HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ESTABLISHES MANDATE OF INDEPENDENT EXPERT ON SUDAN FOR ONE YEAR
The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded its eleventh regular session after adopting four resolutions, in which it established the mandate an of Independent Expert on human rights in Sudan for the period of one year, and extended the mandate of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action for a period of three years, among others.
Concerning the situation of human rights in Sudan, adopted as orally amended by a recorded vote of 20 in favour, 18 against, and nine abstentions, the Council called on the Government of National Unity to continue and intensify its efforts for the promotion and protection of human rights by taking all possible concrete steps to improve the human rights situation. It decided to create the mandate of Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Sudan for a period of one year, who shall assume the mandate and responsibilities set out by the Council in its resolutions 6/34, 6/35, 7/16 and 9/17.
With regard to the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the Council decided to extend the mandate of the Working Group for a period of three years.
On the human rights of migrants in detention centres, the Council decided to hold a panel of discussion on the matter at its twelfth session, with equitable geographic and gender participation of representatives of Governments, relevant experts and representatives of civil society, including national institutions.
Concerning the enhancement of the system of special procedures, the Council recalled that it was incumbent on special procedures mandate holders to exercise their functions in full respect for and strict observance of their mandates, as outlined in the relevant Council resolutions providing such mandates, as well as to comply fully with the provisions of the Code of Conduct.
The Council deferred taking action on two draft resolutions on guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights and on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind until its next session.
The Council also adopted the draft report of the eleventh session and the annual report of the third cycle of the Human Rights Council ad referendum.
Speaking this afternoon in introductions of vote were Egypt on behalf of the African Group, France, Germany on behalf of the European Union, Cuba, Russian Federation, and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group.
Speaking in general comments were the Russian Federation, Egypt, Switzerland, and Argentina on behalf of the MERCOSUR associated States and Mexico.
Speaking in explanations of the vote before the vote were Brazil and Canada.
Speaking in explanation of the vote after the vote were Japan, Zambia, Italy also on behalf of the Netherlands, and Germany.
Speaking as a concerned country was Sudan.
Observer countries speaking at the conclusion of the voting process were Finland, United States and Sudan.
On Friday 19 June at 10 a.m., the Council will hold an organisational meeting at the start of its fourth cycle. The twelfth regular session of the Council will be held from 7 to 25 September 2009.
Action on Resolution on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention Matters
In a resolution (A/HRC/11/L.4) on the human rights of migrants in detention centres, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council decides to hold a panel of discussion on the matter at its twelfth session, with equitable geographic and gender participation of representatives of Governments, relevant experts and representatives of civil society, including national institutions; invites the panel: to discuss the current trends, good practices, challenges and possible solutions to address the issue of detention of migrants and explore ways to protect and promote their human rights; elaborate on how to reduce the recourse to and duration of detention for persons who entered or remained in a country in an irregular manner and how to provide them with appropriate access to due legal process; and requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner to provide the necessary assistance and support for holding the panel.
AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), introducing L.4, said the African Group had submitted this resolution in an attempt to highlight the situation of migrants kept in detention centres for long periods whilst their human rights were ignored or unaddressed. The resolution was merely procedural, calling for holding a panel on this at the next session. It should be adopted by consensus.
Action on Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development
Draft resolution HRC/11/L.14 on draft guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights was deferred to the next session of the Council.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), introducing the draft resolution L. 14 on draft guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights, said that France wanted the Council to consider this text at the next session of the Council in September. The Independent Expert on extreme poverty, Ms. Magdalene Sepulveda, should be able to continue her work. So far, it had not been possible to reach a consensus on the subject and France wanted to stay engaged in the process.
AKIRA MATSUMOTO (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote regarding resolution L.13 on guidelines for the alternative care of children, said as a State party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Japan attached great importance to the rights of children and to protecting those rights. Japan said that the draft resolution was drafted by relevant organizations and States towards the formulation of the guidelines which acted as a basis for the establishment of measures for the alternative care of the child. Regarding the adoption of the guidelines, with respect to children in difficult circumstances, each country keeping with its practices and customs should maintain its obligations to protect children.
