HUMAN RIGHT COUNCIL REVIEWS MANDATE OF SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN MYANMAR

The Human Rights Council this afternoon conducted a review, rationalization and improvement of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. It also concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan.

Slovenia, introducing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar and speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union was deeply concerned about the situation in Burma/Myanmar, particularly related to continued imposition of restrictions on the freedoms of movement, expression, assembly and association, the prevalence of a culture of impunity, ongoing summary executions, torture, and forced labour practices, recruitment of child soldiers and sexual violence. As regards the announced Constitutional referendum, the Constitutional drafting process had not been an all inclusive national process. Deep concerns were expressed about the great number of political prisoners who had been detained without charge and political leaders who were not allowed to move freely, such as Ms. Suu Kyi, who continued to remain under house arrest for years. The European Union supported the extension of the mandate.

Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said that he had visited Myanmar seven times during his tenure. Between the years 2003 to 2007, he had not been granted access to the country by the authorities. Subsequent to the sixth Special Session he had been able to conduct a visit in November of last year. Since his appointment he had created his own channel of information though reliable civil society organizations. He had sought a constructive dialogue with the authorities. As had been witnessed over the last years, the existence of this mandate had allowed those inside the country to overcome internal obstacles and to voice their concerns. This mandate had also helped the international community to be aware of the human rights situation in the country. He believed that the reports he had submitted highlighted the worsening situation of human rights in the country. There was an absolute need for the continuation of this mandate, in order to monitor the reform process and the implementation of the seven-step road map.

Myanmar, speaking as a concerned country said that although it did not think it was appropriate to establish the mandate, the Government of Myanmar had shown its willingness to cooperate with the United Nations by extending invitations to the Special Rapporteur to see the true situation on the ground. This testified to Myanmar’s effort and readiness to cooperate with the human rights mechanisms. Despite such cooperation, Myanmar continued to be subjected to unjust and unwarranted criticisms. The reports of the Special Rapporteur contained many unfounded allegations based on rumors and unreliable sources. Moreover, they contained unrealistic recommendations. The objectivity and impartiality of this mandate was questionable. As Myanmar would also be reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review, it was not necessary to have a country specific mandate for Myanmar.

Speaking in the general debate about the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar were the delegations of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Switzerland, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea, Canada, Brazil, Peru, Japan, China, Sweden, Argentina, Panama, the United States and Sudan.

Also speaking on the subject of the mandate on Myanmar were representatives of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development and Conectas Direitos Humanos.

The Human Rights Council, in its morning meeting, heard the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan, Sima Samar, present her report. (For further details, see press release HRC/08/30 of 17 March).

Sudan, speaking as a concerned country in response to the presentation, expressed its surprise at some of the findings in the report. For instance, the summary mentioned that women in Sudan were imprisoned for not paying the dowry or for criminal acts committed by any member of her family. However, this was against Sudan’s Constitution, law and traditions. Another surprising claim was that women in Sudan were second class citizens. In fact, according to the national Constitution, women enjoyed equal legal, financial and political competence as men. The Government also denounced the report for containing hazy and vague phrases on acts of torture. With regards to the situation in Darfur, the Government of Sudan was cognizant that the conflict brought about a situation not conducive to the promotion and protection of human rights. The Government had spared no effort to arrive at a peaceful settlement to the Darfur crisis.

During the interactive dialogue on the situation in Sudan, delegations said that the report did rightfully point out that there had been positive steps taken by Sudan in the area of human rights. The international community was urged to provide technical assistance to Sudan. At the same time, Sudan had to implement the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. The international community could and had to play an important role in bringing a lasting peace and security in the country. There could be no impunity for crimes that were committed.

Ms. Samar, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan, in concluding remarks highlighted the need for a constructive dialogue with the Government of Sudan in order to promote and protect human rights in Sudan. Technical assistance by the international community was needed in Sudan in order to build the capacities of various institutions, including the police and in the establishment of a human rights institution. The United Nations and the African Union troops had to take different measures to protect civilians and to provide support to women to prevent gender-based violence throughout Darfur and especially for internally displaced persons. It was clear that the Darfur crisis did not have a military solution. All the parties had to come together to find a political solution for the people.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan were the delegations of Algeria, Pakistan on behalf of the Arab Group, Qatar, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, the African Union, Kenya, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Switzerland, New Zealand, Syria, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, India, the United Kingdom, Japan, Belgium, Panama, Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Canada, the League of Arab States, Malaysia, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, the Russian Federation, Bahrain, Yemen, Mauritania, Djibouti, Zimbabwe and the United States.

Also speaking on Sudan were representatives of the World Organization against Torture, United Nations Watch, Human Rights Watch, Femmes Africa Solidarite, Hawa Society for Women, Sudan Council of Voluntary Agencies (SCOVA), World Federation of Trade Unions, Action internationale pour la paix et le développement dans la région des Grands Lacs (AIPD) in a joint statement with African-American Society for Humanitarian Aid and Development, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), in behalf of severals NGOs1, and Conectas Direitos Humanos.

When the Council resumes its work at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 18 March, it will continue with its review, rationalisation and improvement of mandates process concerning the Special Procedures on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; African descent; and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.


