HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATE OF SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON MYANMAR FOR ONE YEAR

The Human Rights Council this morning adopted four resolutions on torture and other inhuman, cruel, and degrading treatment: the role and responsibility of medical and other health personnel; discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights; forensic genetics and human rights; and on the situation of human rights in Myanmar in which it extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar for one year.

On torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: the role and responsibility of medical and other health personnel, the Council condemned all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which could never be justified, and called upon all States to implement fully the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The resolution was adopted with a vote of 34 in favour, none against and 13 abstentions.

On discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, the Council emphasized that discrimination based on religion or belief often had an adverse impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, particularly with regard to members of religious minorities and other persons in vulnerable situations. The Council urged States to ensure that everyone had the right, inter alia, to education, work, an adequate standard of living, the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and to take part in cultural life, without any discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. The resolution was adopted with a vote of 22 in favour, one against and 24 abstentions.

On forensic genetics and human rights, the Council encouraged States to consider the use of forensic genetics to contribute to the identification of the remains of victims of serious violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law, and to address the issue of impunity. Introducing this resolution, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, Rodolfo Ojea Qvintana, said this resolution was especially important to Argentina and was taken up by the President of Argentina during the last General Assembly. Forensic science could overcome difficulties in the identification of remains of victims and of those who had been taken away from their parents when they were children. The use of this technology was useful to protect human rights and contributed to help victims exercise the right to truth.

On the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the Council condemned the ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Myanmar. It strongly urged the Government of Myanmar to desist immediately from further politically motivated arrests, and to release all political prisoners without delay and without conditions. The Council decided to extend for one year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.

Speaking in introduction of resolutions were Denmark, the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union, and Argentina.

Speaking as a concerned country was Myanmar.

Speaking in general comments were Canada, Pakistan, Chile, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan, and Malaysia.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote were Egypt, South Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Russian Federation, India, China, and Russian Federation.

Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote were Uruguay, Canada, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Mexico, Chile, Egypt, Nigeria, India, Bangladesh, and Cuba.


The next meeting of the Council will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when it is scheduled to finish taking action on draft resolutions and decisions before concluding its tenth regular session.



Action on Draft Resolutions on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.32) on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: the role and responsibility of medical and other health personnel, adopted by a vote of 34 in favour, none against, and 13 abstentions as orally amended, the Council condemns all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which can never be justified, and calls upon all States to implement fully the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; urges States to ensure that all medical and other health personnel may fulfil their duty to report or denounce acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of which they are aware to relevant authorities without fear of retribution or harassment; stresses that all allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment must be examined promptly and impartially by the competent domestic authority; urges States to establish effective investigation and documentation procedures; urges all States to provide all persons deprived of their liberty with a professional medical examination at their admission to and transfer between such facilities and thereafter on a regular basis; urges all States that have not yet done so to become parties to the Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol; requests the Special Rapporteur on torture and other relevant special procedures and invites relevant treaty bodies, inter alia, to discuss possible areas of cooperation with the relevant United Nations bodies, specialized agencies and programmes, in particular the World Health Organization, to address the role and responsibility of medical and other health personnel in the documentation and prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to consider including in their reports submitted to the Council information on the problem of medical and other health personnel’s participation in such acts; and calls upon the Office of the High Commissioner to continue to provide advisory services to States for the prevention of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment including concerning tools for the investigation of alleged cases of torture.


The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (34): Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Cuba, France, Gabon, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (0):

Abstentions (13): Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Senegal.



The Council also voted on operative paragraph 18 of the resolution, which was retained following a vote of 27 in favour, 10 abstentions, and 10 against. In operative paragraph 18, the Council takes note of the report of the Special Rapporteur (A/HRC/10/44).


The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (27): Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, France, Gabon, Germany, Italy, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (10): Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

Abstentions (10): Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Senegal, and South Africa.


ARNOLD SKUBSTED (Denmark), introducing the resolution, said that this resolution constituted the first result to deal in a more efficient manner with the prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the UN system. Denmark would in the future wish to propose an annual omnibus resolution at the General Assembly in New York and to have more focused thematic resolutions at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The resolution before the Council today dealt with the role and responsibility of medical and other health personnel in relation to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, medical and other health personnel could play a crucial role in preventing, detecting and reporting or denouncing acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The resolution was not about imposing human rights obligations on individuals but addressed state obligations in this respect.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), speaking in a explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Egypt was a traditional co-sponsor of resolutions on torture, and every year Egypt had contributed to the creation of the text because it attached great importance to the issue of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. However, Egypt said that it could not support this draft resolution because, among other things, more than one-third of the Special Rapporteur’s report was dedicated to the issue of capital punishment, and for this reason Egypt called for a vote on operative paragraph 18 and would not vote in favour of it.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada), in a general comment, said the Special Rapporteur had a mandate to carry out, and the independence of the Special Procedures should be respected. Taking note of the report in no way constituted an endorsement, but was a neutral comment. Canada was disappointed that the resolution was being put to a vote, and all were urged to support it.