Action on Resolution on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention Matters
In a resolution (A/HRC/11/L.17) on the situation of human rights in Sudan, adopted as orally amended by a recorded vote of 20 in favour, 18 against, and nine abstentions, the Council calls on the Government of National Unity to continue and intensify its efforts for the promotion and protection of human rights by taking all possible concrete steps to improve the human rights situation; welcomes the initial measures taken by the Government of National Unity to implement the recommendations of the Group of Experts and to address human rights concerns, including the deployment of police personnel in Darfur and the sentencing of several perpetrators of serious violations of human rights, but notes that a number of the recommendations have not yet been implemented; reiterates its call upon the signatories of the Darfur Peace Agreement to comply with their obligations under the Agreement, and calls upon non-signatory parties to join in and to commit themselves to the peace process in compliance with relevant United Nations resolutions; welcomes the submission by the Government of National Unity on the Abyei dispute to the International Court of Arbitration; notes with appreciation that the Government of National Unity has approved the deployment of more than 75 human rights monitors all over the country; welcomes the invitation of the Government of National Unity to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit the country; notes that the terms of reference of the Human Rights Forum include to seek the best possible means to end human rights violations in Darfur and to identify ways and means to improve the human rights situation in Darfur; invites OHCHR to engage itself through the appropriate components of the Forum in following and verifying the human rights situation in Darfur so as to inform the Human Rights Council about the human rights situation in Sudan as appropriate; requests OHCHR to identify specific priority areas for technical assistance and to evaluate where the Government of National Unity needs technical and financial assistance; recognizes the work of the African Union and existing mechanisms, and calls for greater coordination and elimination of duplication; decides to create the mandate of independent expert on the situation of human rights in the Sudan for a period of one year, who shall assume the mandate and responsibilities set out by the Council in its resolutions 6/34, 6/35, 7/16 and 9/17, requests the independent expert to engage with the newly created human rights forums in the Sudan as well as the human rights sections of the African Union, the United Nations Mission in the Sudan and the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur and to submit a report to the Council for consideration at its fourteenth session, and requests the Secretary-General to provide the independent expert with all necessary assistance to discharge the mandate fully; and expresses its conviction that various human rights mechanisms, by securing the cooperation of and fostering dialogue with the Government of National Unity, can effectively and sustainably realize the objective of promotion and protection of human rights in the country, and notes in this context the value of the mechanisms of the Universal Periodic Review.
The result of the vote was as follows:
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (20):Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Zambia.
Against (18):Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa.
Abstentions (9):Angola, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, India, Madagascar, Nicaragua, and Senegal.
08 Draft resolution L.19 contains proposed amendments to draft resolution L.17. It was adopted by a recorded vote of 20 in favour, 19 against, and eight abstentions.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (20):Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Zambia.
Against (19):Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa.
Abstentions (8):Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and Senegal.
HISHAM BADR, (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, introducing resolution L.17, said the resolution acknowledged the progress made in Sudan since the adoption of the Peace Agreement, and called upon the Government to continue to increase its efforts to protect and promote human rights whilst taking concrete steps to improve the human rights situation. It also called upon the signatories of the Darfur Peace Agreement to live up to their commitments, and on non-signatories to join up and to also comply with United Nations resolutions. It recognised the primary responsibility of the Government to prevent impunity and protect its citizens. It noted the terms of reference of the Human Rights Forum established to consider human rights violations in Darfur in collaboration with the Government, the United Nations and donors. It called for greater coordination and elimination of duplication between existing human rights mechanisms. Sudan deserved a chance to prove that it was capable of addressing the situation, and improving the human rights situation for its people. The African Group had hoped that consensus would have been reached on the resolution, and had worked with all delegations in this regard. Dialogue and not confrontation should remain the standard procedure in the Council. The African Group had an amendment to propose.