Statement by Concerned Country

ABDUL DIEM ZUMRAWI (Sudan), speaking as a concerned country, renewed its readiness and commitment to preserve the spirit of partnership and constructive dialogue. Nevertheless, Sudan expressed its surprise at some of the findings of the report. For instance, the summary mentioned that women in Sudan were imprisoned for not paying the dowry or for criminal acts committed by any member of her family. However, this was against Sudan’s Constitution, law and traditions. Women did not pay the dowry in Sudan. Another surprising claim was that women in Sudan were second class citizens. In fact, according to the national Constitution, women enjoyed equal legal, financial and political competence as men. Gender balance was fully maintained in all different levels of civil service with women now occupying various posts such as advisors to the President, cabinet ministers, Supreme Court and Constitutional Court judges, doctors, ambassadors, army and police officers. Moreover, women currently represented 60 percent of the total number of students enrolled in Sudanese universities. With regards to the new Election Act, women were allotted 25 percent of the total parliamentary seats in observance of the principle of positive discrimination. The Government also denounced the report for containing hazy and vague phrases on acts of torture. No names or concrete information on instances of torture were provided in the report. Confident of its clean torture record, the Government readily allowed the Special Rapporteur to visit any prison, including detainees, without any restrictions whatsoever.

With regards to the situation in Darfur, the Government of Sudan was cognizant that the conflict had brought about a situation not conducive to the promotion and protection of human rights. The Government had spared no effort to arrive at a peaceful settlement to the Darfur crisis. In order to mitigate the impact of the conflict, the Fast Track Agreement that secured the speedy flow of humanitarian assistance had been renewed. On the issue of the deployment of United Nations/African Union hybrid forces, the Government signed the Status of Mission Agreement (SOFA) as a legal framework in which the duties and obligations of each party were elaborated. In addition, the report ignored the logistical shortcomings that had impeded the smooth functioning of the hybrid forces due to the fact that donor countries had not honoured their commitments. The security situation in Darfur had generally improved, particularly in North and South Darfur.

Furthermore, the democratic transformation in Sudan was taking deeper and wider strides. The incumbent Government was comprised of ten political parties and preparations for general elections next year were presently under way. Also, final touches had been made for the promulgation of the Election Act and the Human Rights Commission Act. Finally, the Government of Sudan reiterated its commitment to constructive dialogue and partnership and, above that, the enjoyment of all human rights by each and every Sudanese national.

Interactive Dialogue with Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Sudan

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that the Special Rapporteur’s report was unavailable either in French or Arabic. The recent signed agreement was welcomed, but Algeria was worried over the fact that the hybrid force was still lacking adequate equipment such as helicopters. The fact that the opposition groups had fragmented was making the situation even more complex. Reporting in sensational terms was not a right thing to do. Algeria wondered how many lives could be saved if there were policies of national reconciliation applied in conflict situations.

MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, stated that Sudan was striving for a peaceful solution in the country, was committed to the peace process and was taking steps in that regard. The Arab Group was of the view that the report did rightfully point out that there had been positive steps taken by Sudan in the area of human rights. There were also positive developments with regard to the work of non-governmental organizations in the country. Sudan supported all African initiatives, including the Abuja agreement. It was difficult to negotiate with those splinter rebel groups which did not sign this agreement. Sudan was completely cooperating with the former Commission on Human Rights as well as with the current Council.

ABDULLA FALAH ABDULLA AL-DOSARI (Qatar) said that Qatar fully endorsed the Palestinian statement, on behalf of the Arab Group, regarding the situation in Darfur. Sudan was commended for fully accepting the presence of the hybrid forces, in which 20,000 soldiers of the African Union and the United Nations would be deployed in the field. The Government was also pleased to note that Sudan had accepted all other African peace initiatives. With 26 different rebel movements, it was indeed a difficult task to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Qatar also appreciated the fact that Sudan had accepted the appropriate Security Council resolution and urged the international community to respect its commitments, including the provision of helicopters to help protect innocent civilians currently caught in the Darfur conflict.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Group was pleased that the Special Rapporteur had visited Sudan. This was a reflection of the openness of the Government of Sudan. The report contained a mere listing of a selective number of events which had taken place during the period of her visit. The African Group had rather expected an objective and analytical evaluation of the overall situation in the report. Any country in the situation of Sudan could not be expected to fully realize its human rights objectives overnight. What had the Special Rapporteur specifically done to help Sudan in this regard? The efforts undertaken by the Sudanese Government were appreciated and the African Group hoped that Sudan would continue its efforts. The African Group noted with satisfaction the beginning of the operation of the hybrid force. The international community was requested to provide assistance.

USMAN SARKI, of the African Union, said the African Union remained well aware of the serious challenges marking the human rights situation in Sudan and recalled that the promotion and protection of human rights was the way to overcome these challenges. The Government of Sudan had always cooperated with different United Nations mechanisms and international humanitarian and human rights now prevailed in the country. The Abuja agreement should make it possible to overcome the human rights problems in the country. The African Union encouraged the Government of Sudan to overcome its difficulties and offered assistance to Sudan towards improving the human rights situation in the country.

PHILIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya) expressed Kenya’s appreciation to the Government of Sudan for the cooperation that it had extended to the African Union and the United Nations human rights mechanisms. The commitment of Sudan to implement the peace agreement would be a crucial step to strengthening the peace process in Darfur.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the OIC had noted the efforts of the Sudanese Government. The efforts had to be encouraged. It was always challenging to respect human rights in a peacebuilding situation. International support and encouragement was needed. Sudan’s political authority should always be respected. Efforts needed to be made to stop illegal weapons supplies to the outlaws. Objective media reporting was also needed. In Darfur, all parties had to be encouraged to sign the peace agreement.

NATALIE KOHLI (Switzerland) noted, as had the Special Rapporteur, that the progress in Sudan on the situation of human rights had been minimal. Switzerland was extremely concerned about the human rights situation of the civilians in Darfur and about the continuing attacks. Humanitarian access was extremely restricted despite the signing of the joint communiqué. Darfur was not the only region in the country which required an improvement of human rights. Switzerland supported the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur to improve the widespread abuse of human rights throughout the country. The issue of freedom of expression was an issue of concern given the upcoming elections next year. Only real political will would guarantee the effectiveness of the support being afforded to Sudan. The Special Rapporteur was asked what she believed were the most urgent measures to be taken to ensure that next year’s elections would be free and fair.

WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) thanked the Special Rapporteur for her report on the human rights situation in Sudan. New Zealand was concerned that human rights abuses continued to occur in the country. The Government of New Zealand wanted further explanations about the persistence of violence in Darfur. New Zealand also supported all the recommendations of the report and called on all parties of the conflict to respect both human rights and international humanitarian laws. Furthermore, New Zealand welcomed efforts surrounding the current peace process. In a question to the Special Rapporteur, New Zealand asked if there were further steps that the Sudanese Government could take, taking into consideration the numerous derogations it had committed regarding its international legal obligations?

RANIA AL RIFAIY (Syria) said that Sudan was currently deploying increased efforts and it had to be able to get out of this conflict. The international community should respect Sudan’s willingness. Sudan’s cooperation with the Council was welcomed.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the report of the Special Rapporteur provided the best possible view of the situation of human rights in Sudan. The European Union regretted all difficulties regarding free access that the Special Rapporteur had faced during her last mission. While the situation was not improving, the Special Rapporteur was asked if she could further explain the human rights challenges with regard to the Sudan as a whole. She was also asked how the much needed humanitarian aid could reach those most in need, given the obstacles facing humanitarian operations in Darfur. The Special Rapporteur was also asked how to effectively address the prevailing impunity gap and if there was a way the police in Sudan could receive and investigate complaints more effectively and really bring perpetrators to justice. The Special Rapporteur was finally asked how to promote and ensure the freedom of press and safety of journalists and what legal measures could be put in place in that regard.

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said that India valued its long-established and diverse relations with Sudan. Consistent with this, India had endeavoured to contribute to the economic and social development of Sudan, including through assistance in human resource development, capacity building through bilateral cooperation programmes and through the extension of lines of credit to finance the execution of projects in the energy, agriculture, educational and other spheres. It was India’s preference that the humanitarian situation in Sudan was resolved peacefully and it considered that mutual consultations between the United Nations and the Government of Sudan were important. India did not believe that sanctions would be a productive course of action.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said that the international community could and had to play an important role to bring a lasting peace and security in Sudan. There could be no impunity for crimes that were being committed. The United Kingdom noted with satisfaction that the Special Rapporteur had visited a range of areas in all parts of the country. The United Kingdom was profoundly concerned about some of the conclusions presented in the report. The situation of human rights had not fundamentally changed. There had been little implementation of the recommendations of the Working Group. The Special Rapporteur‘s particular focus on women’s rights was welcomed. At the opening of this session, the Secretary-General had called on the Council to remain vigilant and to address crises as they occurred and thus it was seen important to continue to monitor the situation in Sudan.

MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan) said Japan supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan and was of the view that the Special Rapporteur should continue efforts to improve the human rights situation in that country. Japan was concerned about the escalation of the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Justice and Equality Movement as well as the deterioration of the humanitarian situation. Japan had requested the Sudanese Government to take proper measures in the region. Japan had been supporting the democratization of the Darfur peace process, with financial assistance for the Darfur-Darfur Dialogue and Consultation, so as to ensure that the views of the people of Darfur could be well reflected in the peace process. Japan hoped that the efforts would lead to encourage both the Sudanese Government and the opposition to act favourably for the peace process.

JOCHEN DE VYLDER (Belgium) said that the Special Rapporteur’s report on the human rights situation in Sudan demonstrated the vulnerability of the civilian population, not only in Darfur but in other regions of the country as well. Women in particular were the victims of daily atrocities and were often subjected to acts of sexual violence. In a question to the Special Rapporteur, Belgium asked if she could indicate whether the victims of sexual violence could get to medical services and whether complaints procedures were available to these victims. In resolution 6/34, the Human Rights Council requested that the Special Rapporteur provide a follow up to the report’s recommendations during the ninth session to be held next September. In the interim, the Belgian Government wondered whether she could provide any preliminary results from her ongoing dialogue with the Sudanese Government.

UNA ALFU DE REYES (Panama) said that Panama appreciated the measures taken by the international community to help better the situation in Sudan. Panama was particularly concerned about the protection of children in armed conflicts. Panama hoped that Sudan would be able to reconstruct itself as a strong nation in full respect of all its national identities. Panama hoped that the peace mission would bring an end to the conflict. Cooperation with the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur should continue. The civilian population had to be protected. Also, Panama believed that resolutions should be combined with action.

MARGRIET KUSTER (Netherlands) said the report of the Special Rapporteur underlined the need for the Council to remain seized of the human rights situation in Darfur. It sketched a pattern of ongoing serious human rights violations while the perpetrators were not brought to justice. Moreover, it showed that concrete improvements of the human rights situation could be achieved, as many of the necessary laws, decrees, instructions and institutions were in place or almost in place, but these were not implemented and improvements did not occur. The Netherlands was deeply concerned about the targeted attacks against the civilian population, including by aerial bombardments, mentioned in the report. The Netherlands reiterated its concern about the implementation of the recommendations of the Darfur Expert Group, a large part of which related to the protection of civilians. As international assistance was required, the Netherlands stood by ready to contribute to this. The Special Rapporteur was asked whether she would elaborate with her contacts with civil society and whether she planned to visit Darfur to monitor the implementation of the recommendations. It was clear that the human rights situation in the whole of Sudan gave rise to profound concern.