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.34) on discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, adopted by a vote of 22 in favour, one against, and 24 abstentions as orally amended, the Council emphasizes that discrimination based on religion or belief often has an adverse impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, particularly with regard to members of religious minorities and other persons in vulnerable situations; urges States to ensure that everyone has the right, inter alia, to education, work, an adequate standard of living, the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and to take part in cultural life, without any discrimination on the basis of religion or belief; to ensure that no one is discriminated against on the basis of his or her religion or belief, in particular with regard to access to, inter alia, humanitarian assistance, social benefits or the public service in one’s country; to ensure that no one is affected, because of his or her religion or belief, in the enjoyment of his or her economic, social and cultural rights by, inter alia, discriminatory laws on housing or land trust, the abusive use of property confiscation or any other discriminatory practices; to take the necessary measures, in accordance with international human rights law, to combat discrimination based on religion or belief by non-State actors, with particular regard to persons belonging to religious minorities and other persons in vulnerable situations; to devote particular attention to discriminatory practices against women on the basis of their religion or belief that adversely affect the enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights; to ensure that appropriate legal and other remedies, in accordance with international human rights law, are available to individuals in order to allow them to seek redress against discrimination based on religion or belief that affects the enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights; to make all appropriate efforts to encourage those engaged in teaching, as well as social workers, to promote mutual understanding, tolerance and respect; and requests the Special Rapporteur to submit her next annual report to the Council at its thirteenth session.


The result of the vote were as follows:

In favour (22): Angola, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

Against (1): South Africa.

Abstentions (24): Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and Zambia.


PETRA ALI DOLAKOVA, (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, introducing the draft resolution, said that the freedom of religion or belief was a sensitive issue, not only in the Human Rights Council, but also in society at large. The European Union would like the Council to continue devoting attention to important issues as the freedom of belief or religion. Thematic resolutions did not overrule earlier resolutions on the topics but specified them. The European Union chose this theme after the presentation of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion. Hardly any theme showed the interrelatedness of all human rights as the freedom of religion. The resolution also invited the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion to report again to the thirteenth session of the Human Rights Council so that the Council continued its discussions on the topic.

IMAN AHMED SIDDIQUI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in a general comment on the draft resolution on discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment economic, social and cultural rights, said they attached great importance to the work of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. Muslims were victims of intolerance, hatred and discrimination in many societies around the world. The draft resolution had to be comprehensive while addressing the contemporary challenges in this view. Pakistan put forth a number of proposals during the drafting of this resolution on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference Member States, of which very few were accepted. The challenge of religious intolerance was not addressed adequately in the draft resolution, because of, among other things, the reluctance to institutionalize religious discussion which aimed to achieve interfaith harmony, the formal and legal distinction between different religions and faiths did not constitute discrimination as cited in the resolution. The Organization for the Islamic Conference along with other members also proposed inclusion of combating the negative impact of stereotyping by the media and its impact on the enjoyment of enjoyment economic, social and cultural rights. As such, Pakistan called for a vote and would abstain in the vote on the draft resolution.

GLAUDINE J. MTSHALI (South Africa), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the resolution presented major challenges in its current form, as it brought in new elements without addressing issues related to freedom of religion or belief. The title should be changed. The approach diminished the suffering of victims of human rights violations, and the Council should take note of the contemporary forms of challenges to this. The right to freedom of expression was entrenched in South African law, and that country understood the challenges with regards to exercise of freedom of religion or belief in the context of the freedom of expression. The slant of the resolution, in particular with regards to incitement to religious hatred, was not helpful. The focus of the resolution on economic, social and cultural rights, combined with the lack of justiciability of these rights, was inconceivable. South Africa did not share the view that only civil and political rights were justiciable. Were the resolution put to a vote, South Africa would vote against it.


