HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONTINUES HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

The Human Rights Council this afternoon continued with its high-level segment, hearing statements from the Alliance of Civilizations, Croatia, the Netherlands, Slovakia, the African Union, India, Norway, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, France, Japan, Portugal and Bolivia.

Jorge Sampaio, the High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations, said the Alliance was aimed at addressing widening rifts within and among societies by reaffirming the paradigm of mutual respect between peoples of different cultural and religious traditions, and by helping to mobilize concerted action toward this end. This effort reflected the will of people everywhere to reject extremism in any society and to support their aspiration to live in peace, based on respect for equal human dignity. Countries not yet on board were invited to join the Alliance.

Jadranka Kosor, Deputy Prime Minister of Croatia, said Croatia was organizing a number of events in order to further raise awareness about the importance of human rights for all. For Croatia, the Universal Periodic Review and the review of mandates of the Council were especially important. In this context, Croatia urged all stakeholders to take into consideration human rights of women as well as a gender perspective in the Universal Periodic Review.

Maxime Verhagen, Minster of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, said that human rights applied to all people in all places and at all times. They applied to children in Uzbekistan picking cotton for long hours for little or no wages, when they should be in school. Human rights also applied to women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where rape had taken on pandemic forms. Human rights also applied to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Tradition, culture or religion must never be used to justify the violation of human rights.

Jan Kubis, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, speaking also in his combined capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, said that since its creation, the Council of Europe had been able to develop a strong regional system of human rights protection and it was keen to share its experience with others so as to advance the common objective of full respect of everyone’s human rights. The Council of Europe was very active in fighting racism and intolerance, in particular through its European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.

Julia Joiner, Commissioner for Political Affairs of the African Union, said that the constitutive act of the Union affirmed its commitment to protect and promote human rights. The Union was also guided by a range of human rights instruments, chief among which was the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. These instruments were intended to contribute to the building of a culture of human rights on the African Continent. These efforts demonstrated the African Union’s unalloyed commitment to the observance and implementation of its human rights obligations.

Anand Sharma, Minister of State for External Affairs of India, said that India was happy that it would be among the first countries to be reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review. True to the spirit of that mechanism, India’s report to it had been prepared through a process of wide consultations with all stakeholders. In its pursuit of the realization of human rights for all, the Human Rights Council had to take into account the interlinkage and mutually reinforcing nature of human rights, development and peace and security. That was of particular relevance for Asia and Africa, where the after-effects of colonialism continued to manifest even as efforts continued to combat acute poverty and lack of development.

Jonas Gahr Store, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, said Norway would continue to contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights and had presented its candidature for the Human Rights Council for the period 2009-2012. With regard to freedom of speech, Norway was deeply concerned about the increasing restrictions imposed by States on the freedom of association, opinion and expression, including freedom of the media. Support should be given to human rights defenders and the international community should stand ready to protect them when needed.

Antonio Milososki, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, noted that less than two years ago his country had embarked in a new path with the goal of establishing an effective body covering all human rights for all and making a genuine contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. Protection of human rights was one of the fundamental values of the Constitution of the country and, moreover, one of the key pillars of the country’s foreign policy.

Vuk Jeremic, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Serbia, said that as a sign of its commitment, Serbia had declared itself a candidate for the Human Rights Council for the period of 2008-2011 and that would be decided by vote in the General Assembly this year. Should Serbia be elected, it would dedicate itself to contribute to strengthening even further the Council’s effectiveness. Serbia was proud of its record as a central pillar of human rights protection in Southeast Europe. But the state of human right in the province of Kosovo, under United Nations administration, was dismal. Serbia would never recognize the attempt by the authorities in Pristina to unilaterally secede from Serbia.

Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights of Sri Lanka, said that Sri Lanka was today facing a number of challenges to secure, guarantee and advance the rights of its citizens to live in an environment free from fear and want, enabling them to achieve their full potential and live in dignity. The greatest impediment that the country faced, in meeting these challenges, was the armed conflict forced by a separatist terrorism that sought to dismember the nation. Sri Lanka stood firm in its unwavering determination to continue to oppose the use of terrorism as a means of achieving political gains.