KONRAD SCHARINGER, (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union had engaged in discussions with the African Union, Egypt, Sudan and other relevant stakeholders. The European Union had listened and learned. The dialogue was constructive and respectful at all times. The European Union thanked all those involved, especially the Government of Sudan. Regrettably, the draft L.17 had no such mandate for an independent expert, even with the amendment proposed by Egypt. The European Union firmly believed that it was unacceptable to agree to discontinue the mandate. The European Union had tabled an amendment yesterday to ensure the existence of a mandate that would provide assistance to the Government of Sudan and would be an independent source for the Human Rights Council in its discussion. That was why the European Union introduced new paragraphs to make the resolution more forward looking. The European Union said that notwithstanding the progress made in Sudan the current situation merited constant monitoring by this Council.
VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation), speaking in a general comment on draft resolution L.17 and L.19 inclusive on the human rights situation in Sudan, said that the delegation of the Russian Federation took note of the difficult discussions and wide consultations held in preparation of this draft resolution in order to find a compromise solution. The Russian Federation noted the constructive approach taken in this regard by the African Group. The proposal made by Egypt on behalf of the African Group was important, because they made an important concession. The main proposal of the African Group was to retain the continuity and the link between the Council and the situation in Sudan; not at the level of an expert, but at the highest possible level through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Russian Federation believed that such a proposal should receive the unanimous support of the Council, and therefore there was no need to amend this draft resolution any further. The draft resolution should be adopted without a vote and by consensus based on the amendments proposed by Egypt on behalf of the African Group.
HISHAM BADR (Egypt), in a general comment, said the Ambassador of Russia had spoken on his behalf, and he agreed with him and with the Ambassador of Germany that there had been a very constructive dialogue, with many meetings. No agreement had been reached, but this should serve as a model for future negotiations. The African Group believed that the proposed amendments in L.19 distracted from the resolution, and they should be voted on, and Member States should vote against them.
JOHN UKEC LUETH UKEC (Sudan), speaking as a concerned country, said that Sudan was excited today because it saw that many people were interested in Sudan. Sudan had also seen that all were aware that there were human beings in Sudan. Sudan had demonstrated in this Council and even at home an exemplary spirit of cooperation. Another Council member had said that Sudan had accepted the unacceptable. There was no other country in the world in which 50,000 protected human rights. The Council must not revert to the principle of targeting one country specifically. The Human Rights Council, both at regional and national mechanisms, maintained that there was a protection gap in Sudan. As a result, it was an obligation of the Human Rights Council to preserve its credibility. Credibility was the best way to secure Sudan’s cooperation with Council. All must be kin that such cooperation must be rewarded. The ending of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was now more important than ever. Sudan did not want to be a horse that was pushed to drink water that it did not want to drink.
ALEXANDRE GUIDO LOPES PAROLA (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote with regard to draft resolution L.17 on the human rights situation in Sudan, said Brazil considered the process at this stage to be an open and transparent one, and was conducted in accordance with the activities and norms guiding the work of the Human Rights Council. The Brazilian delegation said it was happy to witness the engagement of the countries involved in the consultations and discussions, and for their contributions, as despite it being difficult everyone sought to find the best way possible to deal with this issue. A dialogue between the Council and the Sudanese Government was a good way to ensure support and a better understanding of the human rights mechanisms in the country. Brazil believed that an Independent Expert offered the best avenue to continue these efforts in the most cooperative and effective manner possible.
HISHAM BADR (Egypt) said it wished to call for a vote on resolution L.19 as amended, and called on delegations to vote against it.
DARLINGTON MWAPE (Zambia), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Zambia commended Sudan on it gains. The gains were not lost, they were in their infancy and needed to take root. Sudan needed the support of the international community for its national election. The Human Rights Council was relevant and should remain seized with the situation. It was not the time for the Council to abandon the people of Sudan. There should be a nexus between the people of Sudan and the Council which should be in accordance with the institution-building text. Therefore, Zambia was in favour of the mandate.
