COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORTS ON SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, BURUNDI AND MYANMAR

The Human Rights Council this morning heard presentation of reports by Vitit Muntarbhorn, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; Akich Okola, the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi; and Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.

Mr. Muntarbhorn said it was regrettable that to date, the authorities of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had declined to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur. The non-democratic regime adhered to a “military first” policy, aggravated by various missile and nuclear tests, which had led to global condemnation. Many violations in the field of civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights, persisted. In recent years, there had been some legislative improvements impacting upon the security of the human person, yet there were concerns at the way that the regime might use anti-State legislative provisions to repress political dissent.

Speaking as a concerned country, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said it categorically rejected the Special Rapporteur’s report. The Government had already stated that it did not accept the resolution, or the mandate of the Special Rapporteur because they were politically motivated and had no relevance to human rights at all.

Also speaking in the interactive debate on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were the Republic of Korea, Germany on behalf of the European Union, China, Cuba, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Netherlands, and United States.

Mr. Okola said food security was a perennial problem in Burundi due mainly to overpopulation. The situation of human rights was expected to improve following the signature of the ceasefire agreement. Security forces of the Government of Burundi had been involved in various violations. The administration of justice needed to be reformed with the provisions of the Arusha Agreement. The justice system was still weak owing to lack of equipment, poor training of staff, interference by politicians and corruption. The international community should support the Government in its efforts with regard to the establishment and implementation of the twin mechanisms, encourage respect for and promotion of human rights so that the country could secure lasting peace, and increase its support for humanitarian and development assistance.

Burundi, speaking as a concerned country, said the report, on the whole, reflected the real situation, but it was essential to have a number of nuances and clarifications provided so as to shed light on unclear areas, to provide updates, and to express the political will of the Government to implement the recommendations. Significant progress had been made with regards to political will.

Speaking in the interactive debate on Burundi were Kenya, Germany on behalf of the European Union, Sudan, Belgium, Democratic Republic of Congo, Norway, Rwanda, United States and Canada.

Mr. Pinheiro said the criminalization in Myanmar of the exercise of fundamental freedoms by political opponents, human rights defenders and victims of human rights abuses was a matter of grave concern. The house arrest of Daw Aung Suu Kyi had been further prolonged by twelve months in spite of various international appeals. In December 2006, the number of political prisoners was estimated at 1,201. While, the Special Rapporteur welcomed some progress against the widespread practices of forced labour, he was very much worried about the increased militarization in ethnic areas of eastern Myanmar and its effects on human rights, especially on civilians who had been targeted during attacks.

Myanmar, speaking as a concerned country, said the report of the Special Rapporteur was essentially the same as the one presented last year. The Myanmar Government was fully committed to the successful implementation of the seven-step road map to democracy. Myanmar had granted amnesty to 22,147 prisoners during the last two years, and this demonstrated the Government’s goodwill and commitment to national reconciliation.

Speaking in the debate on Myanmar were Norway, Germany on behalf of the European Union, India, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Sweden, New Zealand, China, United States, Finland, Republic of Korea, Australia, Japan and Canada.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue on the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 and the high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun.

Speaking on those reports were Iran, Syria, Chile and Germany on behalf of the European Union. The following non-governmental organizations also spoke: Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, in a joint statement with Arab Lawyers Union; Union of Arab Jurists; and Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, United Nations Watch, B'nai B'rith International, in a joint statement with Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations, Union of Arab Jurists, Al-Haq, law in the service of man, in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Organization for the Solidarity of the Peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, and Amnesty International.

When the Human Rights Council resumes its work at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear a presentation from Charlotte Abaka, the Independent Expert on technical cooperation and advisory services in Liberia. It will then hear statements on thematic issues which have been already raised, before taking action on draft resolutions and decisions.

Reports before the Council

The Council has before it the annual report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Vitit Muntarbhorn (A/HRC/4/15), which says the current situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reveals a number of key violations in a variety of fields. The environment for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was further undermined in 2006 by the various missile and nuclear tests carried out by the country in the face of global condemnation and subsequent Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on the country. Regrettably, it is the ordinary people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who suffer at the hands of the authorities and who bear the brunt of the myriad of abuses which are both systematic and pervasive. It is also regrettable that to date the authorities of the country have declined to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur. The report also provides an update on field visits to Japan, the Republic of Korea and Mongolia. It ends by addressing recommendations to both the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the international community.

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro (A/HRC/4/14), which says the exercise of fundamental freedoms in Myanmar has been severely restricted. The house arrest of Aung Sang Suu Kyi, which was further prolonged for one year on 27 May 2006, illustrates well this state of affairs. As of 16 December 2006, the number of political prisoners was estimated to be 1,201. Grave human rights violations are committed by persons within the established structures of the State Peace and Development Council and are not only perpetrated with impunity but authorized by law. In that respect, the Special Rapporteur is also very concerned about the continued misuse of the legal system, which denies the rule of law and represents a major obstacle to securing the effective and meaningful exercise of fundamental freedoms by citizens. He considers the criminalization of the exercise of fundamental freedoms by political opponents, human rights defenders and victims of human rights abuses to be a matter of particular concern. Given the scale of the current military campaign, the situation may lead to a humanitarian crisis if it is not addressed immediately.

The Council has before it the interim report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi, Akich Okola (A/HRC/4/5), which covers the Independent Expert’s sixth and seventh visits, undertaken from 7 to 14 October 2006 and 14 to 27 January 2007, respectively. The report gives a special focus to Government implementation of programmes aimed at providing universal free primary education and access to free health care for children under 5 years of age and expectant mothers; the political situation, including the signature of a comprehensive ceasefire agreement between the Government and the Forces nationales pour la libération (FNL) on 7 September 2006; the arrest, detention and acquittal of the alleged coup plotters, including the former President and the former Vice-President of the Republic; the arrests and killings perpetrated in Muyinga between May and August 2006 and the judicial investigation thereon. Among its conclusions and recommendations, the Independent Expert expresses concern about the threats against the families of the victims of the Muyinga massacre and deplores the failure to prosecute individuals implicated in the disappearance and summary execution of suspected FNL members in May and August 2006. The Independent Expert commends the Government for creating a judicial commission to look into this matter and recommends that the Government implement the findings of this commission and ensure that those responsible are sanctioned.