JOHAN ARIFF ABDUL RAZAK, (Malaysia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said while appreciative of the efforts of the sponsors of the texts, some of the arguments of other delegations had not been taken on board. The issues of religious dialogue, negative stereotyping and hate speech had not been highlighted in the text. As a multicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic country, Malaysia had managed to find a balance between freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression. Given the aforementioned reservations of Malaysia on the resolution, Malaysia would abstain during the vote.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that discrimination on any grounds was unacceptable. All bodies had to ensure the protection of individuals against discrimination. Indonesia was strongly against acts which constituted discrimination on the grounds of religion. Indonesia was concerned that this resolution did not take into account aspects of economic, social and cultural rights as well as the significant role the state and the media played in the prevention of discrimination. Therefore, Indonesia joined the Organization of the Islamic Conference in abstaining in the vote.

VLADIMIR ZHEGLOV (Russian Federation), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, thanked the authors of the resolution because they had changed the original draft, taking into account many of the views made by other delegations. However, it was clear that in the draft not all opinions made were included, and not all the interests of the Council had been taken into account. The Russian Federation believed that this type of resolution should have been prepared in a more constructive manner, and a more flexible approach should had been applied in order to avoid division on this type of resolution.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said South Africa gave an excellent explanation of vote, and Cuba shared that view one hundred percent. Cuba was concerned at the change in the title, and the approach in the resolution, and was concerned that the co-sponsors had not included the views of many. Cuba would abstain in the vote.

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.36) on forensic genetics and human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council encourages States to consider the use of forensic genetics to contribute to the identification of the remains of victims of serious violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law, and to address the issue of impunity; also encourages States to consider the use of forensic genetics to contribute to the restoration of the identity to those persons who were separated from their families, including those taken away from their relatives when they were children, in situations of serious violations of human rights and, in the context of armed conflicts, of violations of international humanitarian law; stresses the importance of providing the results of the investigations of forensic genetics to national authorities, in particular, to competent judicial authorities; encourages States to consider the use of forensic genetics to be applied pursuant to the international standards accepted by the scientific community in relation to quality assurance and control and to ensure the utmost respect for the principles of protection and confidentiality of information and restricted access to such information; requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to request information from States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on best practices in the use of forensic genetics for identifying victims of serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law with a view to considering the possibility of drafting a manual that may serve as a guide for the application of forensic genetics, including the voluntary creation and operation of genetic banks, with appropriate safeguards; and asks the Office of the High Commissioner to include the information requested above in a report on the use of forensic experts, to be submitted to the Council at its fifteenth session.

RODOLFO OJEA QUINTANA, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, introducing the draft resolution, said that the resolution aimed to introduce a new important theme of great importance to human rights. This resolution was especially important to Argentina and was taken up by the President of Argentina during the last General Assembly. Forensic genetics were important to identify the victims of the military dictatorship between 1976 and 1983. National gene banks that sorted and organized the information helped to identify the children that had disappeared or had been taken from their parents during that period. The bank that was situated in a hospital had served to identify 97 children so far, the most recent in February 2009. Forensic science could overcome difficulties, in the identification of remains of victims and as well of those who had been taken away from their parents when they were children. The use of this technology was useful to protect human rights and contribute to help victims to exercise the right to truth. The objective was to promote the use of forensic genetics. Also, the resolution should promote cooperation of states and organization in the use of forensic science. In the future, a manual could serve the cooperation and operation of gene banks. The resolution did not seek the Human Rights Council to provide legal guidance, but rather technical and scientific guidance on forensic science with regard to best practice in forensic science. The resolution also called to include recommendations regarding the use of forensic genetics which could pose ethical and legal issues. A gradual approach to this theme had been taken and Argentina had carried out bilateral and open consultations.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile), speaking in a general comment on the draft resolution on forensic genetics and human rights, said they supported Argentina in this regard. Chile and Argentina were countries that shared similar experiences in human rights in the 21st century. Forensic genetics and reaching truth was very important to Chile, and the presentation of this draft resolution was a significant step in this direction. Forensic genetics was the first step to reparation, and truth was the basis for justice and that was why this was a step in the right direction. Chile congratulated Argentina and hoped that the Council would adopt this draft resolution by consensus.