Abdel Bastit Sabdarat, Minister of Justice of Sudan, said the efforts of Sudan to bring those who had rejected the Darfur Peace Agreement, Abuja Agreement, to the negotiating table in Sirt in Libya to reach a comprehensive settlement, did not bear fruit. The Government of Sudan intended to stick to the negotiations until its end result was achieved. The reluctance and acquiescence of the international community in applying pressure on the armed movements to accept sitting on the negotiation table sent wrong signals to the movements.

Rama Yade, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Human Rights of France, said that France was ready to support the continuation of several of the Special Procedures, in particular with those related to combating extreme poverty and to ensuring that enforced disappearances were no longer tolerated. The challenge for the Universal Periodic Review would be to identify the gaps and shortcomings of each State, as no State could claim to have a perfect record on human rights. France was prepared for that important event.

Yasuhide Nakayama, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said that Japan had striven to normalize its relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in accordance with the Japan-Democratic People's Republic of Korea Pyongyang Declaration, through comprehensively resolving the outstanding issues of concern, including the abduction, nuclear, and missile issues and settling the unfortunate past. In addition, Japan believed that the work of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea needed to be continued and that it was therefore essential to renew the Rapporteur’s mandate in the current Council session.

Manuel Lobo Antunes, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal underscored that the Council had to be able to point out when international human rights standards were violated, and had to be able to offer assistance and support to the victims. Of particular concern was the situation in Darfur, but the situations in Myanmar, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus and Uzbekistan should also be addressed by the Council. Recent incidents in Chad or Kenya were also a matter of concern.

Sacha Sergio Llorenti Soliz, Vice-Minister for the Coordination of Social Movements and Civil Society of Bolivia, said that Bolivia had been the victim of manmade climatological disasters that had prevented human rights from being enjoyed fully in the country. The indigenous people could teach the world other ways for humans to relate to nature that avoided such consequences. In Bolivia the people viewed neo-liberalism, colonialism and imperialism as major threats to their enjoyment of human rights.

When the Council resumes its work at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 4 March, it will continue with its high-level segment which will conclude on 5 March.

High-Level Segment

JORGE SAMPAIO, High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations, said the Alliance had been launched by the Secretary-General in 2005 under the co-sponsorship of the Heads of Government of Spain and Turkey. It was aimed at addressing widening rifts within and among societies by reaffirming the paradigm of mutual respect between peoples of different cultural and religious traditions, and by helping to mobilize concerted action toward this end. This effort reflected the will of people everywhere to reject extremism in any society and to support their aspiration to live in peace, based on respect for equal human dignity. Countries not yet on board were invited to join the Alliance. Members were reminded that it was urgent to turn political commitments into deliverables and to help move the Alliance forward.

Mr. Sampaio noted that today’s world was out of balance and was marked by great inequalities and paradoxes. The current international difficulties encouraged the misguided view that cultures were set on an unavoidable collision course. The Alliance was committed to counter stereotypes and misconceptions and to relive religious tensions. States had an unique role to play inside the Alliance, and joining the Alliance was a win-win situation as it empowered each State to find solutions to all these common challenges and threats to human security.

The Alliance was the right answer to fill a political void, Mr. Sampaio said. The Implementation Plan had already been implemented and the main priority projects had been launched. The first annual Forum of the Alliance, held last month, was a success. To become a sustainable initiative, the Alliance was counting on the strong support of its members. No opportunities should be missed in order to bring results. National strategies for a cross cultural dialogue on the national level were supported. This year was seen as an important year for the Alliance. Unity of intentions and of action was important, thus committed and active membership was seen as critical. The Alliance could only be developed with the strong support of its partners, inside and outside. It would be wrong to work on a competitive basis. Local initiatives were a major concern. To achieve its goal, the Alliance had to evolve while enhancing the human rights of all members of the family.

Mr. Sampaio said that respect of human rights, as expressed in the Universal Declaration and international humanitarian law, was in the framework of the Alliance. Its main work was to bridge gaps in the education systems to prevent confrontation, conflict and intolerance. Universal values had to be found regardless of origin. More than ever, since September 11 the universality of human rights was under siege. The Alliance was looking forward to work with the Council and it was thought that they could take profit from the experience of the Council. The Alliance and the Council should consult between themselves at the Secretariat and political levels. Both could help each other in achieving their goals.