CHANG DONG-HEE (Republic of Korea) said that despite some progress noted in the Special Rapporteur’s report, the Republic of Korea remained deeply concerned that there had been little improvement in the human rights situation of Sudan. The fate of the Sudanese people and especially the people of Darfur, in humanitarian and human rights terms, continued to be alarming, demanding special attention from the Human Rights Council and requiring action on the part of the Sudanese Government. Of particular concern was the renewed violence in West Darfur witnessed in the last few weeks. Serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law continued to affect the civilian population and particularly the most vulnerable segments of society: internally displaced persons, women, children and activists. Furthermore, humanitarian workers were often impeded from carrying out their relief work and worse still, they had become the targets of attacks. The Republic of Korea therefore urged the Sudanese Government to fully assume its human rights obligations and to intensify its efforts to implement the recommendations identified by the Group of Experts.

JULANAR GREEN (Canada) said that Canada was deeply concerned by the human rights situation in Sudan. Canada urged Sudan to implement all the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. Canada was concerned about the gender-based violence and it urged Sudan to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. This would contribute to establish a lasting peace. All parties in the conflict were called upon to respect their obligations under humanitarian law. What actions did the Special Rapporteur recommend to ensure greater access by humanitarian workers to the affected populations?

SAAD ALFARARGI, of the League of Arab States, noted that the League of Arab States had been the first international and regional organization which had made efforts to solve the crisis in Sudan in 2004 and supported the efforts of the United Nations in the Abuja talks which led to the agreement in 2006. The Sudanese Government was cooperating fully to put an end to the crisis, but armed opposition groups were impeding those efforts, as well as humanitarian assistance. The international community should put pressure on these rebel groups to sit down at the negotiating table. The report of the Special Rapporteur did not correspond to the reality on the ground

NOR'AZAM MOHD IDRUS (Malaysia) welcomed the progress achieved by the Government of Sudan in improving its legislation and the rule of law despite mounting economic, environmental and technical challenges. Malaysia also welcomed the acceptance of the Government of a renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur at the sixth session of the Council. Malaysia reiterated its call to all parties involved in the conflict to remain on board the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Observance of the obligations of international human rights and humanitarian law should be maintained while a lasting and effective solution was being strived for. In this regard, Malaysia also called upon all international partners to fulfil their respective commitments, financially and politically, to bolster the capacity of the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur forces.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) said that the report of the Special Rapporteur mentioned that the protection of human rights in Sudan continued to be an enormous challenge. Which concrete steps would the Special Rapporteur suggest for the international community, and especially for the Council and its Special Procedures? Among her recommendations was the request that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Mission in Sudan continue to provide technical assistance to the Southern Sudan Human Rights Commission. What concrete steps might be taken in the coming months to this end?

ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said Saudi Arabia attached particular importance to the human rights situation in Darfur and looked forward to improvement in this area. Saudi Arabia praised the Government of Sudan for the positive steps it had taken to improve the situation in the country, which was manifested in its cooperation with the Group of Experts and the signing of the Abuja Peace Agreement, among other measures. This clearly demonstrated the commitment of the Government to overcome its difficulties. However, many challenges remained to bring about peace and stability in Darfur, in particular the failure of certain parties to sign the peace agreement and efforts to improve the humanitarian assistance. The Government should be given assistance in this regard. Saudi Arabia reiterated its support to the Council to promote human rights in Darfur.

YURY GALA (Cuba) recalled the Darfur Peace Agreement, signed in Abuja in 2006, and called upon all parties to respect this agreement. Cuba also recognized the important role of the African Union and the efforts made by the Sudanese Government to resolve this delicate and complex situation. However, the international community needed to provide greater resources to deal with poverty, underdevelopment and environmental scourges facing the people of Sudan. All of these scourges were caused by colonialism. In conclusion, Cuba preferred cooperation and dialogue and stated that what Sudan needed for the moment was both support and solidarity from the international community.

QIAN BO (China) said that China appreciated the fact that the Government of Sudan had stayed in close contact with the Special Rapporteur. There had been positive developments, and the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur was one of these. The solution for a long lasting peace was still hindered by major obstacles. A persistent refusal of some factions to participate in peace talk was one of these. Darfur was a long running problem. Its solution could only be found in the efforts of the whole international community and it should continue its efforts. The tripartite consultations should continue to play their primary role. The international community should provide more humanitarian aid. China was deeply concerned over the situation and it had been working in various ways to support the peace process. It had deployed a special envoy to the area. It had also provided humanitarian aid to the region and had deployed an engineering unit in the region. China was committed to peace and stability in the whole area.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said since the publication of the report of the Special Rapporteur some positive developments had taken place in Sudan which should be encouraged and welcomed. Among them was the signing by the Government of Sudan of the Status of Forces Agreement, which was an important milestone in establishing a basis of trust for the gradual deployment of United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur troops throughout this year, up to a maximum of 26,000 troops. The successful implementation of the Status of Forces Agreement would be crucial in ensuring the safety and protection of the civilian population. Indonesia was confident that the Government of Sudan would continue its cooperation with the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in a positive spirit. All efforts must be geared towards ensuring a successful and constructive run-up to the 2009 elections in order that they take place democratically and peacefully.

OBAID SALEM SAEED AL ZAABI (United Arab Emirates) said that the Sudanese Government had been making great efforts to resolve the Darfur conflict by fully cooperating with the United Nations/African Union hybrid forces. This demonstrated the Government’s efforts to bring about peace and security in the area. Moreover, the members of the Human Rights Council should work together with the Sudanese Government to help support it on the positive path that it had embarked upon.

FUAD AL-MAJALI (Jordan) said that Jordan remained concerned over the volatile situation in Darfur. Jordan recognized the constructive approach of the Sudanese Government. The Government was dealing with a very difficult situation. Sudan should continue its collaboration with the Council and the whole international community. The Abuja agreement should be further promoted; it constituted a framework for peace. Helping the protagonists to better understand each other’s views would help the peace process.