The Council has before it the report of the Independent Expert on technical cooperation and advisory services in Liberia, Charlotte Abaka (A/HRC/4/6), based on the findings of the independent expert's two missions to Liberia in 2006. There were a number of positive developments in the year, but the failure to effectively tackle some critical human rights issues in 2006, and especially those affecting the most marginalized and vulnerable in society, must also be highlighted. The year 2006 commenced with the enactment in January of amended rape legislation, which sought to give greater legal protection to victims. However, the failure by both the Liberian National Police and the courts to properly implement this crucial piece of legislation on sexual crimes has left victims without any effective protection or remedy. The impotence of the justice system, combined with the prevailing dire social and economic conditions, gave rise to the widespread practice of out-of-court settlements for such cases, which is essentially a form of impunity. Another promising start last year was the inauguration in February 2006 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was then launched in June. Among its conclusions, the report says that the effective implementation of a national anti-corruption strategy with a powerful anti-corruption commission is needed.

Presentation of Report by Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said the approach of the Special Rapporteur was to invite the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to respond to the mandate as a window of opportunity to engage with the United Nations, and it was thus regrettable that to date, the authorities of the country had declined to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur. On the constructive front, it could be recalled that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a party to four human rights treaties, and had submitted reports under these, and appeared before the various monitoring bodies established thereunder. Despite the country’s formal commitment to human rights in various national laws, and under the human rights treaties mentioned, the human rights situation remained grave in a number of key areas. The country was under a non-democratic regime which adhered to a “military first” policy. In 2006, the quagmire was aggravated by various missile and nuclear tests, which led to global condemnation. Many violations in the field of civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights, persisted in the country.

In recent years, there had been some legislative improvements impacting upon the security of the human person, yet there were a large number of provisions concerning anti-State activities, which gave rise to concern due to their excessively broad scope, and the way that the regime might use such provisions to repress political dissent. Basic freedoms were markedly constrained, and there were continuing reports of violence against the human person committed by State authorities, such as torture, public executions, and persecution of political dissidents. Freedom of expression, association, and access to information were impeded by the closed nature of the State, and rigid State control over the information flow and media. Human rights violations had particularly impacted upon foreigners in the form of abductions. The previous reports of the Special Rapporteur dealt with the concerns of various groups which could be especially vulnerable in particular situations. This was the case of the women and children who were not part of the elite, bearing in mind the cross-cutting nature of women’s rights. Various issues concerning child survival, development, protection and participation still needed more effective responses from the authorities. Elderly persons were also increasingly vulnerable to the mounting deprivations. A key issue raised by many sources during 2006 was that of the responsibility of the authorities of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for egregious human rights violations.

Mr. Muntarbhorn said in the future, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea should take a range of measures, including abiding by its international obligations under the various human rights treaties to which it was a party, as well as international law, and shifting military expenditure to the human development sector; facilitating access to humanitarian aid and building food security; enunciating a clear policy not to punish those who left the country without permission; and enabling the Special Rapporteur to enter the country to assess the human rights situation on the ground. The international community should, among other things, continue to provide humanitarian aid, especially food aid, on the basis that the aid should reach the target groups; respect the rights of refugees; utilise dialogue and other interactions with relevant incentives, graduated influence and economic and security guarantees where appropriate; and mobilise the totality of the United Nations to protect and promote human rights protection and promotion in the country.

Statement by Concerned Country

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking as a concerned country, said the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea categorically rejected the Special Rapporteur’s report. The Government had already stated that it did not accept the resolution, nor the mandate of the Special Rapporteur because they were politically motivated and had no relevance to human rights at all. The resolution was a product of the conspiracy by the United States, Japan and the European Union and was an extreme manifestation of politicization, double standards and selectivity.

The United States was trying to stifle the social system of the country and Japan was fanatical in implementing United States policy, joined by the European Union’s egotistical and self-interested policy. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea attached importance to dialogue and cooperation but did not intend to beg for them when sovereignty and dignity were being so infringed. Sovereignty and dignity were a lifeline and central to the socialist system and the people’s happiness, and the socialist system would be consolidated and developed.

Interactive Dialogue on Report by Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea) thanked the Special Rapporteur for the informative report. The Republic of Korea was convinced that the recommendations addressed to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as well as to the international community provided guidelines to advance the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The Government of the Republic of Korea was pleased to have provided full cooperation to the Special Rapporteur when he visited its country in December 2006. The Republic of Korea wanted to ask the Special Rapporteur some questions. Concerning the seeking of technical assistance by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, it wanted to ask what kind of technical assistance would be imperative for the country and what were the immediately available resources expected from the international community. Secondly, the Republic of Korea wanted to ask the Special Rapporteur whether he had in mind any specific form of regional cooperation in the East-Asia Region for protecting the human rights of refugees.

ANKE KONRAD (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union appreciated the report and strongly believed in the necessity of full cooperation between States and the Special Procedures assumed by the Human Rights Council. It was greatly regretted that the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was not cooperating with the Special Rapporteur to a satisfactory extent, and the European Union called upon that Government to fully and unconditionally cooperate with the Special Rapporteur.
In questions, the European Union said the Special Rapporteur should explain whether there was any sign that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would allow easier access for international food supply; whether there were any indications that the Government could be considering a change in course in cooperating with the Special Rapporteur and on human rights in general; whether the Special Rapporteur was in contact with the Chinese authorities, which was considered to have great influence on the Government, and whether he had asked to visit the Chinese border region to get a picture of the situation there; and whether the Special Rapporteur thought his communications had had any impact.

