MORNING - High Commissioner to the Human Rights Council: Myanmar Continues its Deadly Freefall into Even Deeper Violence and Heartbreak
Special Rapporteur Says Member States Must Deny Myanmar Junta Weapons, Money and Legitimacy
Special Rapporteur Says the Human Rights Situation in Burundi Remains Worrying
The Human Rights Council this morning took up the situation of human rights in Myanmar, holding separate interactive dialogues with the High Commissioner for Human Rights and with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. It also started an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burundi.
Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that with each successive update, it was almost impossible to imagine that the people of Myanmar could endure more suffering. Yet the country continued its deadly freefall into even deeper violence and heartbreak. A regime imposed by generals for the last two and a half years meant civilians lived at the whim of a reckless military authority that relied on systematic control tactics, fear and terror.
Mr. Türk said more than one million Rohingya remained in neighbouring Bangladesh, living in the world’s largest refugee camp in deplorable conditions. Credible sources indicated that as of yesterday, 3,747 individuals had died at the hands of the military since they took power, and 23,747 had been arrested, with the true number of casualties likely to be far higher. Since the coup began, the military had scorched at least 70,000 homes across the country. Over 1.5 million people had been forcibly displaced with minimal access to humanitarian aid.
Incessant airstrikes and artillery shelling were destroying homes and stealing lives.
Artillery attacks had also dramatically increased. The Office also continued to document repeated violations, including sexual violence, mass killings, extra-judicial executions, beheadings, dismemberments, and mutilations. The obstruction of life-saving aid was deliberate and targeted. Regarding the one million Rohingya in Bangladesh, voluntary repatriation could only occur when conditions for safe, sustainable, and dignified returns to Myanmar were in place. Mr. Türk said he stood in solidarity with Myanmar’s people and emphasised that the Rohingya were an integral part of Myanmar and the country’s future.
In the ensuing discussion, some speakers said the report demonstrated that the intentional obstruction or denial of humanitarian access in Myanmar, overwhelmingly by the military, may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Urgent action was required to meet the essential needs of all individuals, including food, healthcare, and the protection of their human rights. All States should undertake non-discriminatory, inclusive and fair policies to ensure a durable solution to the Rohingya refugee crisis, including through third country resettlement and complementary pathways.
Some speakers noted that Myanmar, as the country concerned, was not able to participate in the dialogue. The Myanmar issue was fundamentally a national affair: the international community should respect Myanmar’s sovereignty and promote the various factions to restore dialogue within the national framework. The background to the situation was complicated, and heavy-handed sanctions imposed on the country were not likely to improve the situation. The continuing politicisation of the Council’s mechanisms and the use of unverified sources in the report and its call for unilateral coercive measures could only make the situation worse.
Speaking in the discussion on the High Commissioner’s report on Myanmar were the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Spain, Indonesia, France, United States, Malaysia, Maldives, United Kingdom, South Africa, Venezuela, India, Bangladesh, China, Gambia, Switzerland, Libya, Romania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Malta, Austria, Russian Federation, Thailand, Georgia and Türkiye.
Also speaking were Centre pour les Droits Civils et Politiques - Centre CCPR, Centre for Global Nonkilling, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada, iuventum e.V., International Commission of Jurists, CIVICUS - World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and International Bar Association.
The Council then held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.
Thomas H. Andrews, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said the people of Myanmar needed and deserved action by Member States that supported their heroic efforts to save their country and denied the junta the three things that it needed to sustain its brutality and oppression: weapons, money and legitimacy. The junta had imported more than $1 billion in weapons and weapons-related materials since the military coup. If the shipment of these materials was stopped, the junta’s capacity to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity would be significantly disrupted. The Special Rapporteur urged Member States to undermine the junta’s capacity to continue its attacks against the people of Myanmar by denying it weapons, money and legitimacy.
In the discussion, some speakers among other things, thanked the Special Rapporteur for his disturbing update and reiterated support for this mandate. The situation in Myanmar was showing no signs of improvement. Speakers were deeply troubled by reports of an intensification of violence, indiscriminate attacks, persecution of perceived opponents, systemic discrimination against Rohingya and other minorities. Speakers reiterated their support of an arms embargo on Myanmar; no Member State should sell arms to Myanmar as this fuelled violence, instability and atrocities. Some speakers regretted that Myanmar as a country concerned was unable to participate in the dialogue. Human rights issues should be addressed with genuine dialogue and cooperation.