JADRANKA KOSOR, Deputy Prime Minister of Croatia, said as the international community celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, it should recommit itself to the values and principles of the Declaration. Fifteen years had also passed since the World Conference on Human Rights, during which the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action were adopted, as new reinforced instruments in this field. This year the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women also celebrated its fifteenth anniversary. In this context, Croatia would organize a number of events in order to further raise awareness about the importance of human rights for all. For Croatia, the Universal Periodic Review and the review of mandates of the Council were especially important and it considered the Universal Periodic Review to be a key mechanism of the Council. In this context, Croatia urged all stakeholders to take into consideration human rights of women as well as a gender perspective in the Universal Periodic Review. In particular, Croatia was looking forward to the election of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee to take place during the current session.

Croatia, with its foreign policy priorities to become a member of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, acted as a stabilizing factor in the region, constantly improving its relations with the neighboring States and the rights of national minorities. At the national level, the protection of human rights was based on the Constitution of Croatia, and international treaties and laws were being or had already been harmonized with international treaties. As a means of further strengthening human rights in Croatia, an Office of the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality, the Office of the Ombudsperson for Children, and the Office of the Ombudsperson for Persons with Disabilities had all been established. Croatia was also very active in the prevention of trafficking in persons and had established a National Committee for Suppression of Trafficking in Persons that regularly adopted national plans and programmes in this area. Among other things, Croatia supported the resolution of the Human Rights Council on integrating the human rights of women across the United Nations system and stood for the rights of the child and condemned in the strongest possible terms the rising sexual violence against children in situations of armed conflict. In order to strengthen its active role in the field of human rights, Croatia had put forward its candidacy for the Human Rights Council for the period 2010-1013.

MAXIME VERHAGEN, Minster of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, said that respect was a concept that was central to all world religions and to humanism and was not a one-way street. This year marked the sixtieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that set down the values of the world: justice, equality, solidarity, humanity and liberty. Human rights reflected these values; they were what bound everyone together in this world. Tradition, culture or religion must never justify human rights violations. Human rights were the ground rules setting out how people should treat one another in a civilised society. Promoting and protecting them required a greater effort from all.

Mr. Verhangen noted that human rights applied to all people in all places and at all times. They applied to children in Uzbekistan picking cotton for long hours for little or no wages, when they should be in school. The Netherlands emphasised children’s rights in its human rights policy. The Netherlands had proposed to the European Commission a ban on the sale of goods that had been produced using any form of slavery or practice similar to slavery, such as debt bondage, serfdom or forced or compulsory labour. Human rights also applied to women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where rape had taken on pandemic forms. The atrocities these women faced on a daily basis were sickening. The Netherlands focused on violence against women in its human rights policy. Human rights also applied to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. In 85 countries, homosexuality was still punishable by law and people could be prosecuted because of their sexual orientation. In Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, these were even capital crimes.

Tradition, culture or religion must never be used to justify the violation of human rights. The fight against terrorism had sparked a debate on whether there were circumstances in which torture might be acceptable. The Netherlands condemned practices such as waterboarding which had been used on detainees in Guantanamo Bay and other reported cases of torture in Uzbekistan, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Russia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Algeria, Nepal, Sri Lanka and many others. Freedom of religion might sometimes appear to be at odds with freedom of expression. In expressing opinions, people had a responsibility to respect others.

JAN KUBIS, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, speaking also in his combined capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, said that since its creation, the Council of Europe had been able to develop a strong regional system of human rights protection and it was keen to share its experience with others so as to advance the common objective of full respect of everyone’s human rights. Speaking about human rights education among others, he said that several joint programmes and projects had been successfully carried out. Moreover, the Council of Europe had recently joined with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNESCO to implement the UN Plan of Action (2005-2009) of the World Programme for Human Rights Education.

Mr. Kubis noted that the Council of Europe was very active in fighting racism and intolerance, in particular through its European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. The Commission was ready to increase cooperation with the United Nations in the field of racism, for example by inviting the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance to one of its plenary meetings. The increasing commitment to enhancing cooperation in the human rights field that the ed Nations and the Council of Europe had shown over the past yearhad been very encouraging.

