HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONTINUES GENERAL DEBATE ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES THAT REQUIRE THE COUNCIL'S ATTENTION

The Human Rights Council today continued its general debate on human rights situations that require the Council's attention, hearing from 33 non governmental organizations which alleged human rights violations in China, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, India, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, the Republic of Korea and Georgia among others.

The following non governmental organizations took the floor: Society for Threatened People, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Movement against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples, Baha'i International Community, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Franciscans International, Human Rights Watch, International Education Development, Colombian Commission of Jurists, International Commission of Jurists, Union of Arab Jurists, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Amnesty International, United Nations Watch, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, World Muslim Congress, International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, M'bororo Socio-Cultural Development Association, World Organization against Torture, Liberation, Lawyers for a Democratic Society, Lutheran World Federation, International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Society Studies Centre, Hawa Organization for Women, Al-Zubair Charity Organization, Child Development Foundation, Sudanese Women General Union, African-American Society for Humanitarian Aid and Development, North South XXI, Arab Lawyers Union and European Union of Public Relations.

The following countries exercised their right of reply: Sudan, Sri Lanka, Georgia, Myanmar, Ethiopia, India, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Zimbabwe, Russian Federation, Pakistan, Colombia, China, Iran, Morocco, Afghanistan, Iraq, Netherlands, Japan, France and Uzbekistan.

The Council will resume its meeting at 3 p.m. this afternoon and hear two remaining countries exercise their right of reply before taking up the issue of human rights bodies and mechanisms.

Continuation of General Debate on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council's Attention

TENZIN KAYTA, of Society for Threatened Peoples, in a joint statement with Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, and Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that the Society for Threatened People had raised concern about the frequent reports of deportation of Tibetan refugees by the Government of Nepal at the seventh session of the Council. They urged the Council to take note of the announcement last week that Tibetans living in the country without legal documents would face deportation from Nepal. That was an alarming and yet ironic development, as Nepal had stopped issuing registration certificates to Tibetans in the 1990s. On the other side of the Himalayas, the human rights crisis confronted by the Tibetan people demanded immediate attention. According to one report, more than 200 Tibetans had died as a direct result of China's “people's war” launched to suppress the Tibetan Uprising. Reports on the continued use of torture on Tibetan detainees had emerged. The complete lack of political will by China to acknowledge the existence of a human rights problem in Tibet meant that the legitimate grievances of the Tibetan people received no fair hearing. The Council should encourage the Chinese authorities to immediately receive the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

JEREMIE SMITH, of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, said that both reports submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the situation on human rights in Sudan had identified impunity and lack of civilian protection by all parties to the conflict as the principal obstacles to peace in Darfur. As the Special Rapporteur had pointed out in her reports, no improvement on the ground had been made by the Government of Sudan. Continued efforts of the Human Rights Council and better involvement of the Arab League were essential to address the lack of improvement and to ensure civilian protection, particularly in Darfur. The implementation of recommendations of the Council's Expert Group on Darfur, particularly those aimed at combating impunity and increasing civilian protection, remained the essential part of the path to peace.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, spoke about the camp in the Western Sahara. It said that the High Commissioner must be able to carry out her mission there in total impartiality. The Movement called on the Council to publish the report on the last visit to the camp and to plan a new visit. That was necessary to ensure the right to self determination of the people living in the camp.

DIANE ALA'I, of Baha'i International Community, said that the Baha'i International Community was grateful that the United Nations, civil society and the media had kept the public informed about the campaign of terrorising the Baha'i community in Iran. Children were being refused registration in schools and, in a number of cases, work permits had been withdrawn. The Iranian authorities were relentlessly persecuting this community. A hateful propaganda campaign by the official media was also taking place. But more and more Iranians were taking a stand on human rights and were standing behind the Baha'i. That was a welcome change. Further, now that a growing tide of oppression was taking place, the international community was asked by the Baha'i International Community to call for the release of the Baha'i leadership from Iranian prisons.

SIMIA AHMADI, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), expressed its deep concern over the human rights situation in Somalia, where indiscriminate attacks had caused displacement of large portions of the population and attacks on humanitarian workers continued. The International Federation called on the Human Rights Council to call for a special session on Somalia, to condemn the grave human rights situation, and to call on all parties to refrain from the attacks on civilians, humanitarian workers and journalists. The United Nations should establish the Commission of Enquiry and nominate Special Rapporteurs. Also of concern was the human rights situation in Iran, where minors continued to be subjected to the death penalty and human rights defenders were still targeted. Several imprisoned Kurdish human rights defenders were currently on hunger strike. The International Federation called on Iran to immediately stop executing minor offenders and to implement the standing invitation of the Special Rapporteur.