ALEJANDRO ARTUCIO RODRIGUEZ, (Uruguay), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote at the end of consideration of item three, said Uruguay wished, on behalf of the co-sponsors of resolution L.32 on torture and other inhuman, cruel, and degrading treatment, to state that they deeply regretted the fact that this resolution had to be taken to a vote. Nothing in this draft that had been adopted meant the need to break the consensus on this issue. The co-sponsors could not, nor could Uruguay accept a resolution that did not contain a reference to the report of the Special Rapporteur. The Council requested the Special Rapporteur to present reports, and it was important for the Council to show support for the special procedures, at the very least taking note of the work that they had carried out. The great majority of the co-sponsors would have preferred to welcome the report of the Special Rapporteur, but recognised the strong reactions that this produced among many delegations, and so, after the first informal consultations, and with the spirit of compromise, the language had been changed to a neutral approach- i.e. "take note". In a last resort, the co-sponsors even suggested moving this paragraph to the preamble of the resolution. Unfortunately, this compromise solution was also not accepted. For all of these reasons, the co-sponsors who were members of the Council voted in favour of keeping operative paragraph 18.

JEFFREY HEATON (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote at the end of consideration of item three on the creation of the mandate of the Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights, said that the mandate was clearly focused on the protection of cultural rights. Canada encouraged the mandate holder to work together with other relevant mandate holders, including UNESCO. On the right to food, Canada said that it supported the Human Rights Council’s decision to address the human rights aspects of the right to food, but regretted that it did not emphasize enough the responsibility of States. Part of that responsibility was unhindered access to humanitarian aid. This was a fundamental element to responding to the right to food. Canada also regretted the disproportionate emphasis that the Special Rapporteur had put on international cooperation and not on the responsibility of States. The Special Rapporteur had almost exclusively focused on the international aspects and Canada hoped that the he would begin to focus on the national aspects in future.

PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote at the end of consideration of item three, on the right to food, welcomed the adoption of this important resolution but expressed concern on operative paragraph 14 on economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous peoples. The United Kingdom did not recognize collective human rights under international law. Indigenous individuals were entitled to individual human rights. Rights of the group should not supersede the rights of the individuals. Collective rights were covered in national laws, and United Nations resolutions, said the United Kingdom.

ALEXANDRA RUPPEN, (Switzerland), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote at the end of consideration of item three, said with regards to L.26, Switzerland was not convinced of the need to have a separate expert in the cultural area, and believed that in order to improve cultural rights, the various Special Rapporteurs concerned could deal with cultural rights in the context of their mandates. The resolution submitted yesterday simply recalled the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ignored that there were many other international instruments that ensured the enjoyment of cultural rights. Cultural diversity was not an element of human rights, and should not have been included. However, it was the duty of all States to protect and promote human rights, irrespective of their economic and political system, and cultural relativism could not be used to invalidate human rights. The Independent Expert had a very clear mandate, but he should work closely with other organizations such as UNESCO and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and should not duplicate their work. Human rights were inalienable and indissociable, and therefore Switzerland had not broken the consensus.

SALVADOR TINJERO ESQUIVEL (Mexico), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote at the end of consideration of item three, said that regarding mercenaries, Mexico thought that this was important for the work of the Council. It thanked Cuba for its efforts to solve Mexico’s concerns. Mexico believed that it was significant to include private security companies in the resolution. The topic of mercenaries went beyond human rights and the topic was already being discussed in other fora. That was why Mexico had abstained in the vote.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote at the end of consideration of item three, said Chile voted in favour of the draft resolution on the right to food. Chile believed it was essential to look at agricultural protectionism and agricultural subsidies in order to ensure the right to food. The Special Rapporteur’s report did not look at those issues in detail. Chile was alarmed to see the increase of protectionist policies in agriculture and the re-establishment of agricultural subsidies put forth by Switzerland.

Action on Draft Resolution on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention

In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.28) on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council condemns the ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Myanmar; strongly urges the Government of Myanmar to desist from further politically motivated arrests, to release all political prisoners without delay and without conditions, including the General Secretary of the National League for Democracy, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Chairman of the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy, U Khun Tun Oo and the leader of 88 Generation Students Group, U Min Ko Naing; strongly calls upon the Government to put an immediate end to the continuing recruitment and use of child soldiers in violation of international law by all parties; urges the Government to recognize the right of the persons belonging to the Rohingya ethnic minority in Northern Rakhine State to citizenship, and to end the unacceptable discrimination, human rights abuse and severe economic deprivation they face; strongly calls on the Government of Myanmar to engage in a meaningful, substantive and time-bound process of open dialogue and national reconciliation with the full and genuine participation of representatives of all political parties and ethnic groups; also calls on the Government to ensure free and fair electoral process that is transparent and inclusive, with full and genuine participation of all stakeholders; decides to extend for one year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar; urges the Government of Myanmar to continue to respond favourably to the Special Rapporteur’s requests to visit the country and to cooperate fully with him; requests the Special Rapporteur to submit a progress report to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session and to the Council; expresses its strong support for the good offices mission and commitment of the Secretary-General, encourages the Government of Myanmar to allow regular visits of his Special Representative on Myanmar to facilitate a genuine and inclusive political process, and calls on the Government to ensure full cooperation with the Secretary-General, his representative and the Special Rapporteur.