The present session, Mr. Kubis said, was very important for the future work of this young body. Now that the institutional building process had been concluded, the Council would focus on the fulfillment of its substantive mandate, which was to promote universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. Slovakia and the Council of Europe were pleased that the process of the review, rationalization and improvement of the mandates of Special Procedures was well under way. Slovakia paid great attention to the system of Special Procedures, which were often called the eyes and ears of the Council. Concerning the Universal Periodic Review, they considered it the most distinctive feature of the new Council. Slovakia was fully committed to universal protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms at both the national and international levels.

JULIA JOINER, Commissioner for Political Affairs of the African Union, said that the constitutive act of the Union affirmed its commitment to protect and promote human rights. The Union was also guided by a range of human rights instruments, chief among which was the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. These instruments were intended to contribute to the building of a culture of human rights on the African Continent. These efforts demonstrated the African Union’s unalloyed commitment to the observance and implementation of its human rights obligations.

Ms. Joiner noted that one of the most relevant accomplishments of the international human rights system was the establishment of the Council. Particular attention was drawn to the Universal Periodic Review. Its establishment was welcomed by the African Union and it was working closely with the African Group to bring awareness of this new initiative among its Member States. It was firmly believed that support had to be given to States to enable them to effectively implement their national reporting obligations under the Universal Periodic Review. The Council was called to make available the Voluntary Trust Fund and the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance for the Universal Periodic Review as soon as possible.

As the Council was conducting the review, rationalization and improvement of all mandates, Ms. Joiner underscored the need for the establishment of thematic mandates. The African Union believed that country-mandates had to be reconsidered objectively and reviewed free of political undertones. It also believed that the Council had to give due consideration to the right to development as a key human rights issue. The Secretary-General had made clear that the African States might not be able to meet the targets set for the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 and the African Union therefore appealed to the international community and the Human Rights Council to pay special attention to the call of the Secretary-General for emergency aid action.

Ms. Joiner also noted that the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance remained one of the major concerns of the African Union. The convening of the Durban Review Conference in 2009 was supported. Regarding the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the Council was urged to step up measures to decisively address the weaknesses inherent in the implementation and monitoring of decisions. Africa remained confronted with diverse challenges like poverty, HIV/AIDS and climate change. The need for a solid and viable African Union-United Nations partnership was emphasized.

ANAND SHARMA, Minister of State for External Affairs of India, said that it was imperative for the Council to build on its initial success in adopting its institution-building package by consensus, and not to lose momentum. The immediate challenge was to successfully operationalize the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. India was happy that it would be among the first countries to be reviewed under that mechanism. True to the spirit of that mechanism, India’s report to it had been prepared through a process of wide consultations with all stakeholders. In its pursuit of the realization of human rights for all, the Human Rights Council had to take into account the interlinkage and mutually reinforcing nature of human rights, development and peace and security. That was of particular relevance for Asia and Africa, where the after-effects of colonialism continued to manifest even as efforts continued to combat acute poverty and lack of development. The Council needed to reinvigorate the efforts of the international community for transforming into reality their commitment to the right to development, the progress towards which, thus far, had been tardy. The Council also needed to play a central role in combating terrorism which had emerged as the biggest challenge to peace and security in their times. The Council had to recognize, in the most unequivocal terms, that terrorism was a direct violation of human rights, in particular the most basic right to life and liberty.

The General Assembly resolution establishing the Human Rights Council required Members to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights. India took that responsibility seriously. It was among the first countries to ratify the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It had also signed the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons From Enforced Disappearance and supported the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. India had also cooperated with international human rights mechanisms, including the treaty bodies and the Special Procedures, and had continued to support the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. At the national level, the empowerment of women was being pursued by reserving one third of all seats for women in urban and local self-government. A new National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights had also been set up for the proper enforcement of children’s rights and effective implementation of laws and programmes relating to children. India’s development plan recognized the need not only for “faster” but also for “more inclusive” growth, addressing all aspects of human life. Ensuring income security, food security and social justice were the underlying principles of India’s development strategy. To that end, India had launched several new, ambitious initiatives in the areas of health, education and employment.