FRANCIS KAVIYIL OFM, of Franciscans International, drew attention to communal violence and impunity in India. In the state of Oriza, thousands of people had fled or were living in hiding because they were Christians and did not want to convert to Hinduism. Communal violence had also been experienced in the state of Gujarat. The right to life and religious freedom had to be protected and impartial investigations had to be carried out. Also, human rights defenders had to be protected. Franciscans International called on the Council to encourage the Indian Government to protect religious freedom and the right to life.

JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, called for the Council to address the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further attention should also be paid to the ongoing crisis in Zimbabwe, where firsthand accounts of ongoing killings had been received. At least 163 persons had been killed over the past months. Accountability was the foundation for an enduring transition in the country and the Council should thus call for accountability and justice for the past human rights violations in Zimbabwe. Turning to the situation in Georgia, the assault by the Georgian military as well as the use of cluster munitions by the Russian Forces had heavily affected the civilian population. The Council should hold a special session on Georgia.

KAREN PARKER, of International Education Development, highlighted that serious breaches of international humanitarian law were being committed in the armed conflict in Sri Lanka, including the genocidal statements by former government officials. The situation in the north of the country had been deteriorating, and Tamil civilians in this region faced annihilation. The Government of Sri Lanka sought the removal of representatives of the international community from these regions, including the United Nations humanitarian agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The civilian population in the north of the country did not have access to basic needs, such as food, health, or water. That represented a crime of extermination according to the International Criminal Court. The Council was asked to hold a special session on the situation in the north of Sri Lanka, to prevent another Rwanda.

ISABELLE HEYER, of the Colombian Commission of Jurists, said the Commission was concerned about serious threats to Colombia's security, the judiciary and human rights defenders. The judiciary was hindered and attacked while it was carrying out investigations related to vote buying during the elections. Several government officials had filed criminal complaints against several court magistrates. Extrajudicial killings were still being committed. The Commission called on the Human Rights Council to closely follow the situation in Colombia.

LUKAS MACHON, of the International Commission of Jurists, said that, during the last sessions, the International Commission of Jurists had criticized a lacking capacity on part of the Human Rights Council to address major human rights crises in substance. In the case of Zimbabwe, the harassment and violence against the peaceful political opposition had been rightly considered as the “perversion of democracy” by the former High Commissioner. The power-sharing agreement recently concluded would bring the country back to peace and stability only if it addressed justice for victims and members of their families and the accountability of perpetrators. The International Commission reiterated its call to the relevant Special Procedures to undertake a joint monitoring visit to Zimbabwe.

ELIAS KHOURI, of Union of Arab Jurists, in a joint statement with General Arab Women Federation, drew the Council's attention to the human rights situation in Iraq, saying it was strange that the Human Rights Council was silent on one of the worst human rights situations in the world. The improvements in the human rights situation that had been recently reported represented the view of the media who wanted to divert the public opinion from what was really happening on the ground. Right now, Iraq was suffering silently from a cholera epidemic and hundreds had died as a result of negligence and denial of basic rights, including the right to life. Grave violations of human rights were persistent, including torture, also in prisons run by the militias. Women were denied their rights. This tragedy would not happen if not for the blatant disregard of human rights and international humanitarian laws and as a result of the occupation and invasion of Iraq by one of the founding members of the United Nations. The Union of Arab Jurists called on the Human Rights Council to include matters concerning Iraq in its agenda and to appoint a Special Rapporteur to investigate the situation in Iraq.

GI YOUN KIM, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), noted with grave concern the serious setback in the situation of human rights defenders in the Republic of Korea. The evidence gathered in a fact-finding mission conducted by the Forum and others showed that lawyers, human rights group members, staff of the National Human Rights Commission and even medical workers were victims of indiscriminate violence by the police. The Forum urged the Government of the Republic of Korea to immediately stop criminalizing human rights defenders by releasing all those detained. The perpetrators including the police had to be brought to justice. Also, relevant laws had to be revised to ensure the work of human rights defenders and the Republic of Korea had to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur in earnest. The Forum was also concerned about Bangladesh's unjustified 20-month state of emergency and urged all States in the preparation to the forthcoming Universal Period Review of Bangladesh to pay attention to the suspension of fundamental rights under the illegitimate emergency, the endemic torture, mass arbitrary detention and the closure of at least 160 newspapers.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, urged the Council to act with no delay on situations calling for its attention. In the case of Zimbabwe, they had evidence that the human rights violations that had taken place after the elections had been State-sponsored. The Council should urge the parties to address those human rights violations. On Georgia, Amnesty was concerned about the situation of human rights and international humanitarian law, as there were accounts of attacks on civilians from both sides. The Council should call for an end to those abuses. The voluntary and safe return of internally displaced persons should be ensured. In Sri Lanka, many internally displaced persons were trapped between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lankan Armed Forces. The Council should call on all parties to uphold human rights.

HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said that, in order to appropriately celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the Council had to take action when it learned of gross human rights violations. Yet, after hearing at this very session of atrocities committed by the Sudanese Government against people of Darfur, they had heard the call of the Government of Sudan, supported by the African Group, to eliminate the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation on human rights in Sudan. According to a United Nations Watch report, the Council this year had effectively addressed only 2 out of the 20 countries on Freedom House's list of worst human rights abusers. That had to change. To truly honour the sixtieth anniversary, all nations should declare amnesty for their political prisoners, such as those imprisoned in China, Myanmar, Egypt, Libya, Viet Nam, and Syria.

ALTAF HUSSAIN WANI, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said that the Kashmiri people had been resisting Indian occupying forces for a long time. When the Kashmiri people demonstrated against the Indian occupier peacefully, the Indian Army opened fire. India was one of the worst violators of human rights. The Council was urged to report on the occupational repression in Kashmir.

ATIA ANWER ZOON, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, wished to bring the attention of the Council to the situation of the people in Jammu and Kashmir, who called for their right to self determination which India was continuously denying. Indian security forces were indiscriminately shooting at all peaceful protests. That was in serious violation of all major human rights instruments and standards. Since last month, peaceful demonstrations had been most brutally dealt with. Such events only added to those happening for the last 25 years. All provisions of human rights and humanitarian law instruments had been flouted by India. The people in Jammu and Kashmir were looking to the Council to raise its voice.

MME GEORGINA STEVENS, of International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR), in a joint statement with Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), drew the attention of the Human Rights Council to the situation of the civilian population in the north of Sri Lanka, where a large-scale military operation was currently taking place. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 12,000 new families were displaced in the last month alone. Military authorities had said they could not guarantee safety and security of humanitarian organizations in the area and requested their withdrawal. Only the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent was permitted to remain. By denying the access to humanitarian workers and imposing restrictions on the transport of humanitarian aid, the Government of Sri Lanka had failed to protect all its citizens and was in violation of international humanitarian law and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Denying access to non governmental organizations also meant there were no independent and impartial witnesses to the violations of human rights.

The International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism urged the Human Rights Council to remind the Government of Sri Lanka to allow access to the civilian population in need of humanitarian assistance and humanitarian aid.

UDIT RAJ, of the M'bororo Socio-Cultural Development Association, said that, despite various provisions of the Indian Constitution aiming at the protection and promotion of human rights of Dalits, their implementation remained inadequate. Atrocities, untouchability, insufficient wages, bonded labour, child labour, landlessness, illiteracy, inequality of opportunity and manual scavenging were still the order of the day in the life of Dalits. The Association urged the Government of India to establish mechanisms of protection for Dalits in order to curb crimes against them, as well as to empower them with education. Also, recent brutal attacks on Christians in Orissa State reminded everyone that religious intolerance and caste discrimination were synonymous. The Association urged the Human Rights Council and the Government of India to work together to establish justice, peaceful co-existence and harmony between the different religious communities.

ALEXANDRA KOSSIN, of the World Organization against Torture, welcomed the ceasefire in Georgia but remained concerned over the plight of the people and the refugees that had fled the conflict. Attacks on civilian property and looting had been reported during the conflict. That was a clear violation of international treaties. A United Nations fact-finding-mission should take place in order to identify the culprits and launch legal action against them. In the case of Zimbabwe, it was hoped that the deal reached between the two leading political parties would lead to peace in the country. The World Organization against Torture underlined that torture had been employed by the police there to obtain allegations. The Government should be asked to ratify the Convention against Torture and extend invitations to all United Nations Special Rapporteurs.

ARUP CHANDRA BORBORA, of Liberation, talked about the situation in the north-east state of India, Assam, and the conflict between its sovereignty movement and Indian Armed Forces. Grave violations of human rights had been committed by the Indian forces in that context over the years. The people of Assam demanded a political solution to the conflict. Liberation called on the Indian Government to continue the dialogue and take constructive steps towards a peaceful solution. The international community was also urged to put pressure on India to make peace in Assam.

BYOUNG-JOO KIM, of Lawyers for a Democratic Society, in a joint statement with Asian Legal Resource Centre, drew the attention of the Council to the human rights situation in the Republic of Korea. Peaceful demonstrations were deemed illegal under the Law of Assembly and Demonstration which was not in accordance with the Korean Constitution or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since May 2008, over 1,500 people had been arrested through the abusive use of relevant laws and regulations. The Government had also taken a number of oppressive measures against the press to silence their criticism of the government's policies. Lawyers for a Democratic Society urged the Government to immediately implement the commitments it had made during the Universal Periodic Review and its election to the Council. It also called on the Council to encourage and facilitate the visit of Special Procedure mandate holders to the Republic of Korea.