Action on Resolution under Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms
In a resolution (A/HRC/11/L.8) on enhancement of the system of Special Procedures, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council reaffirms that the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures mandate holders is aimed at strengthening the capacity of mandate holders to exercise their functions while enhancing their moral authority and credibility, and that it requires supportive action by all stakeholders, and in particular by States; and recalls that it is incumbent on Special Procedures mandate holders to exercise their functions in full respect for and strict observance of their mandates, as outlined in the relevant Council resolutions providing such mandates, as well as to comply fully with the provisions of the Code of Conduct; and requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 5/2 to further assist Special Procedures with a view to contributing to their awareness of and full compliance with the Code of Conduct.
RESFEL PINO ALVAREZ (Cuba), introducing draft resolution L.8 on the enhancement of the system of the Special Procedures on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other co-sponsors, said that the draft resolution had been the subject of broad consultations between Member States and observers. There had been a clear spirit of openness in the discussions, in order to accommodate and to address the concerns of all, which had made it possible to reach consensus. The nations of the Non-Aligned Movement were firmly committed to the effective work of the Special Procedures as they played an important role in the promotion and protection of human rights around the world without exception. The strengthening of the Special Procedures, if guided by the basic principles of the highest form, would ensure the efficiency of their work. Refraining from direct interference in States’ procedures, such as elections, and avoiding discussion in the Council of certain issues, but then discussing them with the press, were some examples to be avoided and basic principles needed to be respected in order to maintain effective cooperation between the Council and its Special Procedures. The disposition of the Code of Conduct ensured the credibility of the work of the Council. Cuba thanked the committed and serious way in which all contributors had participated and which had contributed to the consensus on the draft resolution.
DANTE MARTINELLI (Switzerland), in a general comment, said that Switzerland would join the consensus on the draft resolution and thanked the participants of the negotiations, especially Cuba. Regarding the Code of Conduct, Switzerland said that it hoped that the special procedure mandate holders would not consider the resolution as a measure of intimidation. Switzerland attached great importance to the coordination between States and special procedure mandate holders. Switzerland underlined that such cooperation went into both directions. Switzerland reiterated that it considered the system of special procedures as one of the most important mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. They constituted a cornerstone of the system and needed to be preserved. Switzerland was committed to further work into that direction.
JOHN VON KAUFMANN (Canada), speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote on draft resolution L.8, said the draft resolution was deeply regrettable and an inappropriate attempt to stifle the system of the special procedures. Special procedure mandate holders were the crown jewels of the Human Rights Council. The Council relied on Special Procedures to report independent accounts on human rights violations. The draft resolution’s reference to the Code of Conduct was unnecessary, as that reference had been made to the mandates of all the special procedures of the Human Rights Council. Too often complaints in this regard were based on views that were in disagreement with the mandate holders’ outcomes. The draft resolution would cast a chill over the special procedures mechanisms, and would call into question the Council’s credibility. Furthermore, this resolution sent the wrong message to the victims of human rights violations. Therefore, Canada said it disassociated with the consensus on this draft resolution.
KONRAD SCHARINGER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the European Union had voiced its concerns as to the necessity of such a resolution. The European Union agreed with the main sponsors that special procedure mandate holders should abide by the Code of Conduct in order to enhance cooperation with States. The trust between States and mandate holders should be based on open dialogue, with the latter free from any harassment, pressure, or instruction in their work. Mandate holders deviating from the Code of Conduct should be dealt with through dialogue. The draft resolution was not the appropriate way to deal with those concerns, and undermined the trust between the mandate holders and the Council. The text was a means of re-opening the institution-building package. The present resolution went further than reaffirming resolutions 5/1 and 5/2 in their entirety – it toned down some elements while emphasising others, threatening the delicate balance of the package. The European Union had been involved in the discussion on the draft resolution, and had insisted that the reference to the obligation to observe the Code of Conduct also include reference to the obligation of States to cooperate with mandate holders. In that spirit and in a spirit of compromise, the European Union would not stand in the way of consensus on the text.
Action on Resolutions under Organizational and Procedural Matters
Draft resolution A/HRC/11/L.1, on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind, was deferred the next session of the Council.
VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation), introducing draft resolution L.1, said the Russian initiative was designed to strengthen support for human rights and to activate their moral potential. One of the ways to do so was to ensure synergies of moral values and human rights, which were shared by all humankind. That would help to attain the goals set out in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely to make human rights generally and universally recognized. Bilateral and multilateral consultations had been held and the initiative had received broad support. The Russian Federation thanked the States that had taken an active role in the negotiations and had helped to enhance the text. The Russian Federation was committed to continue the dialogue to find a compromise. The Russian delegation and the co-sponsors had therefore decided to defer the draft resolution to the next session.
In a resolution (A/HRC/11/L.15) on the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted without a vote as orally amended, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action for a period of three years.
OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, introducing draft resolution L.15 on the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, said the basis of this resolution was obvious because it referred to the mandate of the Working Group on the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. The draft resolution would effectively extend the mandate for a period of three years. The consultations had been conducted in an open and transparent way, with an understanding of give and take. All the groups and interested parties had come to a certain level of understanding that had resulted in an amendment of the original text, which was quite difficult, but certain concessions had been made in order to reach consensus. It was agreed that the amended text would not be called to a vote, and if called to a vote, the draft resolution would revert to the original text. It was Nigeria’s belief that all parties would be in agreement with the amended text.
SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina), speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) Associated States and Mexico, in a general comment, said the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference had represented a step forward in the strengthening and synchronicity of the follow-up mechanisms of the Durban Conference. It was for that reason that the associated members of MERCOSUR and Mexico were pleased that references to it had been include in the preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution. It was their understanding that the Working Group on implementation of the Durban Program of Action should also focus on the implementation of the outcome document. MERCOSUR Associated States and Mexico would join in the consensus on the draft resolution.
DANIEL ULMER (Canada), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that eradicating racism was a priority for Canada. Canada could support the basic values of the outcome document, but it continued to reject its politicized references, namely the elements directed at the Middle East conflict. Therefore, Canada dissociated itself from this document and did not endorse it. Canada regretted that such extraneous references had been made and dissociated itself from those references.
ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy), speaking also on behalf of the Netherlands in an explanation of the vote after the vote on draft resolution L.15, said that fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance remained a priority on the agenda of the Council. Italy and the Netherlands had actively participated in the sessions of the Working Group on Durban Declaration and Programme of Action since its establishment, and supported the prolongation of the mandate. Italy and the Netherlands did not take part in the Durban Review Conference and the outcome document; despite the efforts taken by many, the outcome document did not meet the criteria outlined by such a crucial endeavour. It was regrettable, despite the willingness of both sides. It had not been possible to reflect the position of both sides in the outcome document. Italy and the Netherlands thanked Egypt and the African Group for their efforts in this regard. The draft resolution was only partially satisfactory and as such Italy and the Netherlands wished to disassociate themselves from the draft resolution.
KONRAD SCHARINGER (Germany), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Germany could support the consensus on resolution L.15 on the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.
General Comments
SIRPA VYBERG (Finland), speaking in a general comment on resolution L.13 on the guidelines for the alternative care of children, said that the advancement of the rights of children was one of Finland’s priorities. Practical guidance on that issue was needed and that was why Finland gave great importance to the guidelines. It was with great regret that Finland was unable to co-sponsor the draft resolution. Finland thanked Brazil and all the delegations that had been actively engaged in the negotiations. It hoped that the guidelines would become a useful tool in the promotion of the rights of the child.
MARK C. STORELLA (United States), in a general comment with respect to resolution L.13 on the guidelines for the alternative care of children, said the United States strongly believed in creating healthy, supportive, and safe environments in which children could thrive and grow, particularly those children who lacked parental care. The United States welcomed the spirit embodied in the guidelines for the alternative care of children and believed they offered useful policy orientations for the protection of children without parental care. The United States thanked the Government of Brazil for taking the initiative to craft the document, as well as the group of Friends, United Nations Children Fund, and non-governmental organizations for their contributions towards the guidelines. The United States remained concerned, however, about the seemingly overbroad scope of the guidelines, and while the United States appreciated efforts to come to consensus on the content of the guidelines, it regretted that the timelines for consultation had prevented full consultations within the United States Government for views. In the coming months, the delegation of the United States hoped to gather more insight from the domestic agencies and work with other Member States on ways in which to further concentrate and refine the guidelines to improve practicability.