JONAS GAHR STORE, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, stated that the realization of human rights for all was the most important promise enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The United Nations’ ability to deliver on this promise was crucial. It was crucial for its legitimacy. It was crucial for the ability of the international community to realize other aspects of the United Nations mandate – freedom from fear and freedom from want. Human dignity and good governance could only be achieved through the rule of law and legal frameworks that complied with international human rights norms and standards. Improving human rights protection and access must remain a top priority. There were encouraging signs such as billions being lifted out of poverty and in many countries democracy was gaining ground. But at the same time the Council was meeting against the backdrop of widespread human rights violations. Nation States were legally and morally obligated to respect, promote and protect the human rights of all individuals. Political leaders should be accountable for ensuring that international humanitarian and human rights law was fully respected.

Norway would continue to contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights and had presented its candidature for the Human Rights Council for the period 2009-2012. Norway welcomed the decision by the United Nations General Assembly last autumn calling for a global moratorium on capital punishment. On torture, Norway was of the view that the use of secret prisons where detainees were kept in a legal vacuum was in contravention of international law. With regard to freedom of speech, Norway was deeply concerned about the increasing restrictions imposed by States on the freedom of association, opinion and expression, including freedom of the media. Support should be given to human rights defenders and the international community should stand ready to protect them when needed. Norway reaffirmed its strong support for the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and her office. Through its efforts the United Nations’ ability to prevent and respond to violations had been strengthened. Moreover, Norway commended the work of the Special Procedures who were often the last resort for victims, but also served as an early warning mechanism to draw attention to human rights abuses. They connected the Council to the reality on the ground. Sixty years following the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights remained at the core of the mandate of the United Nations and were a prerequisite for success in advancing peace and development. This was a job that the United Nations was well placed to do, and the international community must ensure that it did so successfully. The challenge today was the gap between norms and implementation, between words and actions. This should be the main focus of the Council.

ANTONIO MILOSOSKI, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, noted that less than two years ago his country had embarked on a new path with the goal of establishing an effective body covering all human rights for all and making a genuine contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. The country had always sought, as a matter of policy, to contribute constructively to the universal promotion and protection of human rights. Protection of human rights was one of the fundamental values of the Constitution of the country and, moreover, one of the key pillars of the country’s foreign policy. In this context, human rights issues were among the top priorities of the Presidency of the country of the current session of the United Nations General Assembly. It was recalled that in October 2007, they had organized the world conference entitled “Contribution of religion and culture of peace to mutual respect and cohabitation”. On a national level, the country had proven itself as a functioning multi-ethnic society which resolved all outstanding issues through political dialogue. The reforms of the country were additionally motivated by its aspirations for membership in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The international community must address human rights issues seriously and in a timely manner, identify genuine cases of human rights violations and work on their elimination, he said. The Universal Periodic Review process must be approached in a constructive manner, based on mutual understanding and respect. The review must be built as a genuine mechanism for cooperation with individual countries, based in interactive dialogue and understanding. It must tackle human rights problems of countries under review with the aim of their resolution. This would be another very strong element in restoring the shaken trust in the overall United Nations human rights capability machinery. There was an unlimited space for the Council to act as guardian of human rights and protector of victims of various forms of human rights violations. The countries of the international community should not allow their differences to undermine and jeopardize this unique opportunity.

In conclusion, Mr. Milososki encouraged the sole State that had objected to the recognition of its Constitutional name to join the vast majority of the United Nations Member States and to recognize his country under the Constitutional name: Republic of Macedonia.

VUK JEREMIC, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Serbia, said that human rights were essential for achieving the progressive and peaceful development of mankind. It was everyone’s role to improve human rights record in the twenty-first century. As a sign of its commitment, Serbia had declared itself a candidate for the Human Rights Council for the period of 2008-2011 and that would be decided by vote in the General Assembly this year. Should Serbia be elected, it would dedicate itself to contribute to strengthening even further the Council’s effectiveness.