FRANCESCA TRAGLIA, of Lutheran World Federation, in a joint statement with International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR), said that the recent violence in the State of Orissa in India warranted the close attention of the Human Rights Council. While the events had been portrayed as a Hindu-Christian religious conflict, they had in fact much more to do with local political forces trading in sectarian hatred, and with attempts to preserve caste ideology and structures of subjugation. Caste politics and the struggle for the empowerment of the Dalits were particularly powerful factors in this context. Dalits, who were strongly represented in the Christian community, had made much progress in claiming and securing their own resolution. This had been met with powerful and often violent reactions. The Council should encourage the Indian Government to take all necessary action to ensure that the perpetrators were swiftly apprehended and submitted to due and impartial process of law.

KAREN FRANCIS, of International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), drew the attention of the international community and the Human Rights Council to the human rights situation of children in Iraq. Keeping human rights in mind and politics out, the situation of children was appalling. Children were lacking access to all basic services and their basic needs were not covered. According to a report, the vast majority of children had been traumatized by the war, while 93 per cent had learning impediments due to the atmosphere of fear they were growing up in. The international community was obligated to give its voice to the defenceless, safeguard and nurture children. The International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination urged the Human Rights Council to enquire in the issue of the 2003 dismissal of the Special Rapporteur for human rights in Iraq.

MASHAIR AHMED AL-AMIN, of Society Studies Centre, said that Sima Samar, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan, spoke only very briefly of the Armed Forces Act and other provisions that had been passed. The report did not give enough attention to such acts. Ms. Samar also made very general accusations against law enforcement forces in Sudan. Such selectivity in the report would not be to any use to the process in Sudan and the Centre therefore did not see much utility in renewing her mandate.

MOHAMMED MOHI EL DIN, of the Sudan Council for Voluntary Agencies, said that despite the appreciation of the Sudan Council for Voluntary Agencies of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Sudan, all their attempts to meet her in Khartoum during her last visit had failed because of her refusal to meet them. The international community should support the non governmental organizations to perform their role in ensuring human rights. The Sudan Council for Voluntary Agencies was awaiting to see more pressure from the international community on all armed factions, in order to put an end to the fighting.

ABLA MAHDI, of the Hawa Organization for Women, expressed their appreciation to those who had given positive support to peace in Sudan and called on the international community to fulfil its obligations with regards to development and stability. Also, the Hawa Organization for Women called on the parties to the conflict to negotiate the peace and on rebel groups to join the negotiations. Many mechanisms existed in Sudan, which should promote peace and stability, but the problem was the lack of transparency, which fanned discord rather than promoted unity. The Hawa Organization for Women called on the Human Rights Council to put an end to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation on human rights in Sudan.

IBRAHIM ABDEL HALIM, of Al Zubair Charity Foundation, commented on Ms. Sima Samar's report. The report was biased and had a selective approach. It focused on the negative developments and was often erroneous. The conclusions were hasty and unsure. How could anybody claim that justice did not want the truth? Criminal procedures had been undertaken in Sudan. The Al-Zubair Charity Organization recommended encouraging all parties to the conflict to come together and reach peace. There was an elected parliament that could monitor human rights and therefore there was no need to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

AMAL MAHMOUD, of the Child Development Foundation, spoke about the status of children and women in Sudan. They were the prime victims and targets of abduction, sexual violence and trafficking. These crimes had been recognised as serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law. In light of the attempted abduction of children by the French non governmental organization “L'Arche de Zoe” and of abuses by United Nations personnel, the Child Development Foundation recommended the adoption of a code of conduct, in line with international norms and standards, which would apply to all non governmental organizations workers and peacekeepers.

GAMAR HABANI, of the Sudanese Women General Union, said that Sudan continued to struggle for peace, development and a better situation for its people. Sanctions affected the development and poverty and worsened the situation of women and children. The Union wondered if the statement made by the Special Rapporteur on the situation on human rights in Sudan in her report of March 2008 that women had been treated as second-class citizens and imprisoned if not able to pay dowry, was an intention by the international community to tarnish the reality of women in Sudan. The Union appealed for peace in all parts on Sudan and noted again that the sanctions did not affect the Government but ordinary people and had negative impact on the situation of women in particular.

YOUSIF ELTYAIB, of African-American Society for Humanitarian Aid and Development, said that the prolonging and protraction of the conflict in Darfur had a direct negative implication on the peace process and aborted genuine attempts to stop that conflict. The memorandum of the International Criminal Court's Prosecutor to order the extradition of the President Al Bashir would further stiffen the positions of conflicting parties. Regarding the rights of children, the society resented the fact that children were used in wars as soldiers. The Society requested the Human Rights Council condemn the crime of abduction, trafficking and sale of Sudanese and Chadian children committed by a French organization.

