it, and send a fact-finding mission to assess the situation in Darfur.

The fundamental criteria which should underpin the decision were the independence, expertise, and non-politicisation of the members of the delegation, which should be headed by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan, and should contain representatives of other special procedures. It should evaluate the situation of human rights in Darfur on the ground after discussing the situation with all concerned parties. The Government should collaborate with the follow-up mechanism which would be put in place after the special session.

JEAN-MAURICE RIPERT (France) said the crisis in Darfur was without a doubt the most disturbing crisis occurring on the African continent today. However, and despite the conclusion of a peace agreement this year, the situation had continually worsened. The information from all sides was increasingly confirming what they all feared: that a human disaster was in the making. The civilian population had been victims of multiple forms of violence, and France was also deeply concerned by the extension of the conflict to Chad and the Central African Republic. France supported the deployment of an international force to Darfur along the lines of the three-phased approach proposed by the UN Secretary-General in Addis Ababa on 16 November. The first priority was to reinforce the African Union Mission. France was also very open to the recommendations the UN Secretariat was too formulate shortly with regard to a UN presence on the borders of Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic. At this special session the Council should establish a fact-finding mission, composed of independent and objective experts.

In September 2005, at the UN World Summit, Heads of State and Government from all over the world elaborated the principle of the “responsibility to protect” populations threatened by crimes against humanity. That was a responsibility that they owed to the women and children of Darfur. They should not fail in that duty.

SHA ZUKANG (China) was convinced that with the holding of the current special session, the credibility of the Council would be increased by one hundred per cent, thanks to the coverage of the media. China was seriously concerned about the humanitarian and human rights crisis in Darfur, including the security threat in the region. The situation had been a challenge to the Government of Sudan, which had been doing its utmost to bring solutions to the problem. In the past, a resolution of the Council had expressed concern about the human rights situation in Darfur. Urgent measures had been taken by the Council in order to resolve the problem, which was a concern to the international community.

The parties involved in the conflict should sign the Darfur Peace Agreement and should honour their commitment by respecting their obligations under the agreement. They should respect the human rights of the civilian population. They had also the obligation to protect the vulnerable segments of the population, including children and women. The African Union had made its utmost in resolving the problem the Sudan was facing in Darfur, and had put a series of solutions to address the problem. China would continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the victims and would like to see improvements of the humanitarian situation in the region. China would also continue to cooperate with the Government of Sudan in addressing the problem.

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea) said the special session of the Council on Darfur was welcomed. The situation in Darfur remained serious, and was a grave challenge to the entire international community. The Human Rights Council should live up to the expectations of the international community, and address the situation in Darfur. There were serious concerns for the human rights situation in the region, and the vulnerability of women, children and the elderly in the violence. All parties should work together to end the violence.

It was hoped that the decision of the African Union would be implemented and help to improve the security environment for the civilian population in Darfur, where the tragedy was still ongoing. Much remained to be done to protect the civilian population from the violence, and provide them with humanitarian assistance. The High Commissioner should provide support in this regard, as well as ensuring that all sides respected humanitarian law. The Council should speak in a unified voice and take measures in this respect. An assessment mission should provide reliable information to the Council, and allow it to take relevant decisions. An independent assessment was particularly important when there was a lack of common understanding of the situation on the ground.

HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) said the lack of security due, among others, to intercommunal differences and the existence of several rebel groups, was the root cause of the human rights challenge in Darfur. Malaysia therefore believed that the Human Rights Council and the international community should continue to demonstrate and garner effective and meaningful support to assist the Government of Sudan in ensuring the full implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement of 5 May 2006. Effective implementation of that agreement would be a significant foundation for achieving peace in Darfur that would address the security issue and all other aspects, including protection and promotion of human rights of the victims of the conflict in the region.