PETRA ALI DOLAKOVA, (Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of the European Union, introducing draft resolution L.28, said the resolution had been tabled as an effort to support an improvement of the still-serious situation of human rights in Myanmar. The international community and the Human Rights Council needed to continue monitoring this situation and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur had an important potential, if implemented, to contribute to its improvement. The resolution extended by one year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and welcomed the positive signs of cooperation of the Myanmar authorities with the international community. It highlighted the need for a constructive engagement of the Government with the political opposition and all ethnic groups and for a free and fair electoral process with the full participation of representatives of all stakeholders. The draft should be adopted by consensus so that the Human Rights Council spoke with one voice on these important matters and sent a clear message to all stakeholders.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia), in a general comment, said that Indonesia appreciated the efforts of the Special Advisor of the Secretary-General and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and took note on the positive developments in Myanmar. Playing down the cooperation of the Government with this Council was not helpful. Myanmar had shown good will in the cooperation with the Special Rapporteur and the Special Adviser, including the release of political prisoners and the promise to hold free elections showed. Indonesia hoped that the Government of Myanmar would continue its efforts and implement recommendations.

ERLINDA F. BASILIO (Philippines), speaking in a general comment on the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said the Philippines recognized the need to support the enhancement of human rights protection and the democratic process in Myanmar in relation to its roadmap. The Philippines had reservations on this draft resolution because it was not constructive and was condemnatory. The view of the country that was intended to be assisted had not been taken into consideration, and a more constructive dialogue with Myanmar was encouraged in this regard. The Philippines said that it was important to hear the views of the Government of Myanmar in this process, and that dialogue and cooperation were the most effective means of ensuring human rights. Naming and shaming was not a constructive way to ensuring those rights.

SHINICHI KITAJIMA (Japan), in a general comment, said Japan appreciated Myanmar's positive attitude towards cooperation with the international community. Japan was of the view that in order to protect and promote the human rights of all in Myanmar, the continued involvement of the United Nations including the Special Rapporteur was indispensable. Japan would extend maximum cooperation for the democratisation of Myanmar, and the protection and promotion of human rights there. Japan expected the Government of Myanmar to continue with the release of political prisoners, and to continue with the democratic process in such a manner to ensure that all could participate. It was extremely important for the international community, including the United Nations, to closely follow the situation and work closely with the Government. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was one of the useful tools for the much-needed cooperation with the Government, and therefore Japan would join consensus on the resolution.

WIWICK SETYAWATI FIRMAR (Malaysia), in a general comment, said that Malaysia appreciated the efforts taken by the European Union. However, Malaysia would have preferred a more balanced approach that would have taken into account the positive efforts of Myanmar. Malaysia hoped that Myanmar would expedite its process of democratization. It reiterated the importance of the international community and Myanmar remaining engaged with each other in order to improve the overall human rights situation.

WUNNA MAUNG LWIN (Myanmar), speaking as a concerned country, said that during the past several months, the Government of Myanmar had made significant progress in cooperation with the Human Rights Council. Since the assumption of office in May 2008, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Mr. Tomas Ojea Quintana, had visited the country for two times in August 2008 and last February. The Government of Myanmar had fully cooperated with him to the extent possible so as to carry out his mandate successfully and to inform the international community through him, of the true situation on the ground. Within the first three months of this year, the Government also extended similar cooperation to three other important United Nations delegations to demonstrate their firm commitment in engaging with the international community through constructive dialogue and cooperation.

Regrettably, the Czech Republic, on behalf of the European Union and other co-sponsor countries had once again tabled a country-specific resolution on Myanmar, by turning a blind eye to the positive developments and significant progress carried out by the Government with the international community. Therefore, it was obvious that some Western countries were consistently attempting to apply political pressure by ignoring the Government’s commitment on enhancing cooperation with the international community, particularly with the Human Rights Council to enjoy fundamental human rights in Myanmar. The draft resolution was still lopsided and highly intrusive.