ABDELBAGI JIBRIL, of North South XXI, said that the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Sudan had shown a picture of a country where violence was prevailing. Because of the situation, the United Nations had had to scale down its presence, leaving thousands without assistance. The attack on the Kalma Camp appeared to have been a political strategy. Security forces had used excessive force. North South XXI wished to emphasize that the situation of human rights in Sudan was acute and dangerous; it was the responsibility of the Council to send a signal to the Government of Sudan. The report of the Special Rapporteur had once again documented serious violations; the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan should be continued.

SABAH AL-MUKHTAR, of the Arab Lawyers Union, repeated the request that the Human Rights Council include the human rights situation in Iraq in its agenda and urgently appoint a Special Rapporteur. Human rights violations happened everywhere and always, but in Iraq all human rights were being violated every day. The continuing silence of the Human Rights Council was disturbing. Progress in the human rights situation in Iraq had been reported, but there was no baseline against which the progress could be measured. The United States air force continued to bomb the civilian population claiming they were terrorists. The Government in Baghdad denied all rights to civilians, including the right to life and the right to basic services. The Human Rights Council continued to be told about the abuses of the previous regime, rather than be told about the human rights situation today. All were aware of the lies to justify the occupation of Iraq, with the United Nations cover. It was incumbent on the United Nations and the Human Rights Council to actually protect Iraqi people. With the oil revenues coming in, theft and corruption had increased and Iraq now ranked third on the list of the Transparency International. Many people were detained, tortured, raped and killed.

STEPHAN CICCOLI, of the European Union of Public Relations, said that Azad Kashmir was a region that was totally neglected. People lacked housing, food and education. However, several mineral leases had been allocated to outsiders, including foreigners, in Gilgit-Baltistan which would not benefit the local people and would cause further displacement. The Union called on the Human Rights Council to appoint a Special Observer to the region of Azad Kashmir to seek a review of the lopsided policies of the Government of Pakistan.

Right of Reply

JOHN UKEC LUETH UKEC (Sudan), speaking in a right of reply, said that when the Council had taken up the situation in Sudan, the delegation of Sudan had been thrilled that their country's efforts and cooperation with the world community, particularly the Human Rights Council, would be recognized and applauded. To the contrary, the European Union and the Special Rapporteur had tarnished Sudan's image due to their hostile agenda towards Sudan. The African Group, Arab Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference were thanked for their efforts and help. For the Special Rapporteur to say the situation of human rights in the entire country was bleak was a demonstration of her biased attitude towards Sudan. If Sudan was totally devoid of human rights, how could she fly and travel there safely?

Sudan was on track, fulfilling its obligations towards enhancing human rights in the entire country, particularly in the pockets of rebel infested areas. The issue was the rebels; they attacked civilians and ambushed peacekeepers. Sudan had taken incredible steps to emerge out of war. By next year, Sudan would be governed by freely elected individuals from over 40 parties. This was what the West and the European Union did not want to happen. What Sudan needed was for the international community to convince the rebels in Darfur to accept dialogue.

RAJIVA WIJESINHA (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply, said much was made of the fact that Sri Lanka had to impose restrictions on international organizations in the country for their own safety. The pomposity of the pronouncements regarding the international community could sometimes be painful. The Government noted that the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent had been asked to continue to work in place and did so dutifully. Sri Lanka would look after its own and with the assistance of those who cared for its people, including the dedicated workers of several United Nations agencies. Given the caution of non governmental organizations with regards to the security situation, it was clear that the best assistance the international community could offer was to persuade Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to let the people go to the safety of government-controlled areas from where return and restitution could be ensured. Sri Lanka regretted the assertion of Ireland that the peace process had been terminated and said the process continued and that terrorists should not be rewarded by being treated as the sole arbiters of peace when other democratically pluralistic Tamils were keen on negotiations. Sri Lanka reiterated it would be helpful for the work of the Council if those who spoke in the spirit of finger-pointing were required to register the sources of their funding that facilitated and explained their performances.

TAMAR TAMASHVILI (Georgia), speaking in a right of reply, said that Georgia agreed that the situation in Georgia had to be secure and the right of return of internally displaced persons had to be assured. All this had to take place under the principles of international law, human rights law and humanitarian law. With respect to the Collective Security Treaty Organization and its members, it was important to ensure peace and peace operations taken on the territory of the Caucuses. Georgia underlined that perhaps the notion of peace enforcement and ensuring peace was a notion that only one organ on the international level was allowed to conduct, and that was specifically written in chapter seven. No unilateral action should be taken by any State to argue that it could secure the peace in any part of the world. Perhaps they should look seriously at the situation in Georgia, noting that there had been an international armed conflict there and therefore neither of the parties that took part in the armed conflict could be argued to be impartial and neutral and could take part in the peacekeeping in the Caucuses. Perhaps an international mechanism should be present in the conflict regions of Georgia. Georgia underlined that there should be access to humanitarian aid in the conflict regions. As for the right to return, Georgia asked if the humanitarian organizations could not enter from Gori district into South Ossetia, did that mean that internally displaced persons could safely return? The right to return had to be guaranteed. Georgia was open to an impartial investigation. If a solution was to be reached, impartiality, neutrality and objectivity as well as transparency were the principles that had to guide the negotiations.