YURY BOICHENKO (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation was satisfied by the high level of cooperation between the Government of Sudan and the Special Rapporteur which was confirmed by the large number of meetings the Special Rapporteur held during the course of her visit. It was hoped that this cooperation would be developed and would lead to an improvement of the human rights situation in various parts of the country. The Russian Federation agreed with the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur that abiding by Security Council resolutions would be an important stabilizing factor to lower the level of confrontations in the Darfur region. Everything must be resolved between the United Nations, the African Union and the Government of Sudan. Steps had been taken with regard to the bolstering of institutional systems aimed to protect human rights.

ABDULLA ABDULLATIF ABDULLA (Bahrain) endorsed the statements made by the representatives of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab Group. Bahrain praised the efforts of the Sudanese Government to push forward the peace process and in signing the Abuja Agreement. It also called upon those who had not signed the agreement to do so. In addition, Bahrain hoped that the Fast Track Agreement would resume soon. Finally, it noted with satisfaction that the Government of Sudan was cooperating positively and that it had expressed its willingness to cooperate with the Human Rights Council. The Council should therefore recognize and appreciate Sudan’s readiness to cooperate.

ABDULMALEK ABDULLAH MOHAMMAD AL-ERYANI (Yemen) said that Yemen appreciated the cooperation of the Government of Sudan with the Special Rapporteur. The African initiatives were welcomed. It was difficult for Sudan and the international community to carry out the negotiations with all the involved parties. Sudan was now passing through an important political stage after the deployment of the hybrid force and the signing of the peace agreement. This stage required persistence and help from the international community.

MOUNINA MINT ABDELLAH (Mauritania) said Mauritania regretted the negative elements referred to in the report, which in many cases were not factual. The situation of poverty and that of women should be considered. Mauritania called on the international community to fulfill its commitments in Sudan to lead to an improvement in the human rights situation in the country, in particular with regard to the situation of women.

MOHAMED-SIAD DOUALEH (Djibouti) thanked the Special Rapporteur for her report on the situation of human rights in Sudan. Though the security situation had generally improved in the Northern and Southern parts of Darfur, it remained critical in the West. The proliferation of arms and the insufficient level of international assistance and rehabilitation were of particular concern. Djibouti also called upon the parties that had not signed the Abuja Agreement to do so as it was the only way to ensure the complete cessation of hostilities. Lastly, it fully recognized the encouraging efforts made by the Government of Sudan to promote a peaceful resolution to the conflict in its territory.

MARGARET CHIDULAN (Zimbabwe) noted the positive developments and the cooperation with the Special Rapporteur. The efforts of the Government and the international community were commended. Although the situation remained challenging, the positive developments were noted, under which were the peace agreement and the deployment of the hybrid force. The proliferation of arms and the sensational media reports were among the elements which were negatively affecting the situation. The parties should commit themselves to end the hostilities, in order to resolve the human rights and humanitarian situations.

MICHAEL S. KLECHESKI (United States) said the United States remained deeply concerned about violence and insecurity in Sudan, particularly in Darfur. The United States called on the Government of Sudan to end its obstructionist behavior and instead facilitate the rapid deployment of the robust United Nations/African Union peacekeeping operation – UNAMID. The United States urged the members of the Government of National Unity to quickly and fully implement the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The United States agreed with the Special Rapporteur that in Darfur gross violations of human rights continued to be perpetrated and it echoed her calls regarding respect for women’s rights in Sudan, in particular in light of the ongoing violence against women and girls in Darfur and other parts of the country.

ISOBEL RENZULLI, of the World Organization Against Torture, in a joint statement, urged the Human Rights Council to support the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Sudan. The human rights situation in Darfur remained dire. A sharp escalation of violence in Western Darfur in recent weeks had caused massive new displacement, with homes looted and burnt, and many killed. Millions of displaced persons remained vulnerable to abuses like arbitrary arrest, torture, rape, and forcible relocation. Impunity for the grave crimes that continued to be committed remained unchallenged by the Government of Sudan, which continued to shield those accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Those particularly vulnerable to such abuses were human rights defenders, political opponents to the ruling National Congress Party, students and displaced persons. The Special Rapporteur should provide her assessment on the likelihood of positive steps being taken by the Government of Sudan in the near future.

GIBREIL HAMID, of United Nations Watch, said that the truth could be found in the Special Rapporteur’s report. It showed how the Government of Sudan was violating human rights and international humanitarian law with physical assaults, harassment, intimidation, abduction and rape. The report also showed how the violence against women was continuing. There was no improvement, no justice, the attackers were enjoying immunity. Sudan was urged to end attacks against innocent civilians. The Council was asked to stop praising Sudan for its cooperation.

OLAF HENRICSON BELL, of Human Rights Watch, recalling that the High Commissioner last week expressed serious concerns about the Sudanese Government’s recent ongoing bombardment of villages in West Darfur, said Human Rights Watch welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s outspoken condemnation of Government actions and urged the Human Rights Council to support her work by calling upon the Government of Sudan both to cease further attacks on civilians and to investigate and hold accountable those responsible, and to provide a detailed accounting of the bombing in West Darfur. The resurgence of major military operations in Darfur had heightened the insecurity and vulnerability of the region’s civilian population. The Special Rapporteur was asked whether the Government of Sudan had provided specific measures taken towards the prevention and prosecution of sexual violence crimes in Darfur, beyond those documented in the Group of Experts’ November 2007 report. Information on Government efforts to root out impunity for perpetrators of human rights violations was also sought.