GUO JIAKUN (China) said China opposed politicization in the name of human rights. China had opposed the country-specific proposal on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In spite of this, if the Special Rapporteur could proceed in a fair manner then there may be added value in the process. But he had failed to give this impression. On illegal immigration, China disagreed over the use of the terms asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. These were different categories of persons, clearly defined by international law, and illegal immigrants could not become asylum seekers simply because they came from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. This would mean illegal immigrants from other countries of the world could also be thus regarded. It was not right to blame a country for its practice of screening and different treatment of the two categories. China hoped to see a peaceful and prosperous Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. China hoped the Special Rapporteur held the same hopes.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that Cuba regretted that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was exposed to the mechanism of Special Procedures. Cuba rejected and opposed this campaign against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in depriving their people from their right to self-determination. The United States and the European Union were pursuing causes, which were not complying with the strengthening of human rights. The practice of double standards within the Council must end. The Human Rights Council must be a forum of a new kind but it would not possible if it continued to impose such mechanisms on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

HEDDA SAMSON (Netherlands) said the Government of the Netherlands wished to express its appreciation for the report and the recommendations contained therein, and the Special Rapporteur’s strong efforts in fulfilling this important mandate. The Special Rapporteur should explain his views about how a future visit by the United Nations Secretary-General to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea could contribute to an improvement of the human rights situation in that country.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom delegation associated itself with the comments of Germany on behalf of the European Union on the need for all countries to cooperate with the Council. On food security, the United Kingdom asked what would be the effect of the withdrawal of the United Nations Development Programme from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and what would be the impact on food security there?

ROBYN MUDIE (Australia) said that Australia had heard about the criminal provisions that were available to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regime to repress dissent, and which were designed to suppress freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association. These reports were deeply troubling and Australia appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s efforts to bring these to the attention of the international community. Australia strongly urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to allow Mr. Muntarbhorn to visit and to engage fully and openly with the international community to address ongoing human rights concerns. Australia called upon the regime to allow the United Nations and other organizations access to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in order that humanitarian assistance may reach those most in need of it.

MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan) said the Democratic People's Republic of Korea should receive the Special Rapporteur as soon as possible. The report made it clear that violations of human rights remained grave in various areas of that country, which was of great concern. The issue of the abduction of foreign nationals from other sovereign States including Japan remained unsolved, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea should sincerely resolve this issue, including by securing the safety of and returning all the abductees, making clear the developments of the abductions, and handing over the perpetrators.

Last year the General Assembly expressed its serious concern about unresolved questions of international concern relating to the abduction of foreigners in the form of an enforced disappearance, which violated the human rights of the nationals of other sovereign States. Country-specific Special Rapporteurs were indispensable tools for the international community to effectively address protracted violations of human rights of countries which had refused to cooperate with the Human Rights Council.

JESSICA BLITT (Canada) said Canada continued to harbour concerns about the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, especially by reports on the treatment of dissent as political crimes, use of torture, and forced abortions on female prisoners. Recent reports had suggested that the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was imposing harsher punishment on citizens caught fleeing the country. These reports suggested both violations on the freedom of movement and a failure to address economic collapse and mismanagement that drove citizens to leave. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was urged to address the situation and bring about improvements in the human rights situation. Canada asked what form processes of “concretizing responsibility and accountability for human rights violations and an end to impunity,” suggested in the report, would take.

AMY LAURENSON (New Zealand) welcomed the report on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and shared the concerns of the Special Rapporteur. The report highlighted human rights violations in several key areas like food and nutrition. The increasing militarization had aggravated the situation. New Zealand was concerned about the citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, especially women and children. The recommendations of the Special Rapporteur were that these groups should be protected. New Zealand wanted to ask how these recommendations could effectively be implemented in order to enhance the protection of women and children.

VELIA DE PIRRO (United States) said the Special Rapporteur was thanked for his commitment and determination in carrying out his mandate. The Special Rapporteur had received no cooperation from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The United States was deeply concerned about the human rights situation there, and continued to urge the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to allow the Special Rapporteur access to the country.

The regime controlled many aspects of its citizens’ lives, denying freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly and association. An estimated 150,000 to 200,000 persons were believed to be held in detention camps in remote areas, many for political reasons. It was hoped that recent progress in the Six-Party Talks towards implementation of the September 2005 Joint Statement would ultimately lead to better lives for the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Concluding Remarks by Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, responding, said he acted independently and was proud of the fact that he had acted in the best interest of the victims. Concerning the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s responsibilities, he urged the Government to see his mandate as a window of opportunity. The Government should not punish refugees forcibly returned to the country. He mentioned other issues such as justice reform and prison reform; regional cooperation on refugees – Asia had had a comprehensive plan in the 1980s and it worked very well; and food support – he urged support for the World Food Programme but with monitoring to assist them. He had held constructive and polite dialogues, and looked forward to further negotiations with the authorities. Documenting communications was important to ensure everything was on the record and to assess the degree of cooperation. On illegal immigrants, he had dealt with this before and urged the issue to be dealt with in terms of the need for protection, and not semantics. The distinction between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants did exist, as illegal immigrants would be protected when returning to their home countries: asylum seekers would not.

The World Food Programme still needed assistance with food aid programmes and the United nations Development Programme (UNDP) was considering a programme to help pre- and post-harvest losses and these were pertinent regardless of UNDP presence there. Accountability and responsibility were a challenge for the whole UN system and its power to promote and protect human rights. Trafficking and smuggling of women and children were another area of concern - victims should not be punished. All elements were there for improvements in several areas of gender and child-related human rights issues. Only child and gender sensitive implementation were needed. He was also optimistic about the future of the Six-Party Talks.