Serbia was proud of its record as a central pillar of human rights protection in Southeast Europe. Since the overthrow of Milosevic’s regime, tremendous achievements had been made. This year, Serbia would report to several human rights bodies. They were not only speaking clearly but were also acting clearly. But the state of human right in the province of Kosovo, under United Nations administration, was dismal. Kosovo was a place where the vulnerable had simply been forgotten. The UN Committee on Human Rights had harshly criticized the lack of human rights protection in Kosovo. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch had echoed these words recently. Less than eight percent of the Internally Displaced Kosovo Serbs had returned to their homes. Several Serbian holy sites remained under NATO protection. Some of those sites, placed under UNESCO’s List of World Heritage Sites, were in danger.

The illegal and illegitimate declaration of independence of Kosovo had profoundly affected Serbia, for it was the essential link to its proud national past. As a result of the recognition by about 20 countries of the attempted secession, the innate operating logic of the international system had come under direct attack. The UN Charter and Security Council Resolution 1244 placed a binding obligation to all Member States to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all internationally recognized States. By furthering the cause of the Kosovo Albanians, the international system had become more unstable, more insecure and more unpredictable. This was legitimizing the doctrine of imposing solutions to ethnic conflicts. It legitimized the act of unilateral secession by a provincial or other non state actor and the forced partition of internationally recognized, sovereign states. Serbia would never recognize the attempt by the authorities in Pristina to unilaterally secede from Serbia. Countries that had recognised it were called on to reconsider, and those that had not were called on to stay on the course, to help Serbia defend the international system. The United Nations was applauded in so far resisting the pressure from a vocal minority of countries. Serbia would never recognize an independent Kosovo. They would employ all diplomatic and political means at their disposal to hinder, obstruct and ultimately reverse the unilateral, illegal and illegitimate declaration of independence of their southern province. This was not temporary policy. It was part of a national strategy to keep Serbia whole and free, fully integrated into Europe.

MAHINDA SAMARASINGHE, Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights of Sri Lanka, said that Sri Lanka was today facing a number of challenges to secure, guarantee and advance the rights of its citizens to live in an environment free from fear and want, enabling them to achieve their full potential and live in dignity. The greatest impediment that the country faced, in meeting these challenges, was the armed conflict forced by a separatist terrorism that sought to dismember the nation. Sri Lanka stood firm in its unwavering determination to continue to oppose the use of terrorism as a means of achieving political gains.

Mr. Samarasinghe said that the Siri Lankan polity had been dominated for a quarter of a century by an ethnic issue, which required a political solution as a means to resolve the country’s problems, not terrorism. Sri Lanka continued to fight against terrorism and endeavored to find a sustainable political solution acceptable to all. This solution must not only guarantee social equality and fundamental freedoms but also empower every citizen through power sharing, bringing the government closer to its people. Sri Lanka was currently engaged in a process of reviewing and prioritizing the several recommendations made by the high-level dignitaries in coordinating, facilitating and supporting the necessary capacity building, training and reforms needed to tackle the outstanding issues identified by these high-level visitors; Sri Lanka’s openness to fair and objective scrutiny on human rights had been exemplified by the country’s continued engagement with the United Nations Special Procedures. Any effort by this Council in the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the primarily aim of assisting and facilitating and strengthening and capacity building of national institutions of States. With regard to legislative measures, Sri Lanka had recently initiated the strengthening of the legal framework of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka through the modality of a Parliamentary Select Committee. The fundamental rights guaranteed in Sri Lanka’s Constitution, as well as other laws that protected and promoted human rights, had been supplemented by legislative incorporation of certain rights.

ABDEL BASIT SABDARAT, Minister of Justice of Sudan, recalled that Sudan had fully cooperated with the former Commission on Human Rights and the present Human Rights Council, and had fully cooperated with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan and, furthermore, with the Group of Experts, whose mandate was discontinued by the Council during its last session. By doing so, Sudan had advanced an exemplary precedent of constructive engagement with multilateral institutions; the common objective being to end the internal conflict which could ultimately lead to an end to the violations. Sudan would diligently continue to cooperate, as it had before with the Group of Experts and with the Special Rapporteur, who was currently on a twelve-day visit to the country. The efforts of Sudan to bring those who had rejected the Darfur Peace Agreement, Abuja Agreement, to the negotiating table in Sirt in Libya to reach a comprehensive settlement did not bear fruit. The Government of Sudan intended to stick to the negotiations until the end result was achieved. The reluctance and acquiescence of the international community in applying pressure on the armed movements to accept sitting at the negotiating table sent wrong signals to the movements. The Government of Sudan, while reconfirming its determination to cooperate with the Hybrid Forces in discharge of the obligations specified in Security Council Resolution 1769, expressed its disappointment over the reaction of those who were earlier, when the resolution was in the process of adoption, crying from the roof top, and who had now resigned to apathy and refrained from providing the necessary support to the forces.