With respect to resolution L.17 on the human rights situation in Sudan as adopted, the United States, while it did not agree with everything in the resolution, strongly supported its creation of an Independent Expert to carry forward the monitoring mandate and to enhance assistance.
JOHN UKEC LUETH UKEC (Sudan), in a general comment, thanked everybody for the resolution that had been passed. Sudan's people and Government would still be working with the international community. The people and Government of Sudan wished to thank all their friends, and were very happy about the magnitude of the support received. Those who had abstained or voted against the situation would sooner or later be convinced in coming sessions that Sudan was serious about the situation of human rights. All partners, especially the European Union were thanked – they had learned something: that Sudan, as a sovereign nation, did not have to be controlled; and had also learned about real dialogue and negotiation. Sudan wished to be engaged, but that engagement had to be fair, non-duplicative, and non-political. That was where Sudan was.
Closing Statements
PETER SPLINTER (Amnesty International) said the session of the Council showed mixed results, some positive and some negative. The number of people living in poverty and subjected to human rights abuses was likely to grow if the current recessionary economic climate continued. Pressures to migrate continued to rise and countries of destination were resorting to ever harsher methods to keep migrants out. This was a human rights situation that required the Council’s ongoing attention. The decision to hold a panel on migrants in detention was well-timed and welcomed. The adoption of the resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights was also welcomed. Maternal mortality was neither inevitable nor excusable. It was very important that the Human Rights Council address the human rights dimension of this tragedy. Amnesty International looked forward to the thematic study to be produced by the Office of the High Commissioner on this issue. Amnesty International, however, was disappointed by the resolution adopted on the special procedures’ system, which was another effort of some States to use the code of conduct as a basis to limit the independence of individual special procedures and the system as a whole. Amnesty International welcomed the vigorous discussion on the human rights situation in Sudan, but considered that the Council terminated the mandate of the Special Rapporteur with insufficient regard to the ongoing gravity of the human rights situation in that country. It was a sad reflection on the state of the Council that many members continued to place political considerations above concerns to protect the rights of the civilian population in Sudan. Amnesty International paid tribute to those countries, especially in Africa, which rose above the politics to speak out for the victims of human rights violations in Sudan.
JUSTINIAN M. KATEERA (Uganda) thanked the President for the way he conducted the proceedings of the Human Rights Council and the use of his good offices to bridge the gap, especially during the course of difficult issues. The Human Rights Council had a diversity of views. Uganda took a principled position on a particular issue, but also took a procedural decision due to the fact that it believed that the African Group’s position was not reflected accurately. From the Holocaust to Apartheid, to the Genocide in Rwanda, the international community was always reminded that never again should it allow these events to happen either through inaction or political expediency. It was hoped that the Council had reaffirmed its commitment to the founding principle of the United Nations, which was “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. Today, the credibility of the Human Rights Council was re-asserted.
HISHAM BADR (Egypt) said he had not planned to speak now, and had planned to reserve his comments and appreciation for the meeting tomorrow. However, Egypt had to reply to the unwarranted comment from Uganda about misrepresentation of the African position. If the colleague from Uganda had bothered to attend the meetings of the African Group, when they were discussing issues other than Sudan, he would have known that the African position was represented accurately. He never came to the meetings of the African Group. Egypt wished to assure the President that the African position was represented accurately, and there were 13 members of the African Group in the Council who could testify to this. Not a single of those members made such an unwarranted comment. Egypt would like to register its total rejection for this comment. Everybody understood where it was coming from.
JOHN UKEC LUETH UKEC (Sudan) said he did not want to make this a circus. Sudan believed the gentleman who was just talking, the Charge d’Affairs of Uganda, was a member of the Expert Group and he had approved of all the resolutions. Sudan did not know what had happened. Probably there was an audience for what Uganda wanted to say. The African Group did a superb job. This was very disgusting for a member of the African Group and Sudan believed that he had to think twice. There were members of the African Group who would certify that he was at the meetings of the African Group on the resolution. Thank you.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC09094E