ACHAMKULANGARE GOPINATHAN (India), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said India's position on Myanmar had been clear and consistent - the process of political reform should be expeditious. The international community should engage constructively with the Government to support the Special Rapporteur and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General after the Special Rapporteur had established a cooperative dialogue with the Government. India did not support sanctions and believed they were counterproductive. Myanmar had granted access to a number of Special Procedures over the last three months, and had released a large number of prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, and agreed to upgrade the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees activities. The draft resolution was thus unhelpful, both in its timing and content, and had been unable to shed its condemnatory and intrusive tone. Rather than helping to advance the process, such language would undermine the international community's collective engagement with the country as well as the Secretary-General's, and India was therefore constrained to disassociate itself from the resolution.

QIAN BO (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that China appreciated the efforts of the Czech delegation, but said that the resolution on Myanmar should be objective and balanced. The atmosphere should be conducive to improving the human rights situation but the tone of the resolution was harsh and not favourable to strengthen the cooperation with the Council. Recently, the Myanmar Government had adopted positive measures to promote the democratic process in the country and had accepted visits by various mandate holders. The Human Rights Council should recognize these efforts in cooperation. China’s position was consistent: pressure was not helpful and the Council should take into account the special situation of the country. Therefore, China would not join in the consensus.

ROMAN KASHAEV (Russian Federation), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar was a further example of the one-sided and politicized manner in which the Council addressed human rights in particular countries. The practice of conducting a critical analysis of one country was not constructive and complicated the resolution of problems. The resolution cancelled out the steps taken by the Government of Myanmar towards reform, and their efforts in ensuring fundamental human rights for example. It was of concern to the Russian Federation that the information in the resolution was questionable and raised doubt on its authenticity. The Government of Myanmar should be encouraged to further its reforms rather than discouraged. The Russian Federation was breaking with the consensus on the draft resolution.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote at the end of consideration of item four, said with regards to the resolution on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt had voted against it, as it did not believe that country-specific resolutions were the way forward. The abductees’ issue was a humanitarian issue, and it should be resolved through dialogue with all parties.

Mr. I.E. NWOSU (Nigeria), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote at the end of consideration of item four, said that it voted no on the resolution on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea because it believed that there were better solutions to the issue. China was a close neighbour and its position should be taken into account. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had taken some positive steps and should be encouraged to continue to do so. Country specific resolutions had so far not proved to be helpful, to the contrary.

ACHAMKULANGARE GOPINATHAN (India), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote at the end of consideration of item four on the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said that India remained deeply concerned about the abductions of nationals of one country to another, and extended their sincerest wishes that those people would be returned safely, and expressed the hope that the residual issues would be resolved.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote at the end of consideration of item four, said with regards to resolution L.27 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Pakistan in principle opposed country-specific mandates, believing that these had in the past politicised the human rights machinery and eroded its credibility. It therefore abstained from the resolution. This resolution raised some important issues, such as abduction, however, these concerns could be addressed through negotiations and constructive engagement which would help expedite an amicable solution.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote at the end of consideration of item four, said that Bangladesh had a principled position on country specific resolutions created in opposition to the country concerned. Such resolutions did not contribute to the improvement of the human rights situation in the country concerned. Bangladesh hoped that the abduction issue would be resolved through discussions between the parties concerned.


CARLOS PORTALES (Chile), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote and in a general comment on country mandates at the end of consideration of item four, said Chile supported the two resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Myanmar because of the problems in their countries. Chile was the object of country resolutions in the past which had contributed to their recovery of freedom. Without the voice of the Human Rights Commission, there would have been more victims. In addition, Chile recalled the events in South Africa with the Apartheid as another successful example of how a country mandate had positive effects. All country resolutions were negative if they did not take into account history, the time had come to continue the policies that directed the mandate of the Council and there should not be general declarations on what had been the case in the past.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote at the end of consideration of item four, said on the resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, as Cuba had said before and was repeating, it had a firm and unequivocal position against country resolutions, especially when they were unbalanced and even inflammatory in their language, as was the case here. If it had been voted on, Cuba would have voted against it. With regards to country resolutions and the Universal Periodic Review, Cuba for many years suffered in the Commission on Human Rights from the imposition of a resolution of this type, and this had convinced it of the need to fight against politicisation, selectivity, and double standards. Those who today were putting forward this type of resolution were those in the past who always opposed resolutions which condemned the apartheid regime, which Cuba always supported, as it was against the worst regime that mankind had ever seen. Times had moved on - as long as there was politicisation, selectivity, and double standards, Cuba would continue to maintain its position and reject these resolutions, which were always against countries of the South.



For use of the information media; not an official record



HRC09054E