In fulfillment of Sudan’s commitment to revise the different legislation to conform with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the political forces, either in the Government or in opposition, had embarked in broad consultations in order to draft the 2008 Election Bill. On humanitarian aid, Sudan had renewed its commitment to the humanitarian Fast Track arrangement by concluding a new Agreement with the United Nations that would be valid until January 2009. As regards the protection of individuals’ rights and protection of liberties, new circulars had been issued that prohibited the execution of warrants of arrests during night time or during holidays. Moreover, the Darfur Transitional Authority, comprised of the movements’ signatories of the Abuja Agreement, was presently engaged in carrying out various infrastructural development projects in Darfur including water networks, general and high education facilities and hospitals. Sudan expressed its continued deep concern on the act of kidnapping of children committed by the French organization, l’Arche de Zoe, including Sudanese children from Darfur. Sudan strongly called for the execution of the decisions of the courts against those who were held responsible for the crime and for the compensations to be carried out; and Sudan called for the reuniting of the children with their families. Moreover, Sudan strongly condemned Israeli aggression and called upon the Human Rights Council to take the immediate and necessary steps to protect the innocent civilians including scores of innocent children and women who were being killed on a daily basis in cold blood.

RAMA YADE, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Human Rights of France, noted that expectations were high on the Human Rights Council, as it had to live up to its challenges. At a time when Darfur and the Middle East were heating up, it was human lives that were at stake. The Human Rights Council was not just another forum or an instrument of good conscience; the world was expecting it to be the best. When establishing this Council, the universality of human rights and freedom had been a point of reference. The Council had to ask itself if it had been up to the task before it; it owed that to the victims of human rights violations, who often suffered in a deafening silence, under the leaden yoke of repression and abuses. However, it was not yet time for the Human Rights Council to be judged for it was still too young: it was still in the process of perfecting itself. The Special Sessions on Darfur and Myanmar had showed its ability to react. However, complete cooperation was needed from those Governments regarding the fight against impunity, access for humanitarian help and in fulfilling the recommendations of the Special Procedures. But the Council had not seen an end to realities on the ground overtaking its efforts. In particular recent developments in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories had elicited concern among the international community. It was not acceptable for Israelis to die from rocket attacks but it was also not correct for Palestinians to die from Israeli military incursions into Gaza. The role of the Council was to bring calm.

Ms. Yade said that France was ready to support the continuation of several of the Special Procedures. In particular, France was committed to combating extreme poverty and to ensuring that enforced disappearances were no longer tolerated. Another challenge awaiting the Council was the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review. It had to identify the gaps and shortcomings of each State, as no State could claim to have a perfect record on human rights. France was prepared for that important event. The Council had to become the place where victims of crimes knew that they could come and be heard.

YASUHIDE NAKAYAMA, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said that Japan shared the opinion of the international community that the Human Rights Council should be an effective institution. And the question before them now was what kind of future the Council would construct on the foundation it had laid. It was hoped that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, including its follow-up measures, would prove to be an effective tool for the Council, and Japan intended to contribute its utmost to that end. Japan stressed the importance of the full cooperation of every country with the activities of Special Procedures, including continuous dialogue with the international community.

Concerning the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mr. Nakayama said that Japan had striven to normalize its relations with that country, in accordance with the Japan-Democratic People's Republic of Korea Pyongyang Declaration, through comprehensively resolving the outstanding issues of concern, including the abduction, nuclear, and missile issues and settling the unfortunate past. In addition, Japan believed that the work of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea needed to be continued and that it was therefore essential to renew the Rapporteur’s mandate in the current session of the Human Rights Council. Japan had organized a seminar on support for democratization for Japanese non-governmental organizations with the participation of the executive Head of the United Nations Democracy Fund, Mr. Nakayama said. Japan also supported the mainstreaming of human rights in a variety of areas, including peace and development, as well as protecting the rights of vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children, and persons with disabilities. Japan also intended to take initiatives in eradicating discrimination against leprosy-affected persons and their families. In that connection, Japan had signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and was hoping to ratify it at as early a date as possible. Furthermore, to secure fundamental human rights it was essential to make efforts in a variety of areas including peace and development. The need for such efforts was particularly evident in Africa. Under the basic message of “Towards a Vibrant Africa”, Japan would host the Tokyo International Conference on African Development, from 28 to 30 May 2008, which would focus on the theme of establishing human security on that continent.