Presentation of Report by Independent Expert on Situation of Human Rights in Burundi

AKICH OKOLA, Independent Expert on human rights situation in Burundi, said that he wanted to thank the Government of Burundi for giving him its full support and cooperation during his missions. Regarding economic and social rights, the Government was forging ahead with the implementation of its programmes of providing universal primary education, and free medical care for children under five years of age and expectant mothers, which were launched at the beginning of 2006. Food security was a perennial problem in Burundi due mainly to overpopulation. All northern provinces had been affected by this crisis and, consequently, residents continued to immigrate to other provinces in Burundi, to Rwanda and to Tanzania. On the political front, a cease-fire agreement had been signed between the Government and the FNL-Palipehutu in September 2006 and its implementation had not been completed yet. The situation of human rights was expected to improve, especially in the provinces where the FNL had been operating. During the reporting period, the security forces of the Government of Burundi were involved in various violations of the right to life.

Mr. Okola said in October 2006, the Government had appointed a judicial commission to look into the summary execution of 30 people between July and August 2006, by the Defense Forces. They were accused of being members of the FNL. The commission handed down its report to the Government and, according to information received by the Independent Expert, recommended the arrest of a number of people, including the regional military commander. The relationship between the Government and civil society, particularly the press, had been deteriorating during the period covered by the first visit. At the time of the second visit of the Independent Expert in January 2007, the relation between the Government and the media had improved considerably and national media were reporting on all public matters without any interference from the Government. As mentioned in previous reports, the administration of justice needed to be reformed with the provisions of the Arusha Agreement. The justice system was still weak owing to lack of equipment, poor training of staff, interference by politicians and corruption.

The Special Rapporteur commended the Government of Burundi for creating a judicial commission to look into the Muyinga massacre and to have recently taken measures to provide an environment in which media and the civil society could work with greater freedom. The Government was urged to speed up the process of establishing the Truth Reconciliation Commission and the Special Chamber. The international community was recommended to support the government in its efforts with regard to the establishment and implementation of the twin mechanisms. The international community should support the efforts of the Government of Burundi to encourage respect for and promotion of human rights so that the country could secure lasting peace. It should also increase its support for humanitarian and development assistance in order to deal with the famine crisis in the northern part of Burundi.


Statement by Concerned Country

FRANÇOISE NGENDAHAYO (Burundi), speaking as a concerned country, said after the presentation of this report on the situation of human rights in Burundi by the Independent Expert, he was to be thanked by the Government of Burundi, which took note of the report. On the whole, it reflected the real situation, but it was essential to have a number of nuances and clarifications provided so as to shed light on unclear areas, to provide updates, and to express the political will of the Government to implement the recommendations. Significant progress had been made with regards to political will, with a Constitution containing all the national and international instruments, enshrining 55 entries under the section on the fundamental rights and duties of the citizen. An Independent Human Rights Commission had also been set up.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights had been made a national priority, and in future ignorance would no longer be an excuse for violations. The Criminal Code had been revised, and proposed the abolition of the death penalty, and a more serious punishment of certain crimes such as torture, domestic violence and rape, as well as specific dispositions that were in conformity with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Certain political and opinion prisoners had been freed, and others under certain circumstances, such as those who had been held without a dossier. Since the ceasefire had been ended, there could be no longer speculation about certain arrests. The Government was committed to spare no effort within its limited resources to protect and promote human rights, and would tolerate no violation of the rights of the human person in the future.

Interactive Dialogue on Situation of Human Rights in Burundi

PHILLIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya) said the report was concise, balanced and objective, and presented lucid and concise recommendations for Burundi. The constructive engagement with the Burundi authorities was exemplary and should be emulated by other mandate holders. Kenya hoped recent tensions would ease to avoid further tensions. The East African Community had decided to admit Burundi to its membership and was keen to see progress. The international community should help the Government to overcome its challenges.

ANKE KONRAD (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union wanted to express its appreciation for the report on Burundi. Germany strongly believed in the necessity of good cooperation. The report was a good example of the work of Special Procedures and their results. Questions were raised, such as what could be done to consolidate the positive trend and which role was foreseen for the international community. In addition, the European Union asked what the Special Rapporteur’s view was on the role of media and civil society to enhance human rights and what the Government of Burundi could do in this regard.

Nathalie RONDEUX (Belgium) said the work of the Independent Expert was highly appreciated by the actors on the spot in Burundi, and there had been great cooperation between the Independent Expert and the authorities. Note was taken of Burundi’s commitment to human rights. The delay in the establishment of the transitional justice mechanisms was worrying as justice and the fight against impunity were essential to long-term stability in Burundi. The Independent Expert should explain what his assessment was on this issue after his recent visit, and how to ensure an effective process of truth, justice and reconciliation that would contribute to establishing long-term stability in Burundi.

IGBAL ELAMIN (Sudan) said the dangerous situation of famine had led to a state of emergency in nine provinces of Burundi. One person died of starvation every day, according to figures by the World Food Programme, and lack of food security was a concern.

SEBASTIEN MUTOMB MUJING (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo always followed with keen interest the developments in neighbouring countries. Therefore, the report on the situation in Burundi was welcomed. Despite a few problems that were inherent to every new democracy, the situation was seen as positive by the Democratic Republic of Congo which supported the peace and reconciliation process in the neighbouring country and hoped it would lead to social and economic progress. Economic progress was a crucial factor for the well being of a society. The international community should support Burundi, which was a country emerging from a long state of conflict.