Speaking in the discussion with the Special Rapporteur were the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Denmark on behalf of a group of countries, Uruguay on behalf of a group of countries, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, France, Australia, Canada, United States, Malaysia, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Venezuela, Bangladesh, China, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Viet Nam and Indonesia.
Also speaking were European Centre for Law and Justice, Edmund Rice International Limited, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, CIVICUS - World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Centre for Civil and Political Rights, Access Now, Article 19 - International Centre Against Censorship, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Amnesty International, and International Federation for Human Rights Leagues.
The Council then started an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burundi.
Zongo Fortuné Gaetan, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burundi, said Burundi had been experiencing a consecutive crisis since 2015, relating to the challenge to the third term of the late Pierre Nkurunziza. The political will expressed by the President of the Republic was not followed by actions on the ground. The efforts made by the international community to lift international sanctions seemed distant and the human rights situation remained worrying. Despite the positive and reassuring official speeches, the crisis that Burundi was going through, beyond being a political crisis, was a crisis of domination and control of resources. Civic space had shrunk, resulting in the weakening of opposition political parties, media self-censorship, arbitrary arrests of political opponents and representatives of civil society organizations, and the continued exile of opponents, media and civil society organizations.
Burundi, speaking as a country concerned, reiterated that it did not recognise this country mandate that had been imposed upon it. This was part of a campaign of disinformation, orchestrated through the various reports on the human rights situation that were presented to the Council. While the contents remained the same, the different Special Rapporteurs found different forms of rhetorical adventurism in the reports. Burundi continued to face challenges in the protection and promotion of human rights, which was an ideal all people strove for. Burundi was once again finding its legitimate place among other countries of the sub-region. This mandate did not contribute to the future of human rights in the country.
The National Human Rights Institution of Burundi also took the floor.
In the ensuing discussion, some speakers said they took note of some human rights progress and welcomed the commitment of the Government during the recent Universal Periodic Review process. They remained concerned about the human rights situation, given the allegations of torture, intolerable detention conditions, forced disappearances, and others. The Government must cooperate with the Council, the human rights system, and the Special Rapporteur. The Government had still not allowed the Special Rapporteur to visit the country. One speaker said that the efforts of the Government of Burundi to reduce instability and improve the human rights situation despite the challenges faced by the country were appreciated, repeating that country mechanisms that were not accepted by the country were not helpful, and rejecting this mandate in particular.
Speaking in the discussion on Burundi were the European Union, Netherlands, Egypt, Luxembourg and Belgium.
The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-third regular session can be found here.
The Council will next meet this afternoon at 3 p.m. to continue the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burundi, followed by the presentation of reports under item five on human rights bodies and mechanisms. The Council will then proceed with the adoption of outcomes of the Universal Periodic Review of a number of countries.
Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar
Report
The Council has before it the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (A/HRC/53/52).
Presentation of Report
VOLKER TÜRK, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that with each successive update, it was almost impossible to imagine that the people of Myanmar could endure more suffering. Yet the country continued its deadly freefall into even deeper violence and heartbreak. A regime imposed by generals for the last two and a half years meant civilians lived at the whim of a reckless military authority that relied on systematic control tactics, fear and terror. More than one million Rohingya remained in neighbouring Bangladesh, living in the world’s largest refugee camp in deplorable conditions. Credible sources indicated that as of yesterday, 3,747 individuals had died at the hands of the military since they took power, and 23,747 had been arrested, with the true number of casualties likely to be far higher.
Every day, the military’s ruthless “four cuts” strategy continued to wreak destruction. Since the coup began, the military had scorched at least 70,000 homes across the country, 70 per cent of which were in Sagaing region. Over 1.5 million people had been forcibly displaced with minimal access to humanitarian aid. Incessant airstrikes and artillery shelling were destroying homes and stealing lives. In the first six months of this year, the Office reported a 33 per cent increase in indiscriminate airstrikes compared to the first half of last year, with rising attacks on civilian targets, including villages, schools, hospitals and places of worship.
On 11 April in Pa Zi Gyi village in Sagaing region, up to 168 civilians, including scores of women and children, were killed in an air attack. Artillery attacks had also dramatically increased, with over 563 this year, representing already 80 per cent of the total attacks last year. The Office also continued to document repeated violations, including sexual violence, mass killings, extra-judicial executions, beheadings, dismemberments, and mutilations.