MONA ELSHARIEF, of Femmes Africa Solidarite, was deeply concerned about the recent escalation of violence in Darfur which resulted in mass killings, property destruction and the massive secondary displacement of people. The organization also strongly condemned all acts of violence against civilians and the negative impact of this violence on vulnerable groups. It expressed further concern by the lack of a strong voice for women in the peace negotiation efforts for Darfur. Finally, it urged the warring groups to stop the conflict immediately and requested the United Nations to nominate a Gender Advisor to the United Nations and African Union Darfur peace mediation teams.

ABLA ABDELMONIEM, of Hawa Society for Women, called upon the international community and the Human Rights Council to carry out efforts to bring peace to Sudan. All the parties should be pressured to end the conflict. They were far from knowing all that happened it Sudan, and the reality of the situation for women in the country. The Special Rapporteur should deal with the facts as they were.

HAFIEZ ADUM, of Sudan Council of Voluntary Agencies (SCOVA), said the Sudan Council endorsed what was said in the report of the Special Rapporteur. As regards the legal situation of women in Sudan, referring to the civil code, it was recalled that dowries must be paid by the man and not the woman; however, women were often imprisoned for such acts, contrary to Sudanese law. The Sudan Council of Voluntary Agencies appealed to all parties to work together to improve the situation in Darfur. It was necessary for the Special Rapporteur to visit Darfur, which would put her in a position to carry out her work effectively. Pressure should also be put on all parties in order to find a lasting solution to the crisis.

OSIRIS OVIEDO, of the World Federation of Trade Unions, in a joint statement, said that without any doubt the humanitarian conflict in Darfur continued to cause harm to local civilians and was of great concern to the international community. While slow progress had been made, the World Federation recognized the formation of the national State and the peace agreement signed in order to halt hostilities. Furthermore, it welcomed the willingness of the Sudanese Government to cooperate with the United Nations and the Human Rights Council and called upon all parties to work collectively towards a lasting peace agreement that would ensure the safety and security of the Sudanese people.

MAURICE KATALA, of Action internationale pour la paix et le développement dans la région des Grands Lacs (AIPD), said that the current situation in many African countries was one of conflict. This had led to the illegal exploitation of children soldiers. A moratorium on trade in weapons should be established. It was important to establish disarmament programmes throughout Africa and to demobilize child soldiers.

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

SIMA SAMAR, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan, in concluding remarks, highlighted the need for constructive dialogue with the Government of Sudan in order to promote and protect human rights in Sudan. Technical assistance by the international community was needed in Sudan in order to build the capacities of various institutions, including the police and in the establishment of a human rights institution. The international community had to fulfill its pledges to the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur; because of its slow deployment people were affected on the ground in Darfur. The United Nations and the African Union troops had to take different measures to protect civilians and to provide support to women to prevent gender-based violence throughout Darfur and especially for internally displaced persons. More public awareness through the media and workshops and training was required to allow people to exercise their political rights. The people of Sudan should be empowered in order to elect their future leaders.

It was clear that the Darfur crisis did not have a military solution, the Special Rapporteur stated. All the parties had to come together to find a political solution for the people. The establishment of a human rights commission was an integral part of the peace process and essential to promote and protect human rights on the ground. On the Group of Experts, it was announced that the Government indicated that they would provide further information to the Group on 25 May 2008, with specific information. It was hoped that an update would be provided at the forthcoming session of the Council. The implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was also of utmost importance, and would ultimately improve the situation of human rights in all of Sudan, and particularly in Darfur. As to the issue of equal rights for women, this had to become a reality on the ground everywhere in Sudan.

Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar

ZIVA NENDL (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union and introducing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, commended the Special Rapporteur for his courageous and tireless efforts for almost eight years. It was however regrettable that the Special Rapporteur was not able to enter the country for several years. The European Union hoped that the mandate holder would be able to enter the country in accordance with resolution 6/33. It thanked Mr. Pinheiro for all his reports which were very comprehensive while regretting the very pessimistic situation on the ground. The European Union shared deep concern with the Special Rapporteur regarding the situation in Burma/Myanmar, particularly related to continued imposition of restrictions on the freedoms of movement, expression, assembly and association, the prevalence of a culture of impunity, ongoing summary executions, torture, and forced labour practices, recruitment of child soldiers and sexual violence.

As regards the announced Constitutional referendum, the Constitutional drafting process was not an all inclusive national process. The European Union was concerned that the Constitution that had recently been drafted did not include guarantees concerning respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms as set out in the international human rights instruments that Burma/Myanmar had ratified. The European Union shared deep concerns about the great number of political prisoners who had been detained without charge and political leaders who were not allowed to move freely, such as Ms. Suu Kyi, who continued to remain under house arrest for years. It also remained deeply concerned about ongoing large scale arbitrary land confiscation which inevitably caused internal displacement and forced migration, which could have a large negative impact on the ecological, political and economic situation in the county.

In view of the review, rationalization and improvement process of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, the European Union said that it would appreciate any further suggestions from Mr. Pinheiro that may enhance the effectiveness of his mandate.

PAULO SÉRGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said that the mandate had been established in 1992. He had visited Myanmar seven times during his tenure. Between the years 2003 to 2007, he had not been granted access to the country by the authorities. Subsequent to the sixth Special Session he had been able to conduct a visit in November of last year. Despite the denial of access he had regularly submitted reports to the Commission, the Council and the General Assembly. Since his appointment he had created his own channel of information though reliable civil society organizations. He had sought a constructive dialogue with the authorities. As had been witnessed over the last years, the existence of this mandate had allowed those inside the country to overcome internal obstacles and to voice their concerns. This mandate had also helped the international community to be aware of the human rights situation in the country. He believed that the reports he had submitted highlighted the worsening of the situation of human rights in the country. There was an absolute need for the continuation of this mandate, in order to monitor the reform process and the implementation of the seven-step road map. One piece of advice he gave the Human Rights Council was that it had to discover ways to follow up on resolutions. Without this, resolutions would have no meaning for the people on the ground.