VEBJORN HEINES (Norway) said the Independent Expert was commended for the informative and good report, and the Government of Burundi was commended for its commitment to cooperate with the mandate. Even in the short time since the Independent Expert had visited the country, there had been new developments in the political situation of the country, and the Independent Expert should explain what he thought would be the effect of these on human rights. Further, subsequent to the ceasefire, the Government should implement the agreement, and the international community should support this. The Independent Expert had appealed the international community to support the efforts of the Government to promote respect for human rights, and to secure peace, and there was an important need for cooperation between the Government and partners, in order to achieve targeted and measurable results in this regard, and the Independent Expert should explain how the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission would work in this regard.

ARNAUD KAJANGWE (Rwanda) said Burundi was emerging from a social and political crisis which had gone on for many years. The Government of Burundi had made great efforts to improve human rights there. Observance of human rights in Burundi had an impact on the whole Great Lakes region of Africa. Cooperation among countries of the region was indispensable to improve the situation there, and Rwanda urged Burundi to continue the process it had started and recognized the progress in democracy, national unity and pluralism.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) welcomed the report on human rights developments in Burundi. The report noted many of the challenges facing the people of Burundi during a critical period of transition. The United States commended the Government of Burundi for its cooperation with the Independent Expert and pledged its continuous support to Burundi in its effort to establish a stable and peaceful environment for its citizens. The interim report presented a sobering look at the human rights situation in Burundi. While the United States welcomed the comprehensive ceasefire agreement between the Government and the FNL, it also stated that the Human Rights Council must focus more on ways to further assist the Government of Burundi to build on the progress already made. The United States asked what were the few priority areas where the Council’s assistance could be most effective.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said the report on the situation in Burundi was comprehensive, and it was welcome that positive developments since the last report were included, mainly the release of journalists and those imprisoned without due process. However, it was alarming to see no progress in the investigation of a large number of murders and massacres. The report also mentioned that over 200 cases of torture which had been reported had seen no action against alleged perpetrators.

Canada agreed that there was a lack of political will to punish perpetrators, and a lack of training, and asked what measures could be taken to change this and to increase information. What were the barriers that stood in the way of providing an alternative to imprisonment of child prisoners, who were currently imprisoned with adults, and what could be done to improve the situation of violence against women and girls. These were issues the Independent Expert should respond to.

Concluding Remarks by Independent Expert on Situation of Human Rights in Burundi

AKICH OKOLA, Independent Expert on human rights situation in Burundi, responding, said there was a problem with a culture of impunity in Burundi, but this culture could only be addressed by having a transitional justice mechanism that would lead to reconciliation while addressing the issue of justice for certain categories of crimes. Problems had been encountered in realizing this mechanism, and it was long overdue. The problem seemed to be not broad commitment on the part of Government but a special difficulty over the justice issue, and this was unexplained. Incarceration of children was now being addressed. He saw no children in facilities during his January visit and took this as a sign of progress. To help Burundi consolidate some of the gains it had made, the international community should continue its presence and maintain the Special Procedure as a mechanism for dialogue and information sharing. Civil society had played an important role in Burundi since the elections and this should be encouraged. The civil society groups deserved continued support. Food security was needed and economic and social rights were of great importance as well as civil and political rights.

Presentation of Report of Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar

PAOLO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said that the critical human rights situation in Myanmar called for increased attention by the Human Rights Council. It was of utmost importance to keep the situation of human rights in Myanmar high on the agenda of the Council. In the past two years, the reform process proposed in the seven-point road map for national reconciliation and democratic transition had been strictly limited and delineated. The house arrest of the General-Secretary of the National League for Democracy, Daw Aung Suu Kyi, had been further prolonged by twelve months in spite of various international appeals. In December 2006, the number of political prisoners was estimated at 1,201. The stability of Myanmar was not well served by the arrest and detention of several political leaders or by the severe and sustained restrictions on fundamental freedoms.

The capacity of law enforcement institutions and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary had been hampered by sustained practices of impunity, Mr. Pinheiro said. The criminalization of the exercise of fundamental freedoms by political opponents, human rights defenders and victims of human rights abuses was a matter of grave concern. The Special Rapporteur however welcomed some progress against the widespread practices of forced labour. The conclusions between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar of an understanding designed to provide a mechanism to enable victims of forced labour to seek redress were noted with satisfaction. There had been efforts made to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis infection. The Government of Myanmar had decided to prepare its second session and third session reports to the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women as had been recommended by the Special Rapporteur.
The Special Rapporteur very much worried about the increased militarization in ethnic areas of eastern Myanmar and its effects on human rights, especially on civilians who had been targeted during attacks. As the result of the increase of military operations, the number of communities in need, such as villagers facing food shortages, internally displaced villagers and refugees had significantly increased. The importance of providing these groups at risk with immediate humanitarian assistance was stressed. Humanitarian assistance should not be made hostage of politics. The Government of Myanmar was urged to authorize access to the affected areas by the United Nations and associated personnel as well as personnel of humanitarian organizations and to guarantee their safety, security and freedom of movement. The Special Rapporteur expressed his great dissatisfaction with the drastic restrictions imposed on the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Human Rights Council was called upon to consider ways and means of initiating an effective collaboration with Myanmar.

Statement from Concerned Country

U NYUNT SWE (Myanmar), speaking as a concerned country, said the report of the Special Rapporteur was essentially the same as the one presented last year. The Myanmar Government was fully committed to the successful implementation of the seven-step road map to democracy. The Government had granted amnesty to 22,147 prisoners during the last two years, and this demonstrated the Government’s goodwill and commitment to national reconciliation. On forced labour, Myanmar had fulfilled the priority requirement of the Governing Body of the ILO, setting up the necessary mechanism to deal with complaints of forced labour. This achievement clearly reflected Myanmar’s willingness and seriousness to cooperate with the ILO in the eradication of forced labour in the country.