The obstruction of life-saving aid was deliberate and targeted, when one-third of the entire population required urgent help, including access to adequate housing, enough food and water, or employment. In mid-May, when Cyclone Mocha made landfall with devastating effect in Rakhine, Chin, Magway and Sagaing, the military actively prevented independent needs assessments, and obstructed access to information. All disbursements of Cyclone Mocha-related humanitarian aid remained frozen unless delivered by the military apparatus. The military had threatened legal action against anyone reporting figures different to theirs on the number of Rohingya deaths, fixed by the military at 116, but believed to be higher.
Up to 40 humanitarian workers had been killed and over 200 arrested since the coup; 15.2 million people were in need of urgent food and nutrition support, and the price of food had risen 177 per cent in 2022. Mr. Türk called on Member States to fund the Myanmar Humanitarian Response Plan and to provide direct and flexible funding for local organizations on the ground. He called for an immediate end to the violence and urged the authorities to release the 19,377 political prisoners detained throughout Myanmar, including deposed President Win Mynt and State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi. The Security Council must refer the situation to the International Criminal Court; any political solution to the emergency had to include accountability.
Regarding the one million Rohingya in Bangladesh, voluntary repatriation could only occur when conditions for safe, sustainable, and dignified returns to Myanmar were in place. The international community needed to support host communities, including in Bangladesh, and ensure adequate protection for all people crossing international borders. Mr. Türk appealed to all countries to cease and prevent the supply of arms to the military and to take targeted measures to limit access by generals to foreign currency and aviation fuel. The Council needed to consider how to bring to light the business interests that supported the military and kept them afloat. Mr. Türk said he stood in solidarity with Myanmar’s people and emphasised that the Rohingya were an integral part of Myanmar and the country’s future.
Discussion
In the ensuing discussion, some speakers said the report demonstrated that the intentional obstruction or denial of humanitarian access in Myanmar, overwhelmingly by the military, may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Urgent action was required to meet the essential needs of all individuals, including food, healthcare, and the protection of their human rights. The Myanmar military had shown complete disregard for all efforts to address the human rights, humanitarian and political crises stemming from the 2021 coup, and had ignored repeated calls for the cessation of violence against the civilian population.
The military's "four cuts" policy had resulted in civilian casualties and the destruction of vital resources, violating international law, including human rights law, and critically endangering humanitarian action. This had become even clearer with the denial of humanitarian access by the regime to regions affected by cyclone Mocha in May 2023. A number of speakers said seeking justice and accountability, including through the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, was therefore crucial. The junta must immediately free all political prisoners and bring a sincere political dialogue in order to relieve the suffering of the people of Myanmar. There must be an end to all acts of violence and immediate and unconditional release of all those arbitrarily detained in relation to the coup.
Compounding the dire humanitarian situation - exacerbated further by the impact of cyclone Mocha - were the military’s direct attacks on healthcare personnel and infrastructure; restrictions on access to food assistance; together with ongoing efforts to instrumentalise humanitarian relief. These actions constituted an intentional obstruction or denial of humanitarian assistance and may amount to gross violations of international human rights law, and serious violations of international humanitarian law. The situation continued to impact humanitarian interventions aimed at providing aid and protection to vulnerable groups. The situation remained alarming due to restriction to healthcare services, disruption of food supplies, and increasing security risk associated with the usage of landmines.
Some speakers said the complex refugee situation in the region must be handled in a concerted manner, grounded in the principles of equal burden and responsibility sharing. The Human Rights Council and its mechanisms should facilitate a more robust resettlement of refugees, particularly the Rohingyas. In this context, all States should undertake non-discriminatory, inclusive and fair policies to ensure a durable solution to the Rohingya refugee crisis, including through third country resettlement and complementary pathways.
There was a need for greater focus on the human rights situation of Rohingya Muslims who were the victims of decades-long institutionalised discrimination, marginalisation, and long-standing persecution, a number of speakers said. Framing the Rohingya situation exclusively in the current political turmoil in Myanmar was a lopsided approach. The High Commissioner and his Office must play an active role in promoting the respect, protection and realisation of human rights of Rohingyas and other minorities in Myanmar, including forcibly displaced Rohingyas. There was no end to the atrocities committed by the Myanmar military against the Rohingya. Conditions in Myanmar must allow for the safe, voluntary and organised return of the Rohingya, but these conditions had not been achieved - quite the opposite.
Responsible international action was therefore needed. All States should cease the export, sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to the Myanmar military, a speaker urged.
Some speakers noted that Myanmar, as the country concerned, was not able to participate in the dialogue. The Myanmar issue was fundamentally a national affair: the international community should respect Myanmar’s sovereignty and promote the various factions to restore dialogue within the national framework. The background to the situation was complicated, and heavy-handed sanctions imposed on the country were not likely to improve the situation. There should be impartial investigations into all allegations of violations of the rights of minorities, including Islamophobia.