U. WUNNA MAUNG LWIN (Myanmar), speaking as a concerned country, said although Myanmar did not think it was appropriate to establish the mandate, the Government of Myanmar had shown its willingness to cooperate with the United Nations by extending invitations to the Special Rapporteur to see the true situation on the ground. Since the creation of the mandate in 1992, the Government of Myanmar had invited the Special Rapporteur 11 times in total. This testified to Myanmar’s effort and readiness to cooperate with the human rights mechanisms. Despite such cooperation, Myanmar continued to be subjected to unjust and unwarranted criticisms. The reports of the Special Rapporteur contained many unfounded allegations based on rumors and unreliable sources. Moreover, they made unrealistic recommendations. Myanmar’s genuine desire was that its cooperation with the human rights forum and invitations to the Special Rapporteur to Myanmar would help the international community to understand the real situation in Myanmar. As it did not turn out that way with the Special Rapporteur’s reports stepping on the internal affairs and sovereignty of Myanmar, it was the view of Myanmar that the objectivity and impartiality of this mandate had become questionable.

As Myanmar would also be reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review, Myanmar was of the view that the Council should have equal footing with other Member States and that it was not necessary to have a country specific mandate for Myanmar. Myanmar was in the process of political transition with a view to establishing a peaceful and stable democratic country for 54 million people consisting of 100 national races. Currently, the Government had been proceeding with a momentum to hold a National Referendum for the approval of a draft State Constitution in two months time. The draft State Constitution contained about 50 articles relating to the rights of the people of Myanmar. Thee rights enshrined in the Constitution would protect and promote the fundamental rights of the people of Myanmar. In light of the important developments achieved in Myanmar, the Human Rights Council should protect Myanmar from any undue pressure exerted by the powerful countries under the pretext of human rights obligations. As the Universal Periodic Review process would soon begin and some country specific mandates had already been terminated, the remaining country specific mandates, including Myanmar, should not continue.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the OIC had always expressed its strong opposition to the country mandates. The OIC’s position was based on the experience that led to the demise of the Commission on Human Rights. It hoped that the past approach of selectivity and double standards would be replaced by a cooperative, transparent and universal review of the human rights situations under the new Council. The newly created mechanism of the Universal Periodic Review provided a useful opportunity for the review of the commitments of Member States to human rights. The OIC was of the view that a change in approach with regard to Myanmar was needed. Finally, it supported the efforts by the Government of Myanmar to promote human rights in the country and urged the international community not to politicize this case for extraneous reasons.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said that the situation in Myanmar was serious and it had gained the attention of the Council several times. The last resolution by the Council called on Myanmar to collaborate with the Special Rapporteur. The Special Procedures were an important tool to help the population. The renewal of the mandate was essential.

VLADIMIR ZHEGLOV (Russian Federation) said the work of the Special Rapporteur should be focused on reinforcing the positive steps taken by the Government of Myanmar in ensuring the implementation of an improved situation for human rights. The Special Rapporteur should abstain from any steps which might increase tension, nor should he go beyond the framework of his mandate by referring to military aspects. The Government should be provided with technical assistance towards the path to reform.

LEE SUNG-JOO (Republic of Korea) said that the Republic of Korea was seriously concerned by the lack of significant improvement in the situation of human rights in Myanmar. During the presentation of the report of the Special Rapporteur last week, it was clear that the situation remained grave. Human rights abuses in Myanmar required the attention of the Human Rights Council and the international community at large. The creation of a new Constitution, if anything, required greater monitoring of that country to make sure that any new legislation corresponded with international human rights norms. The Republic of Korea fully supported the continuation of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.

JESSICA BLITT (Canada) said that Canada supported the continuation of the mandate. The regime of Myanmar was continuing its persistent human rights violations. Arbitrary detentions and persecution of minorities were frequent practices and there were a large number of political prisoners. This situation was preventing the exercise of fundamental rights, like freedom of association. The violent repressive measures used by the regime demonstrated that it was not complying with the demands of the international community. The international community had to face the situation. The role of the Special Rapporteur continued to be vital.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said Brazil expected that Myanmar should make concrete progress in the promotion and protection of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. There continued to be a problem of forced labour and a lack of political will in the country, and it was necessary to overcome the current problems. It was the view of Brazil that States in the region and regional organizations should be more engaged in the human rights situation in Myanmar. Brazil supported the continuation of the mandate.

ALEJANDRO NEYRA SANCHEZ (Peru) said that Peru was a co-sponsor of the resolution on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar. Peru regretted that despite signs of contact, it was not able to follow up on resolution 6/33. The Government agreed with the position of Special Rapporteur that the recommendations of the report needed to be followed up to ensure that they were being actively implemented. The renewal of this mandate was crucial to supporting the Burmese people and the time had come to turn these recommendations into reality.

MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan) said that Japan appreciated the work of the Special Rapporteur. The decision of the Government to hold a referendum on the Constitution was welcomed. While recognizing positive moves, the international community still had concerns over the improvement of the human rights situation. It was essential that the Human Rights Council continued to help the improvement of the human rights situation in Myanmar. Japan thus supported the continuation of the mandate.