Malaysia noted that the Government of the Sudan had taken concrete measures through its national mechanisms to implement the peace agreement, including those relating to combating violence against women and bringing to justice perpetrators of other crimes committed in Darfur. In the meantime, the effective protection of civilians, especially at the internal displacement camps, had to be a priority. Provision of humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to proceed unhindered and efforts had to be made to facilitate the return of the internally displaced to their homes. Finally, it was imperative that the Council proceed on the issue in a constructive manner. Malaysia therefore urged the Council to engage Sudan as a concerned country in any decision the Council would take in line with the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue in the promotion and protection of human rights.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said that violence against women and girls was just one of the deeply disturbing human rights violations occurring on a daily basis in Darfur. It was occurring with regularity and on a scale that alone would warrant the attention of the Council. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs had reported widespread attacks by pro-Government militias on villages in South Darfur, causing hundreds of deaths and the displacement of thousands. The report told of especially heavy toll suffering by women and children. It reflected the harassment of internally displaced persons, both by non-signatories to the Darfur Peace Agreement and by pro-Government militia and government forces in west and south Darfur. It reported unequivocally that violence against girls and women was on the rise again in the surroundings of many camps.

The United Kingdom wanted to see a consensus approach to tackling violations in Darfur. Cooperation should be sought; and dialogue should be encouraged. Yet, cooperation and dialogue and the search of consensus could not be ends in themselves. They should surely serve the founding purpose of the Council: the promotion and protection of human rights. Today, one should seek effective action for the people of Darfur. The United Kingdom would continue to pursue consensus and cooperation. It was his strongest hope that the Council would achieve both. When atrocities on that scale and with that persistence were occurring, anywhere in the world, all were implicated. The international community had the responsibility to speak out. That responsibility should not end at the border of States or the frontiers of regions.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said Argentina had co-sponsored the request for the special session, due to deep concern for the situation of human rights in Darfur, whose terrible consequences, namely the grave violation of human rights, were common knowledge. In the Security Council, Argentina had insisted on a number of measures, including the need to respect international human rights and humanitarian law, and to take concrete measures to put an end to violence and atrocities.

In the second session of the Human Rights Council, Argentina had supported the amendments put forth by the European Union, as these represented a strengthening of the draft submitted by Algeria on behalf of the African Group, whose ideas were supported. The Special Procedures were ideal tools to review the human rights situation in all parts of the world, and therefore the Special Rapporteur was the ideal person to visit Darfur and report on the situation there to the Council. The primary obligation of the Government of Sudan was to protect all persons from human rights violations, and all parties in the conflict should respect international human rights and humanitarian law. The Council should overcome the politicisation and selectivity which appeared to have prevailed at the outset, and would deal with all situations in the world requiring the attention of the human rights body.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said the holding of this special session was a good augur for the future for a collective and cooperative approach to securing protection of human rights around the world. Today, they were trying to look for the truth: to know exactly what was happening in Darfur. Morocco found that Sudan had proven its readiness to cooperate; the Council should therefore work together with the Sudanese Government in order to achieve stability and peace in the region.

The Council should call on the parties to the conflict to sign and support the Darfur Peace Agreement. This was the most difficult phase of the peace process and required the full cooperation of the Sudanese Government and the international community. For its part, the international community needed to abide by its commitments and pledges, in particular for financial assistance. There were conflicting reports coming out of Darfur. That was why the Council wanted an objective report that would allow them to formulate a realistic and balanced approach to resolving the situation.

SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia) said that there was a need to deal with all human rights situations with wisdom and objectivity, far from selectivity and politicization. The signing of the Abuja peace agreement was by far a positive measure towards the peaceful resolution to the crisis in Darfur. Those parties that did not sign should ratify the agreement and abide by its provisions in order to bring peace and stability in the region. The Government of Sudan had so far shown its readiness to bring peace and security in Darfur. It was hoped that the Council would reach consensus to bring an effective solution to the problem in Darfur in a transparent manner. The Council should also be able to obtain credible information from the ground.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) said the Human Rights Council had been created with the basic aim of addressing situations of human rights violations. There were strong reasons to believe that the situation in Darfur was such a case. There were an impressive number of signatures from all regional groups for the special session - and this was an opportunity for the Council to act united, to protect victims, the most vulnerable, and the internally-displaced, providing protection and easing their sufferings, without politicisation. The scale of atrocities being perpetrated against civilians since 2003 was appalling - it was estimated that there were already 200,000 dead, with millions of refugees who desperately needed humanitarian assistance.