No forced recruitment was carried out in Myanmar, and all soldiers joined the armed forces of their own accord. No one under the age of 18 was allowed to join the military service, even out of their own will. Myanmar was not a nation in a situation of armed conflict, and with the return to the legal fold of 17 out of 18 armed groups, was enjoying unprecedented peace and tranquillity since independence in 1948. The accusation that the armed forces targeted civilians in the counter-insurgency activities was rejected. Myanmar consistently cooperated with the United Nations in the field of human rights by responding to communications sought by the country and thematic Rapporteurs of the Council. Myanmar was fully aware of the need to improve and promote human rights, and was doing everything possible to this effect, and would continue to do so. At the same time, it believed that human rights issues should be addressed with objectivity and non-selectivity, and there should be no double standards or politicisation of human rights issues.

Interactive Dialogue on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar

WEGGER STROMMEN (Norway) said Norway had repeatedly called for the release of political prisoners in Myanmar. What was the significance of the recent release of five activists, and how could the international community improve the prospects for improvement there? On the situation in eastern Myanmar, Norway asked what could be done to prevent deterioration, and said a culture of impunity remained a major underlying cause of degrading economic and social conditions and the right to education of the population. Myanmar was encouraged to seek assistance on establishing an independent judiciary.

ANKE KONRAD (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the Special Rapporteur for the report on the situation of human rights in Burma/Myanmar. The European Union was greatly concerned about the findings of the Special Rapporteur. It regretted that Burma/Myanmar had suspended its collaboration with the Special Rapporteur. The European Union asked the Special Rapporteur if he could elaborate on whether he had any indications under which circumstances Burma/Myanmar might collaborate in the future. In addition, the European Union wanted to know what the assessment of the Special Rapporteur was concerning the situation of refugees from Myanmar in neighbouring countries, how an end could be put to human rights violations in those countries, and if any improvements had been noticed.

RAJIV CHANDER (India) said India had always emphasised the importance of protection and promotion of human rights through dialogue and cooperation. The Government of Myanmar had been engaging in a dialogue with the United Nations system, and had twice received the former United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs within the framework of the Secretary-General’s good offices mission. There were ongoing discussions with the ILO on the mechanism to handle the complaints of forced labour, and the Government had also announced a decision to grant amnesty to over 2,800 prisoners, and had subsequently released several political prisoners.

The efforts of the international community at this stage should be to encourage this trend and support the efforts of the Government of Myanmar towards making the political reform process more inclusive and broad-based.

SANNE KAASJAGER (Netherlands) said there had been worrying reports on the violation of freedom of religion of Christian and Muslim populations in Burma/Myanmar, and physical destruction of churches, forced conversions and arrest and torture or killing of religious leaders. What was the Special Rapporteur’s assessment on this? The ILO was the only international body with a field presence in Burma/Myanmar and had signed an agreement with Government on a forced labour complaint mechanism, which provided also for the extension of the ILO office. Could the Special Rapporteur elaborate on his collaboration with the ILO?

PETR HNATIK (Czech Republic) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his excellent report and his work over the past years. The Czech Republic regretted that the Special Rapporteur had not been granted entry into the country. Further to the questions asked by the European Union, the Czech Republic wanted to know if the Special Rapporteur could elaborate on the question of what treatment were refugees subjected to in neighbouring countries and if he had noted any significant change in the approach towards the refugees in those countries recently. In addition, the Czech Republic asked if the Special Rapporteur had noted any signal that the Government of Myanmar would consider ratification of further international human rights instruments. Finally, it was asked if the amnesty granted by the Government of Myanmar could be interpreted as a beginning of a different systematic approach of the authorities to the political prisoners or if it was a step lacking broader significance.

CHRISTOFFER BERG (Sweden) said with regard to the deteriorating economic situation in Burma/Myanmar, the Special Rapporteur had pointed out that humanitarian assistance should not be made hostage to politics, and also called upon the Government of Myanmar to establish an independent and impartial judiciary, setting the foundation for international cooperation. Had the Special Rapporteur received any positive signals that possible humanitarian assistance would effectively reach those who suffered most, and could he elaborate as to whether he saw a willingness on the side of Burma/Myanmar to engage in international cooperation in this field, guaranteeing the United Nations, as well as humanitarian organizations, access to the most affected areas, including those of ethnic minorities. Further, what was his view on the willingness of the Government, as well as the ethnic resistance organizations, to engage in an inclusive national reconciliation process, Sweden asked.

AMY LAURENSON (New Zealand) said the conclusion of the report made for depressing reading. Serious issues such as the stalemate in democratic reform, political prisoners, a culture of impunity, and the absence of due process were noted. The mandate was an important one and it was disappointing that the Special Rapporteur had not been allowed access to Myanmar. How could the Human Rights Council be more effective on promoting positive change on the ground?

GUO JIAKUN (China) said that as a developing country, Myanmar was confronted with many economic and social problems, such as HIV/AIDS, human rights, and refugees. The protection of human rights by the Government of Myanmar was a gradual process. The international community should be patient and support Myanmar to achieve its goals and not subjugate it so isolation and sanctions. China hoped that the process of dialogue and reform would be speeded up.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) congratulated Mr. Pinheiro for his efforts in view of Burma’s refusal to cooperate. As his report was received, Burma remained one of the most repressive countries in the world, and its situation was deteriorating. The Burmese regime’s disregard for accountability and transparency was made strikingly clear when the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was forced to halt most of its activities over a year ago. The United States called on the regime to list restrictions on the ICRC, other United Nations and international agencies and non-governmental organizations providing humanitarian relief.

The United States was pleased that the regime released some political prisoners, but noted that Burma still held more than 1,100 of these, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. They should be released immediately and unconditionally. Only by releasing all political prisoners, ending military attacks on ethnic minorities, and initiating a credible, inclusive political dialogue with representatives of all the Burmese people would the Government be able to put the country on a genuine path towards national reconciliation.