QIAN BO (China) said, in principle, China was opposed to country specific mandates. The past experiences of the Commission on Human Rights showed that these types of country mandates did not create positive impacts; on the contrary they provoked conflicts. It was the view of China that all parties should stick to the spirit of cooperation and dialogue to address this situation positively. As a neighbour of Myanmar, China hoped that Myanmar would become stable and that all parties would contribute to democratic stability and development. It also hoped that the international community would support Myanmar in facing its difficulties so that the country could continue with its political reconciliation.

HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his work throughout the years, despite often adverse conditions. The Myanmar Government did not cooperate with the Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General and had refused entrance to the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, despite a special decision by this Council. The regime had also ignored, for years on end, a large number of resolutions by the United Nations General Assembly and by the Human Rights Council. The military regime did not want outside witnesses to the consequences of their rule. Finally the Government of Burma/Myanmar was in contravention of international law and in contempt of this Council. The mandate was badly needed in order to protect ordinary people and it should be renewed.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said that Argentina had co-sponsored the resolution for the Special Session on Myanmar as it was concerned about the situation in that country. There were no signs that the Government was implementing the recommendations of the Council. Argentina supported the renewal of the mandate.

UNA ALFU DE REYES (Panama) said Panama had been closely following the reports of the Special Rapporteur and the situation in Myanmar and joined others in supporting the renewal of this mandate. It was important that Myanmar allow international observers in the upcoming referendum. The inclusion of the opposition in the referendum, including Aung San Suu Kyi, was the only way to demonstrate the Government’s transparency and credibility in its democratic reform efforts. Myanmar was urged to cooperate fully with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General and the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations should do their part to assist Myanmar on the path to reconciliation.

MICHAEL S. KLECHESKI (United States) said that the United States strongly supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burma. That mandate played a vitally important role in ensuring continued international awareness of and attention to human rights abuses in Burma. The United States regretted that the Burmese regime had not cooperated with the current Special Rapporteur, Professor Pinheiro, in carrying out his mandate. The report on that country remained deeply troubling and underlined the urgent need for continued international engagement on that country’s human rights situation. The fact that the regime announced plans to hold a referendum in May 2008 in an environment of fear and intimidation made the renewal of this mandate all the more necessary. The United States urged the Council to fully support the preservation of this particular mandate.

ABDUL DIEM ZUMRAWI (Sudan) said that Sudan appreciated the efforts undertaken by Myanmar to improve the human rights situation in the country. It was important to ensure that what happened in Myanmar was monitored. It was important to have a dialogue rather than a confrontation.

GIYOUN KIM, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), in behalf of severals NGOs1, said it had been 16 years since the mandate was established and it was disturbing that the most recent report of the Special Rapporteur was similar to the first report in 1993. A lack of cooperation by the authorities of Myanmar was a common element of both. The Human Rights Council was urged to enhance the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in the future, paying particular attention to the need to ensure effective implementation of the recommendations produced by the mandate holder. The work of the Special Rapporteur should be geared towards critically engaging the State Peace and Development Council to fulfill its human rights duties and obligations to the people of Myanmar. Among other things, it should lead to a fact-finding mission of various mandates relevant to the situation and establish a field presence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Myanmar.

KAM VIDA, of Conectas Direitos Humanos, said that it was here today to offer a voice to all the people of Burma, especially Buddhist monks who had been silenced by a cruel military dictatorship. Today in Burma, the most fundamental human rights, the right to speech and assembly, were denied. As the Special Rapporteur said in his statement to the Human Rights Council on 14 March, “between 3,000 and 4,000 people had been arrested in September and October 2007”. To ask, even peacefully, for respect and common human decency was to invite attack, torture and even death from the military junta. In addition, the organization called upon all Governments to stop selling weapons to a junta that had no external enemies and used guns against its own citizens, its monks, students, farmers and workers. Lastly, the organization asked that the world support a genuine transition to a Government in Burma that respected basic human rights and was accountable to its peoples and also that the Council renew and strengthen the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Burma.

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, in concluding remarks, said that in response to the comments of the Russian Federation, everything that he had done had been within the framework of his mandate, concerning civil and political rights, and that in carrying out his duties, he had never intended to intervene in the affairs of the State. The Special Rapporteur was the voice of dialogue. The first Special Rapporteur mandate that had been established by the Human Rights Commission was the one on Chile. For all of Latin Americans, the work of this Special Rapporteur had been decisive for the promotion and protection of human rights and for the transitional process towards democracy. Also it was a bad joke to say that he was collecting information for the enemies. He came from the South and he had no interest to be against the Government of Myanmar. He was against selectivity. Country mandates had to take place in a framework of dialogue. The mandate should not be killed, there were many people and Governments in the world that were happy about the work of the Special Rapporteurs. On the seven step roadmap, it was very much valued and the Human Rights Council should be content that the Government was discussing and heading towards a transition to democracy.

ZIVA NENDL (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union was very grateful for the discussion which was useful to assess the mandate, and which provided a valuable tool to assess the mandate. The mandate was bound to help countries achieve the necessary standards for the protection of human rights. The European Union reaffirmed its commitment for the promotion and protection of human rights equally in all regions throughout the world. The European Union was committed to the implementation of human rights without selectivity and double standards. The situation of human rights in Myanmar was grave and was not improving. It was regrettable that the Special Rapporteur had not been able to enter the country for several years. The international community could not ignore the systematic and widespread human rights violations. The European Union reiterated that the institution building package did not do away with the country specific mandates. These mandates allowed for the continued monitoring of human rights situations in certain countries. Much needed to be done for a lasting peace and respect for the rule of law in Myanmar. It was for this reason that the European Union supported the extension of the mandate.


1Joint statement: Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia); Worldview International Foundation; International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development; Ain O Salish Kendro (Ask) Law and Mediation Centre; People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy; Lawyers for a Democratic Society; and Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08031E