WUNNA MAUNG LWIN (Myanmar), speaking in a right of reply, said that Myanmar had noticed with regret that the scepticism expressed by certain countries with regard to the human rights situation in Myanmar was based on unfounded allegations. Myanmar had taken a tangible step in the political process last May by adopting the new Constitution and thus, the multi-party democracy general election would be held in 2010. Regarding cooperation with the international community, Myanmar had received the Special Rapporteur and the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General. The Special Rapporteur had, according to his communications, considered the missions successful. The authorities had also granted most of the requests of the Special Envoy. Myanmar would continue to pursue a dialogue and engagement with the international community so as to improve and promote human rights conditions in the country. Therefore, the allegations that were expressed by some countries could mislead the international community and tarnish the image of Myanmar. Conversely, it could be interpreted that these allegations were just an attempt to politicise on the human rights issue which could lead to a dangerous precedent to the Council.

ALLEHONE MULUGETA ABEBE (Ethiopia), speaking in a right of reply, said that some speakers made reference to the conduct of Ethiopian troops in Somalia and the human rights situation in the Somali national regional state in Ethiopia. The allegations of human rights violations by Ethiopian troops in Somalia were unfounded. Ethiopia was invited by the legitimate Government in Somalia and its efforts were supported by the European Union and the African Union and the conduct of its forces had been in accordance with international humanitarian law. Jihadist groups and militiamen were conducting indiscriminate attacks in Somalia. Ethiopia was gravely disappointed that the statements made in the Council not only selectively targeted Ethiopian troops and peacekeepers who put their lives on the line to restore peace and order in Somalia, but also regrettably gave semblance of credence to outrageous allegations spread by a few with the purpose of tainting the reputation of Ethiopia's professional defense forces and African Union peacekeepers. The Independent Expert held very productive discussions with the Ethiopian Government and Ethiopia was supportive of the extension of this mandate.

Regarding human rights allegations within the Somalia national regional state, the Ethiopian Government rejected allegations of human rights violations and expressed its commitment to ensuring that its actions following the terrorist attack against Ethiopians and foreign workers in April 2007 that resulted in the death of 74 civilians was consistent with human rights norms and humanitarian standards.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India), speaking in a right of reply, said the delegation of Pakistan had once again made reference to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in their statement. It was ironic that comments with regard to human rights of the people of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir had been made by a country which was persisting with its illegal occupation of a part of Jammu and Kashmir. India shared the concern that many countries had about the growth and consolidation of militancy and extremism. The Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir had been a victim of cross-border terrorism for almost two decades and the authorities had always acted within the law and with restraint. Pakistan should exercise restraint in their comments and should not raise bilateral issues under the guise of human rights. Pakistan should focus on taking effective steps to curb use of its territory or the territory controlled by it for launching terrorist activities against India. Such statements by Pakistan did not contribute to creating the atmosphere necessary for the dialogue process between India and Pakistan to move forward.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea categorically rejected the allegations of Japan and the European Union. They wanted to solve the issue of abductions of Japanese individuals, but Japan had not respected its obligations and had not provided for the settlement of Japan's past with regard to resolving the abduction cases. Japan had committed crimes as millions of Koreans had been abducted or subjected to sexual slavery during World War II; Japan was bound to apologise.
The concerns of the European Union were also either fabricated or distorted. The European Union was always talking about the right to life but did not talk about the thousands of deaths resulting from the Iraqi invasion. They were ignorant of the violations taking place on their own territories and of those of their allies around their world. The politicisation of human rights had to be put to an end.

ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, thanked delegations that had made encouraging remarks about the current developments in Zimbabwe. Baseless allegations made against Zimbabwe reflected desperation by those who did not care about the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, which took note of their illegal sanctions and other destabilizing actions, including funding saboteurs. Land had been at the core of Zimbabwe's dispute with some European Union member States. Zimbabwe urged France not to be mouthpiece for the British Labour regime and other racist groups and challenged the European Union to address through France, issues of human rights in Corsica, the Chagos archipelago, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. On Canada, Zimbabwe said its delegation would have a field day one of those sessions on human rights and the Royal Mounties. Zimbabwe said it would be convinced that the European Union was honest and sincere about human rights if it stopped politicisation, selectivity and hypocrisy.