The delivery of any humanitarian aid was practically impossible at the moment. Poland called upon all parties to the conflict to halt the violence, protect the victims, and allow delivery of urgent humanitarian assistance. The Government should ensure that human rights and international humanitarian law were respected in Darfur, and perpetrators of violations rapidly brought to justice. It should cooperate with the United Nations and the Special Procedures. It was necessary for the Council to dispatch an urgent assessment mission with the expertise to produce credible results and objective suggestions. Concrete action was critical, and all States should join in a consensual action.

YURI BOYCHENKO (Russian Federation) was concerned that the continuing confrontation, the armed conflict, and attacks on humanitarian convoys were leading to deaths among the civilian populations in Darfur and were hampering Government efforts to restore order. The substantial precondition for the improvement of the humanitarian and human rights situation in Darfur was the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement, including provisions on human rights and fundamental freedoms. There had already been evidence of the positive impact of those accords on the humanitarian situation in the region. It now remained for all parties to the conflict to sign and abide by the agreement.

The Human Rights Council should not adopt a simplistic approach to the conflict in Darfur. They could not but note that the Government of the Sudan, with the assistance of the African Union, was stepping up its efforts to deal with human rights violations there. Perhaps it was not as quickly as everyone would wish, but there had been results. The Government of the Sudan had shown its openness to cooperate, as it had in the convening of this special session on the subject. This was a double opportunity for the Council: the Sudanese Government needed their assistance and help; but, at the same time, the Council had the opportunity to adopt a new approach, not resorting to confrontation and accusations, but working together to resolve problems. The mission to Darfur should not be primarily focused on establishing what was going on the ground – they already had a wealth of information on that from a number of sources – it should be focused, rather, on finding what the Government of the Sudan needed to do make a radical turn around in the human rights situation in Darfur.

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said that the situation on the ground in Darfur had been a cause for concern. Enhanced human rights protection and humanitarian assistance, by all parties concerned, especially for civilians, and the large numbers who had been directly affected, was an immediate necessity. India called upon all parties to subscribe to and implement the Darfur Peace Agreement. That, along with the observance of a cease-fire by all sides, would create the necessary conditions for the humanitarian situation to be addressed with the speed and attention it deserved. It would be pertinent to recall that the General Assembly resolution 60/251 required the Council to contribute, through dialogue and cooperation, towards prevention of human rights violations by all parties concerned and to responds promptly to human rights emergencies.

In that context, the cooperation extended by the Government of Sudan to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan was noteworthy. It was only through such cooperative efforts with the United Nations and the African Union that the condition of the affected people on the ground could be ameliorated.

ABDULLA ABDULLATIF ABDULLA (Bahrain) said the success of the Sudanese Government in reaching a Peace Accord in Darfur was a major achievement that deserved attention by the Council. The agreement contained the implementation of many of the positive aspects of the achievement of peace and stability in Darfur, and the Council should support the agreement, and should call upon the parties who had not signed it to do so without delay. Since the agreement had stipulated that the African Union was the monitoring body for this agreement, the position of the African Union and the Security Council resolutions in this regard were endorsed.

There was conflicting information on the situation of human rights in Darfur in the media, and it was time for the Council to provide new and innovative ways in order to obtain secure information, on the basis of impartiality, and not to depend on false and inaccurate information. The Government of Sudan was commended and thanked for its efforts to explain the facts to the Council. Since the convening of the special session was by consensus, it was hoped this cooperative spirit would endure, and there would be dialogue, away from confrontation and division. This was a good opportunity to reach consensus, and the chance should not be lost.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) remained deeply concerned by the persistent culture of impunity; the continued gross violations of human rights, including sexual and gender-based violence; and repeated violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict in Darfur. Canada was alarmed at the increasingly insecure conditions for civilians, and noted with growing unease the spill-over of the conflict into neighbouring Chad and the Central African Republic in recent months, marked by the same lack of consideration for human life and the same patterns of violent abuse committed by militias that criss-crossed the porous borders.