ANN-MAN FROBERG (Finland) asked what positive signals the Special Rapporteur had received concerning independent prison visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The potentially encouraging deal between the ILO and the Government of Myanmar held the prospect of improvements in the situation of forced labour and protection of complainants to the ILO Liaison Officer. What was the Special Rapporteur’s view on the forced labour practices there and how to improve them?

HYUN-CHEOL JANG (Republic of Korea) said the delegation of the Republic of Korea appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s devotion and courage shown in his activities over the past years as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. The Republic of Korea was convinced that his recommendations addressed to Myanmar as well as to the international community provided insightful orientations to enhance the human rights situation in Myanmar. The Republic of Korea shared the Special Rapporteur’s belief that the national reconciliation and the stability of Myanmar were not well served by the arrest and detention of political leaders, or by severe restrictions on fundamental freedoms. The Republic of Korea called upon the Government of Myanmar to engage in dialogue and reconciliation process with all Myanmar political actors.

ROBYN MUDIE (Australia) said Australia was concerned about the bleak political, economic and humanitarian assessment in the report that the “space for the establishment of civilian and democratic institutions had been seriously curtailed”. Myanmar was urged to undertake genuine political reform and to arrest economic decline, and the Government was called on to ensure international standards of human rights were afforded to all citizens. It was important that Myanmar undertake genuine dialogue with all ethnic groups and commit itself to genuine action to protect the rights of children in conflict situations.

There was ongoing concern for the continuing imprisonment of over 1,000 political prisoners for expressing their political views, and Myanmar was called upon to unconditionally release all such prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi. Myanmar should ensure that international organizations were given the freedom to deliver humanitarian assistance efficiently and effectively, and work with the Special Rapporteur and Human Rights Council to improve its human rights performance.

MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan) said Japan was concerned that Professor Pinheiro had not been allowed to visit Myanmar. Political prisoners remained in Myanmar jails and though there had been improvements, the democratisation process required greater progress. Japan welcomed the deal with the ILO on forced labour and hoped the situation would improve on HIV/Aids and other diseases. Since only the United Nations had access to both sides, Japan encouraged continued involvement and asked whether measures could be taken to facilitate improvements.

JESSICA BLITT (Canada) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his efforts to carry out his mandate despite the difficult conditions and that he had been denied access to the country. A dialogue should be established including all political representatives. Canada asked what measures the international community should take to establish such a dialogue. The absence of respect of the right of fundamental freedoms was a serious concern to Canada. Although Canada welcomed the release of seven prisoners, it was still concerned. Canada shared the concern with the Special Rapporteur about impunity. Canada therefore asked how the international community could contribute to fostering responsibility and fight the practice of impunity in the country.

Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar, in concluding remarks said Member States were thanked for their support and questions. On religious repression, allegations had been received concerning discrimination against Muslim minorities, and against Christians, but he was not in a position to verify these, as it was a question as to whether it was a policy or a succession of incidents. On cooperation with humanitarian entities and non-governmental organizations or agencies of the United Nations, this was a diverse landscape. All the agencies of the United Nations were doing a good job, but the problem was they did not have access to the eastern areas. If Myanmar wanted the international community to verify and see there was no problem in that area, then it would have to open the access. Myanmar did not understand that there was an etiquette for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to make visits, and he expected this to change. It was most regrettable for the prisoners of Myanmar that the ICRC could no longer visit.

On the release of prisoners, even the release of one political prisoner was good, but it should not be done drop by drop. Prisoners could engage in the process of transition. There could be no transition with political prisoners, and this was true for every region of the world. The regional organizations had a crucial role to play, perhaps a key role for political transition. There should be a real partnership with the country with other regional groups to this effect. Mr. Pinheiro had learnt a lot of patience over seven years, but it was time to speed up the dialogue, and reform, and this was his core message.

The coincidence of the difficulties as mentioned by several delegations were welcomed. Further answers would be provided in writing. Mr. Pinheiro’s final conclusion to seven years work was the essential coordination of the international approach to the situation of Myanmar. There was a cacophony of initiatives, and these should be coordinated. Perhaps one of the roles of the Human Rights Council would be to help with this coordination, and if the Council was to maintain the Special Procedures, it would be very good that it would be able to convince Member States that they were supposed to receive the mandate holders of the mechanisms that the Council would maintain or create.

Interactive Dialogue on Reports by Special Rapporteur on the Situation in Occupied Palestinian Territories and High-Level Mission to Beit Hanoun

FOROUZANDEH VADIATI (Iran) said the third special session of the Human Rights Council had decided to send a fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun, and the mission remained unimplemented, as there had been a serious lack of cooperation by Israel, the occupying power. The challenge facing the mission was noted. The urgent implementation of the resolution was important to improve the humanitarian situation of the Palestinian people, and the Human Rights Council could not stand silent faced by the situation of the millions who were suffering. There was a need for the mission to visit Beit Hanoun in order to fulfil the mandate of the Council.

ABDULNOMEN ANNAN (Syria) thanked Professor Chinkin for her informative statement from yesterday. On 8 November 2006, a woman had been preparing breakfast in her kitchen when she heard a terrible explosion. She rushed to the dining room where she found the explosion had torn her seven children to pieces. Such crimes were numerous and were committed with impunity. The Israeli delegation yesterday attacked Professor Dugard. The Representative of Israel recently told Al Jazeera that the resolutions of the Human Rights Council would not be of use. The conspiracy of the European Union of silence was astonishing. Syria thought that the Human Rights Council should clear the historic grounds.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said Chile regretted that the Human Rights Council mission to Beit Hanoun had not taken place. In respect of Darfur it had been said a few days earlier in the Council that there should be no excuse for missions not taking place. He trusted that the mission would take place so that the follow-up goals could be fulfilled. The Human Rights Council was a fundamental pillar of the United Nations and Member States should ensure it had the necessary credibility.