OLEG MALGINOV (Russian Federation), speaking in a right of reply, said on 7 August, the regular Georgian armed forces had begun massive bombing and artillery shelling of the South Ossetian villages. As a result, an entire small nation was threatened with total extermination. The right word to describe such action was well known to all. The operation drove tens of thousands of Ossetians from their land. Russia needed to take decisive action in order to stop these attacks. The plan reached between President Medvedev and President Sarkozy would help to stabilize the situation. South Ossetia and Russia were consistently implementing the plan's provisions. Georgia was once again threatening South Ossetia and Abkhazia with war. Access of humanitarian assistance to the multinational population of South Ossetia was totally open. Those who wanted to help were helping. Others were making a fuss about access. The United Nations humanitarian mission was in South Ossetia today. Independent observers had noted that Russia had intervened to avoid a catastrophe in South Ossetia. The Commissioner of the European Council for Human Rights had spent a week in the region and had published his report. Some countries did not like this report because it contained objective facts. The report contained realistic proposals which Russia was studying and which could help stabilize the situation. The key to normalize the situation was for Tbilisi to renounce violence and war. Also there should be a refusal of any policy which encouraged aggression and which rearmed Georgia.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking in a right of reply, said that Jammu Kashmir was not an Indian state, it was recognised by the United Nations as a disputed territory. The people of this territory also did not recognise the territory as being part of India and together with the United Nations had rejected the elections organised by India. The region was part of the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan. Surely India would not discuss any of its integral part under this dialogue phase. As a party to this dispute, Pakistan had every right to question the treatment of occupied Kashmiris by the Indian occupation security forces.

With respect to its international dimension, Kashmir did have a recognized international dimension. It was India which caused it by referring Jammu and Kashmir to the United Nations Security Council. The Council had a responsibility to the people of Kashmir in the context of human rights violations. India could not hoodwink the Council by the talk of foreign sponsored terrorism in Kashmir. The independent and objective media, both national and international, had a different story to tell. If all this was foreign sponsored terrorism, how would India explain thousands of recent unnamed graves which contained dead bodies of Kashmiris who became victims of enforced disappearance and were later killed in Indian dungeons. Were the families that visited these graves foreigners? These statistics had been compiled by international bodies. All victims were Kashmiri. With regard to Pakistan, they strongly opposed the use of the war against terrorism to occupy other territories.

CARLOS FRANCO (Colombia), speaking in a right of reply, said that the work of non governmental organizations had contributed to Colombia paying attention to victims of human rights abuses. Colombia noted that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had a regular presence in the country, and there was a standing invitation to all human rights bodies to visit the country. There was broad presence of international non governmental organizations, which were free to move in the territory without any restrictions. In December 2008, Colombia would voluntarily submit itself to the Universal Periodic Review. As to the comments made by non governmental organizations on the justice system in Colombia, Colombia recalled that the State had doubled the budget for the functioning of the justice system and had guaranteed a social security contribution so that justice agents could act independently. There was a difference in criteria as to some judicial decisions, but the President said that what enriched a democracy was a frank and open dialogue. It was not that Colombia was covering up complaints about the public forces, but it did not agree with the assertion that there was a State policy in Colombia of systematic violations of human rights. The Government had done everything in its power to remedy the situation. Some 750 military men were tried as a result of the lodged complaints. Colombia recognized that there were sometimes difficulties in relations with non governmental organizations and how they assessed situations, but Colombia repeated its invitation for these organizations to build a constructive relationship with the Government and to recognise that there was no systematic violation of human rights in Colombia.

QIAN BO (China), speaking in a right of reply, said China attached great importance to constructive dialogue with non governmental organizations, but it rejected a statement made by the Society of Threatened People which misrepresented facts and was totally unfounded. The statement was obviously politically motivated. What happened in Tibet was part of China's internal affairs. The Chinese Government was determined to uphold the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country and was firmly opposed to any secessionist attempts. The promotion and protection of human rights was enshrined in the Chinese Constitution. The Government attached great importance to human rights and was working to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of Chinese citizens. The Government had also been working to promote and protect human rights in Tibet. Last May, China was hit by a big earthquake, and this summer the Olympics were held in Beijing. The efforts of the Government to promote human rights had not started with the Olympic Games nor did they end with them.

ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran), speaking in a right of reply concerning the statements by the European Union and Canada on the human rights situation in Iran, said that Iran was fully aware of its obligations and responsibilities in the field of human rights. Iran would not let any country interfere in their international affairs or impose a specific culture of human rights. Undoubtedly the published evidence on the role of the Government of France in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda as well as its role in the case of abduction of Sudanese and Chadian children and the numerous cases of discrimination, and restrictive policies against Muslims and Islamic symbols in France, as well as Canada's cases of systematic abuses of the human rights of indigenous peoples, would not put those Governments in a position to teach others the lessons of human rights.