The continuing politicisation of the Council’s mechanisms and the use of unverified sources in the report and its call for unilateral coercive measures could only make the situation worse, one speaker said, noting that pressure exerted could only lower cooperation. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and mandate holders should help maintain a constructive dialogue and carry out their mandates according to the principles of impartiality and non-selectivity.
Among questions raised were: could a good faith assessment of the end use of arms, munitions and other military equipment conclude anything other than their utilisation to commit or facilitate severe violations of international human rights law; how could the international community better protect humanitarian actors working on the ground; how could the international community contribute to the empowerment of Myanmar’s youth in the promotion of democracy in the country; what could the international community do to pursue justice for survivors and victims of human rights abuses in Myanmar; what more could the international community do to improve international response to the risk of further mass atrocities; and how could the international community collectively work towards holding accountable those responsible for the violations in the report, whilst supporting a peaceful transition towards democracy?
Concluding Remarks
VOLKER TÜRK, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said Myanmar was an unfolding tragedy which kept being discussed at the Council. It was critical to maintain attention to the plight of all people in Myanmar; to continue to demand an immediate end to the violence; to insist on the respect for humanitarian aid delivery; to ensure that there was a strong call for all those arbitrarily detained to be released; to protect those leaving the country; and to pursue political accountability. Any solution needed to take accountability into account.
The international community needed to prevent the supply of arms to the military and encourage businesses in Myanmar to cease working with the military. What had happened to the Rohingya required a whole study. The Rohingya needed to be considered as part of the future of Myanmar. It was essential that the recommendations from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees be implemented in any solution. Member States needed to ensure that the military had no access to the arms and materials needed to continue the current repression.
Mr. Türk said it was critical that Member States ensured that the representatives of the Myanmar people were at the table and were empowered to put an end to the crisis. Flexible funding measures needed to be utilised to ensure life-saving aid reached those in need. The youth of Myanmar needed to be supported, including through civil society which focused on young people and young leaders. It was important to ensure that young leaders were able to address the Council, and to find ways to creatively fund youth organizations. Humanitarian organizations at the local level who were delivering aid also needed to be supported. Member States needed to consider cross-border alternatives and other delivery mechanisms to ensure delivery to those who needed life-saving assistance. Mr. Türk encouraged States to consider the referral of the situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar
Presentation
THOMAS H. ANDREWS, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said the people of Myanmar needed and deserved action by Member States that supported their heroic efforts to save their country and denied the junta the three things that it needed to sustain its brutality and oppression: weapons, money, and legitimacy. The Special Rapporteur was concerned, however, that the political will that was necessary to sustain this action could be waning, and that some governments appeared ready to move on, to accept the junta’s illegitimate claim to power and focus their attention and resources elsewhere. It was imperative that this trend be reversed.
The military junta of Myanmar must be disabused of any notion that it needed only to wait out a fickle and distracted world. Member States must be prepared to step up and stop or at least slow access to what the junta needed to continue Myanmar’s nightmare. The junta had imported more than $1 billion in weapons and weapons-related materials since the military coup. If the shipment of these materials were stopped, the junta’s capacity to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity would be significantly disrupted. Foreign currency enabled the junta to purchase arms, supply its weapons factories, and fuel its jets and helicopters. It was essential that the international community act in a coordinated manner to deprive the junta of these funds.
The Special Rapporteur said the United States and others should join the European Union by imposing sanctions on the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, while all should join the United States in imposing sanctions on Myanmar’s financial institutions. Greater coordination among those governments that had imposed sanctions – and their cooperation in the enforcement of these sanctions – would be highly significant.
Some regional governments appeared ready to engage the junta as if it were the legitimate government of Myanmar, as if it were not murdering its own people. The Special Rapporteur said he frankly could not imagine any justification for this inexplicable policy. It was a classic lose-lose proposition: the people of Myanmar would lose because the junta would use this designation to legitimise forces that continued to brutally attack them.
As to whether the international community was meeting its fundamental obligation to help the victims of these human rights violations and atrocities, the Special Rapporteur said no group had suffered more from the military’s brutality than the Rohingya Muslim minority. How was it possible that, more than halfway through 2023, the Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis Joint Response Plan was only 27 per cent funded? Plans were now being made by the junta and officials from Bangladesh to launch a pilot programme to repatriate Rohingya refugees back to Myanmar, but conditions in Rakhine state were anything but conducive to the safe, dignified, and sustainable return of the Rohingya.