BIRGITTA SIEFKER EBERIE (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the efforts to implement the mandate of the mission had been understood, and the efforts of the members of the mission were appreciated. The European Union reiterated that it was of utmost importance that States cooperated with all Human Rights Council mechanisms, and regretted that the mission, about which mandate the European Union had concerns, had not been accomplished. The European Union remained concerned about the situation of Palestinians, and hoped that all could work together to achieve peace and human rights.

JENNIFER CLARK, of Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, said in a joint statement that Israel’s ongoing policies against Palestinian people of land expropriation, house demolition, population transfer, colonial settlement expansion, denial of freedom of movement, and expropriation of water and other resources, presented the Human Rights Council with one of the longest-standing, yet urgent cases of denial of internationally-recognized human rights. Indeed, Israel’s practices that victimized the indigenous Palestinian people constituted a violation of every one of the most fundamental human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

HANAN SHARFELDDIN, of International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, in a joint statement with Arab Lawyers Union; Union of Arab Jurists; and Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, said a central issue was the need for all States to act in compliance with the resolutions of the General Assembly. In this respect the resolution accepting the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in the case of the separation Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories was a test case. Only six members voted against the resolution. Actions were now needed to implement the ruling and principles established by the World Court. Blaming and punishing the victims should stop. Instead pressure on Israel should increase, including sanctions and boycotts.

HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, eminent figures gathered in Geneva to reaffirm the principle of human dignity, creating the Commission on Human Rights. The answer to what had happened to this noble dream was seen today, as the Council had done nothing to respond to the cases of torture, killings and suffering across the world. The Council had enacted one resolution after another, condemning one single State: Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah had been granted impunity, and the entire rest of the world continued to go ignored. The Middle East dictators orchestrating this campaign would say they sought to protect Palestinian human rights, but these self-proclaimed defenders did not truly care. The founders’ dream was being turned into a nightmare with terrible lies and moral inversion.

DAVID MATAS, of B'nai B'rith International, in a joint statement with Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations said that the report of Professor Dugard was a tired repetition of a long string of unilateral accusations levelled against Israel by the Special Rapporteur. The one-sidedness of this mandate could only serve to perpetuate the conflict, not to solve it. The organization recommended that the Council rejected this selective approach, to balance the mandate and to permit another person with a fresh and more objective approach to assume the task of Special Rapporteur, thereby encouraging Israel to cooperate in this endeavour, something that could not be expected as long as Mr. Dugard remained in the job, for which he had disqualified himself.

KHOURI ELIAS, of Union of Arab Jurists, said Professor Dugard’s report was professional and courageous. The situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories was a tragedy. The people were being deprived of fundamental rights, including the right to life. The Council faced a dilemma: either it prove that it was dealing with human rights violations or it return to the double standards of old. Hundreds of resolutions had been passed since 1967 yet Israel continued to carry out violations. This was a form of genocide; there were attacks on towns using all kinds of weapons, and an economic and military blockade. This was a premeditated attempt to exterminate the Palestinian people. None of the resolutions had been implemented through mechanisms that respected international will. It represented a new policy of colonization and settlement. This was happening also in Iraq, where United States occupation forces were seemingly competing with police and militia in visiting death and destruction on the Iraqis.

WISAH AHMAD, of Al-Haq, law in the service of man, in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said today the occupation of Palestine by Israel was an entrenched regime of pervasive human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law. Many of the policies and practices applied by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory were reminiscent of colonialism and apartheid; regimes that were irreconcilable with the enjoyment of fundamental human rights and the very notion of self-determination. As the body mandated with the responsibility of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, the Council had the duty to make every effort to bring the violations perpetrated against the Palestinian people to an end.

RITA PEREIRA, of Organization for the Solidarity of the Peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, thanked the Council for the opportunities provided by it concerning the occupied Palestinian Territory. The dramatic culture of impunity and the extermination of the Palestine people characterized the situation. This was carried out with the support of the United States. The organization wanted to stand with the efforts of the Human Rights Council and asked it to end the suffering of the Palestinian people, which jeopardized the future of the region and the precarious state of peace. The Government if the United States was called upon to consider the possibility of diverting its military assistance to financial investment to alleviate the humanitarian crisis from which the Palestinian people where suffering.

FAHIMEH DORRI, of Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, said the Israeli incursions in Gaza and Beit Hanoun were a collective punishment of the civilians and exacerbated the severe human rights crisis in the area. The organization called on the Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution that strongly condemned the violations of human rights and humanitarian law, request a UN Security Council interposition force to halt the worsening crisis, demand that the Quartet review the mechanism of humanitarian aid to restore the payment of salaries to public servants, notably in education and health care departments, and stop the withholding of taxes by the Israeli Government.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said the refusal of the Government of Israel to cooperate with the mission marked the third time that Israel refused to cooperate with a mechanism established by the Council. More recently, the Government of Sudan had also refused to cooperate with the mission created by the Council. There was deep concern about the refusal of these Governments to cooperate with the mechanisms of the Council; if this negative trend of non-cooperation continued, it would contribute to seriously undermining the authority and credibility of the Council. The Governments participating in the Council should put aside political posturing and contribute to the Council, adopting and implementing concrete measures aimed at actually improving human rights situations.

Concluding Remarks by Special Rapporteur on Situation in Occupied Palestinian Territory

JOHN DUGARD, Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian Territory, said that he wanted to respond to criticism of United Nations Watch and B’nei Brith. He respected their right to disagree but wanted to urge them to consider the human rights violation he portrayed in his report. It did not help to savage the messenger but the question must be considered whether there were human rights violations committed by the Israeli Defence Forces in those territories or not.



1Joint statement on behalf of: Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples; Interfaith International; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; International Educational Development; Indian Movement «Tupaj Amaru»; World Peace Council; Union of Arab Jurists; International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; and , of Al-Haq, law in the service of man.


For use of the information media; not an official record


HRC07021E