MANUEL LOBO ANTUNES, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal, recalling the establishment of the Human Rights Council two years ago, said its work was not yet complete and its members needed to aim high and work hard, with optimism and vision. Although it was very young, the Council had nevertheless already proven useful as a true platform for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms everywhere. The Universal Periodic Review should be a balanced and transparent mechanism and should be able to establish how a Member State was meeting the obligations it had accepted. It was vital that the Council lived up to the expectations that the world had placed on it. It was vital that the Council spoke out against gross and systematic violations, or it would lose its credibility. The Council had to be able to point out when international human rights standards were violated, and had to be able to offer assistance and support to the victims.

Portugal attached crucial importance to the suffering of the victims of human rights violations and had striven to raise awareness of the cases of those who lived in fear anywhere in the world, as they had done in the past with the East Timorese, Mr. Lobo Antunes said. Of particular concern to Portugal was the situation in Darfur. Moreover, the situations in countries such as Myanmar, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus and Uzbekistan were among those that should be addressed by the Council. Recent incidents in Chad or Kenya were also a matter of concern. In that respect, it was important that the Council adapted its work in order to achieve concrete results on the ground. Portugal had abolished the death penalty and believed the Council should be involved in the fight for the universal abolition of that form of punishment. The Council also needed to continue its fight for the full implementation of human rights without discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion. The sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should encourage the Working Group on the drafting of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to accomplish its task and lay the groundwork for the Council and the General Assembly to adopt that Optional Protocol this year.

SACHA SERGIO LLORENTI SOLIZ, Vice-Minister for the Coordination of Social Movements and Civil Society of Bolivia, said the Government of Bolivia was united during this time of reflection in commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and also reaffirmed its steadfast commitment to the defence of human dignity, and the universality and indivisibility of human rights. Neither human dignity nor human rights should be marginalized. Sixty years after the Universal Declaration, the international community could affirm that it was taking steps in the right direction. But there was still a long way to go to fulfil the aspirations set 60 years ago. Without a doubt, the structure of the Council had filled the international community with hope which was essential to jointly face the challenges of a planet and ensuring that international human rights norms were realized in the areas of freedom, bread, water, shelter, education, health, and equality for all regardless of whether one was born in the South or in the North. Bolivia had been the victim of manmade climatological disasters which had prevented human rights from being enjoyed fully in the country. The indigenous people could teach the world other ways for humans to relate to nature that avoided such consequences. The indigenous philosophy was based on a balanced concept of "living well", whereas consumer culture sought to promote "living better". Unfortunately for some to live better meant that others had to live worse.

In Bolivia, a country that was constantly struggling for its dignity and survival, the people viewed neo-liberalism, colonialism and imperialism as major threats to their enjoyment of human rights. Those threats still besieged the efforts of the people of Bolivia to establish their freedom and to build a democratic, just and more humane society. Neo-liberalism had impoverished Bolivia and alienated its natural resources. Nationalization efforts in Bolivia, intended as a right for the indigenous people of Bolivia, had made it possible to improve their income. Among other things, it was important to note that this year Bolivia would become the third country free of illiteracy in the region. One reason for the authentic democratic revolution occurring in the country was the New Political Constitution of the State, which was scheduled to be adopted on 4 May this year. That Constitution had been drafted through a process bringing together hundreds of human rights organizations, youth, students, senior citizens, indigenous women’s groups, educational and cultural institutions, among others; the Constitution included and guaranteed rights that had not yet been included as rights by the international community. Bolivia also renounced war as a means of settling international conflicts, per the Constitution. Sixty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Bolivia had paid tribute to the men and women who had offered their lives in the name of liberty, equality and social justice.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08007E