The Special Rapporteur said he believed this was a critical juncture in Myanmar and that it was time to refocus and re-engage on the Myanmar crisis. He urged Member States who supported the people of Myanmar to develop a coordinated strategy and action plan where the action of one government was linked to the action of others, and that these actions be proactive and targeted on undermining the junta’s capacity to continue its attacks against the people of Myanmar by denying it weapons, money and legitimacy. There should be a public convening of these States to launch these coordinated actions and shine the light of public attention on what had become an invisible crisis. Mr. Andrews also urged Member States to commit the funds necessary to stop the shameful neglect and suffering of the hundreds of thousands of Rohingya children and families who were outside of Myanmar.
Discussion
In the discussion, a number of speakers thanked the Special Rapporteur for his disturbing update and reiterated support for the mandate. The Special Rapporteur was thanked for his incessant work in shedding light on the dire situation of the Myanmar people and the Rohingya population. One speaker said the Rapporteur had made comments which were not based on complete information and facts.
The situation in Myanmar was showing no signs of improvement. Many speakers were deeply troubled by reports of an intensification of violence, indiscriminate attacks, persecution of perceived opponents, and systemic discrimination against Rohingya and other minorities. Almost six years had passed since over a million Rohingyas were forced to flee their homes in the face of atrocity crimes and seek refuge in Bangladesh. The recent reductions of food rations and gradually decreasing financial support, particularly to the Joint Response Plan for the Rohingyas temporarily sheltered in Bangladesh, were alarming.
Some speakers called on the international community to continue to make adequate financial contributions for the Rohingyas to avoid devastating consequences. They echoed the concerns raised by the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar regarding the situation of Rohingya refugees, and stressed the importance of ensuring that the return of refugees was voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable, and in line with international standards. These conditions had not currently been met. Ensuring that the perpetrators of these crimes were held accountable remained a critical task, and in this vein, it was important to continue to support the work carried out by the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar.
This year had seen further indiscriminate attacks by the military on civilians and infrastructure, including the use of air strikes and arson attacks, some speakers said. Schools, hospitals and places of worship had been targeted. The deadliest attack on civilians since the military seized power was on 11 April, with over 165 killed in the military’s airstrikes in Sagaing. Some speakers reiterated their support for an arms embargo on Myanmar; no Member State should sell arms to Myanmar, as this fuelled violence, instability and atrocities.
A number of speakers noted that the recent cyclone Mocha had only exacerbated the already immense humanitarian needs of the affected population, calling for full, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access to all in need. The alarming reports of sexual and gender-based violence, discrimination, and lack of access to healthcare and education were deeply distressing and could not be ignored. Speakers expressed solidarity with the women and girls of Myanmar and emphasised the urgent need for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. Speakers also strongly condemned the violence inflicted on civilians, including human rights defenders.
Some speakers strongly condemned the military coup in Myanmar and expressed solidarity with the people of Myanmar. Notwithstanding the existing political situation in Myanmar, the international community should not avoid its responsibilities; there needed to be meaningful accountability, justice, and a permanent solution to the crisis. Myanmar must fully comply with the International Criminal Court’s provisional measures; cooperate with the ongoing international justice and accountability mechanisms; implement all recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine state; and commence voluntary repatriation of forcibly displaced Rohingyas from Bangladesh to Myanmar.
Some speakers regretted that Myanmar as a country concerned was unable to participate in the dialogue. As was characteristic of these hostile mandates, the report contained serious imbalances, with unverified information and sources which were impossible to corroborate. Human rights issues should be addressed with genuine dialogue and cooperation.
Questions asked to the Special Rapporteur included what were the risks posed by return efforts under the present conditions in Myanmar? Aside from stopping the sale of arms to the military regime, how could the international community contribute to conditions for an inclusive dialogue of stakeholders? What was the potential complicity of the countries that continued to supply the Myanmar military with heavy weapons? Were the targeted sanctions bearing fruit? What other measures could be implemented to improve the human rights situation in Myanmar?
Concluding Remarks
THOMAS H. ANDREWS, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said his door was open, and he hoped that he could carry on conversations and provide detailed responses to the questions outside the room. He was grateful to Japan and Indonesia for hosting his very helpful missions to those countries. He noted that Japan was not only the largest responder to the Joint Response Plan in Asia but had also increased its contribution. It was wonderful to meet with officials in Singapore in response to his report and discuss it with key members of the Government. He had also held very important meetings in Kuwait and in Qatar.