The primary reason they were here today was to signal first and foremost to the people of Darfur that they had forgotten them; secondly, to remind the Government of Sudan that it had the primary responsibility to protect its population; and thirdly, that the international community was ready to work in cooperation, openness and transparency with the Sudanese Government to improve the human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur. However, in the absence of the Government of Sudan’s willingness or ability to protect its population, the international community, in accordance with the responsibility to protect which it accepted in 2005, had to do all that it could to provide protection to the people of Darfur. Canada was greatly concerned that the international community was failing to do just that.

GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador) said Ecuador was one of the convening countries of the special session. Today, Ecuador wished to express its deep concern with regard to the human rights situation in Darfur. In order to avoid further deterioration of the situation in the region, the Council should act promptly and seek a solution to the crisis. Whoever cast the first stone to the crisis in Darfur, the situation should find a solution. Ecuador would call upon the Council to find a consensus solution to the crisis. Whatever the vote might be, Ecuador would follow the positive aspect of the resolution and eventually would explain its vote.

JOSEPH U. AYALOGU (Nigeria) said Nigeria had hosted the inter-Sudanese peace talks, which culminated in the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement, which contained the desired ingredients to achieving lasting peace in the troubled region. Given its comprehensive and all-encompassing nature, the Peace Agreement remained the most practical initiative for tackling the lingering problem. Achieving peace in Darfur was a critical factor for dealing with the human rights and humanitarian issues of the region.

Darfur had attracted a number of initiatives, one of the latest being the resolution passed by the Human Rights Council recently. Thus, Darfur was not lacking in its fair share of initiatives - the deficiency was concrete initiatives to address the most urgent concerns, namely the human rights and humanitarian needs of the affected population. The Council should break away from the traditional norm of just adopting a document which sought to dispatch fact-finding or assessment missions. There should now be concrete initiatives which sought to alleviate the suffering of the internally-displaced, improve security in the camps, and ultimately create an atmosphere enabling displaced people to return to their respective homes to live in peace, security and dignity.

PAULINE DAVIES (Uruguay) recalled the Secretary-General’s statement that the Human Rights Council could not remain indifferent when faced with the evidence of grave and persistent violations of human rights against civilians in Darfur. The international community had the responsibility to protect the victims and to prevent the deterioration of the situation, and it was the Council’s duty to do that. Uruguay noted with satisfaction the open dialogue that had been established between the Sudan, the countries of the African Group, and other delegations, in order to reach agreement on what actions the special session should request be undertaken. During that dialogue, diverging pictures had emerged of the situation with regard to human rights in the region and over the validity of the information presented by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and by the Special Procedures. Uruguay did not question the validity of that information, and had repeatedly supported the actions of the Office of the High Commissioner on the ground. However, Uruguay agreed that the Council urgently needed an impartial and independent account of what was going on in that region.
At the Council’s third regular session, the High Commissioner had stated that the situation in Darfur was grave, and that the Council had to send a mission to provide it with objective information upon which it could then formulate recommendations that could guarantee the stabilization of the situation and put an end to the human rights violations there. Uruguay hoped that the Government of the Sudan would continue to cooperate, as it had in the past, with such a mission.

BOUDEWIJN J. VAN EENENNAAM (Netherlands) shared with the other members of the Council its deep concern about the worsening humanitarian and human rights crisis in Darfur. Atrocities against innocent civilians continued unabated. The international community could not stand by idle while those crimes continued and should ensure that the perpetrators would be brought to justice. The Netherlands urged the Government of Sudan to fully cooperate with the investigations, conducted by the International Criminal Court, into the crimes committed in Darfur. Over the past weeks, Sudanese armed forces together with armed Arab militia had been conducting a military offensive in west and north Darfur while fighting among rebel groups took place in south Darfur. Aerial bombardments by government forces had led to the further destruction of villages resulting in new refugee flows.

International organizations were increasingly becoming the object of attack, and humanitarian operations had had to be curtailed or halted. Internally displaced persons suffered severe human rights abuses. Female displaced persons were prone to rape and other forms of sexual abuse with no effective police response to reporting of those crimes. The military offensive appeared to be aimed at driving out the non-Arab population from Darfur. The Council should yield concrete results. The Netherlands strongly supported the sending of an independent assessment mission to Sudan.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06089E