Further, contrary to the false accusations made, no cases of stoning or any cases of execution for minors had been carried in Iran. With regard to Baha'i, all Iranian citizens enjoyed their full constitutional rights. All were equal before the law.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), speaking in a right of reply in relation to a non governmental organization, said this organization had mentioned problems in south Morocco. In doing so, it had confirmed the way in which it insisted on pointing the finger at the question concerning the Sahara. He attempted to cloak this by defending the principle of self determination which he persisted in wishing to apply only to this question, whereas the Fourth Committee of the United Nations was looking at 16 other situations. In an attempt to establish some credibility for his comments, the speaker did not hesitate to borrow out of context general statements made by other delegations which were members of the Council and deformed the nature of those claims, making them say what they did not say. This should be condemned. If that organization was truly motivated by the human rights situation in the Sahara, the situation of the Saharis in the camps would have surely been mentioned. The speaker was a part of the known ploy in attempt to obstruct the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Morocco.

NANGUYALAI TARZI (Afghanistan), speaking in a right of reply regarding victims in the war in Afghanistan, said that after five years of war, the terrorist groups responsible for the victims still acted in the same way. Although Afghanistan had made considerable progress in human rights protection, it was still concerned about the security of its citizens. It firmly condemned the measures used by these terrorist groups, such as attacks on civilians and their use as human shields.

OMER BERZINJI (Iraq), speaking in a right of reply, thanked all those who had expressed support for Iraq. They wanted to hear more about the Iraqi children. The Iraqi children needed help and support for their health and education and other rights. Iraq was making its own efforts, but they needed the help of everyone in this regard. Further, the statements by the Union of Arab Jurists were always destructive and not constructive.

ROBERT-JAN SIEBEN (Netherlands), speaking in a right of reply, said that, while speaking of human rights violations in Somalia by Ethiopian armed forces, the Netherlands had made the reference to the May 2008 report of Amnesty International and had felt the accusations were serious enough to demand an independent investigation of what had happened. The Netherlands hoped Ethiopia would be willing to cooperate with this independent investigation.

In reaction to the intervention of Uzbekistan, the Netherlands said that the concerns about the human rights situation there were shared by many other countries and civil society organizations.

MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan), speaking in a right of reply, said Japan regrettably felt obliged to remind the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea that in their working level consultations, that country had agreed upon the overall objective and specific modalities of the investigation of the abductions from every angle. The Democratic People's republic of Korea should implement this undertaking and establish the investigation committee. Japan remained committed to pursuing its basic policy to normalize relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Japan had faced its past history with sincerity and had borne in mind the remorse and apologies. False allegations could in no way justify and give excuses for the refusal of cooperation.

EMMANUEL ROUSSEAU (France), speaking in a right of reply, said that France had been seriously accused by name for a role that it did not play in the Rwandan genocide. France deplored this serious and unfounded accusation. The French authorities in the Government and Parliament had addressed this issue in a transparent process. The national commission of inquiry had shed full light on the events. France had also fully collaborated with the Rwandan tribunal.

TAMAR TAMASHVILI (Georgia), speaking in a second right of reply, said that Georgia was aware of the humanitarian mission to be deployed, but it was to be the high-level mission from the United Nations humanitarian agencies. Georgia expressed the hope that the mission would enquire about the situation and would have full access. Georgia noted that there was still no access for humanitarian aid from the south and expressed the wish that humanitarian aid would go to South Ossetia. Some non governmental organizations registered in the Russian Federation requested that the humanitarian aid enter through that channel.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had done everything in the abduction case. Japan had not done anything on their part. Japan was not qualified to refer to other countries regarding human rights violations. Japan was distorting its history which was full of violence. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea reiterated its call on the Japanese authorities to address the human rights violations that were taking place in Japan.

BADRIDDIN OBIDOV (Uzbekistan), speaking in a right of reply in reaction to the right of reply of the Netherlands, said that Uzbekistan had heard once again unfounded accusations of human rights violations in their country. In those references, no specific instances or facts had been given. Uzbekistan was carrying out an open dialogue with all countries in the region and with civil society. States should focus on the situations which really needed the attention of the Council. If one wanted to talk about single situations it had to base this on facts.

NATALIA ZOLOTOVA (Russian Federation), speaking in a second right of reply, said the Russian Federation had repeatedly emphasized its commitment to conflict resolution on a human rights basis. From the very beginning it had said there was a need for international police forces in the regions neighbouring South Ossetia. The Russian Federation said Georgian authorities would have to resolve the issues with the authorities of South Ossetia. The Russian Federation noted that those who today were making the fuss had been for some reason very silent during the first days of Georgian aggression on South Ossetia.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08096E