The cause of the disaster in Myanmar and what could be done appeared to be the main issues, including sanctions, economic pressure and weapons. He recognised that some Member States did not consider the transfer of weapons to the junta to be a problem, and he had been criticised for vilifying normal arms trade and exceeding his mandate: these sales were aiding and abetting probable war crimes and crimes against humanity, killing the innocent, and destabilising and impacting regional and international stability. It was part of his mandate to identify the source of human rights violations and what could be done to stop them, and stopping the flow of weapons was core in this regard. He would provide further information on how to do this. His reports had not just discussed types of weapons, but also specific arms dealers, specific arms networks, and specific jurisdictions where they were operating, providing specific information and tools that could help Member States to stop this proliferation.
Mr. Andrews said there was good news to report: sanctions were building and growing. Certain Member States had adopted multiple sanction regimes. These were extremely important measures that could have far-reaching effects and should be built on. They should be coordinated not only in implementation, but also in enforcement, as there were networks that were able to get around these sanctions by finding loopholes. Entire networks of weapons proliferators needed to be targeted and sanctioned: if this could be done, both in terms of weapons and money, there could be a significant impact on the junta and its military. For those concerned that there was no hope to resolve this crisis, sometimes the Special Rapporteur said he felt the same way, but there was hope, and that hope could be found in the people of Myanmar who were exhibiting great hope, courage and tenacity, with women at the frontlines of the opposition movement, leading the way to freedom, democracy and human rights. Those in the frontlines needed the support of the international community to work together to end this nightmare.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Burundi
Presentation
ZONGO FORTUNÉ GAETAN, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burundi, said Burundi had been experiencing a consecutive crisis since 2015, relating to the challenge to the third term of the late Pierre Nkurunziza. The massive rights violations that followed motivated the Human Rights Council to first set up an International Commission of Inquiry, and then from October 2021 a Special Rapporteur. The political will expressed by the President of the Republic was not followed by actions on the ground. The efforts made by the international community to lift international sanctions seemed distant and the human rights situation remained worrying. Despite the positive and reassuring official speeches, the crisis that Burundi was going through, beyond being a political crisis, was a crisis of domination and control of resources.
The instrumentalisation of institutions obscured the confidence of citizens and constituted limiting factors for a return to lasting peace. Civic space had shrunk, resulting in the weakening of opposition political parties, media self-censorship, arbitrary arrests of political opponents and representatives of civil society organizations, and the continued exile of opponents, media and civil society organizations. Just this week, the consideration of Burundi's report by the Human Rights Committee did not go as planned because the delegation indicated that it would not participate in the meeting in the presence of some human rights activists, who according to official positions were convicted criminals. The situation illustrated arbitrariness, intimidation and reprisals. As long as the Government continued to imprison representatives of civil society, opponents or journalists, there was little chance that the actors in exile would return to Burundi.
Mr. Gaetan was deeply concerned about the institutional links of the national intelligence service which interfered with the mandate of the institutions of the Republic. The instrumentalisation of the transitional justice process had led to a lack of confidence within Burundian society. The land issue was a ticking time bomb because it depended on the cyclical crises that the country had gone through. While the arrest of former Prime Minister Alain Bunnyoni had raised hopes of a commitment to the fight against impunity, impunity remained a systemic factor in Burundi.
The Special Rapporteur said the relentless repression of the National Congress for Freedom, the main opposition party that had been suspended from all political activity, remained an issue of concern. Government interference that heightened internal tensions was worrying as the next parliamentary elections would take place in 2025. Warning signs indicated risks of pre- and post-electoral violence. The national human rights institution, re-accredited to A status in June 2021, was struggling to demonstrate independence and impartiality. An examination of its reports revealed the selective nature of the cases being handled.
Mr. Gaetan said the debate continued that some believed that the mandate was not established on a consensual basis. However, it needed be recognised that Burundi was a member of the United Nations and since June 2013, Burundi had been one of the States that had sent a standing invitation to the Special Procedures. Mr. Gaetan hoped that the human rights situation would substantially improve. It was time to revisit and reapply the Arusha Agreement, with the help of the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, the East African Community, and the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region.
Statement by Country Concerned
Burundi, speaking as a country concerned, said yet again Burundi reiterated that it did not recognise this country mandate that had been imposed upon it. The special session on the human rights situation in Burundi took place eight years ago on the pretext that an imminent genocide was being prepared. At the time, Burundi warned that the use of certain words could not happen in its sub-region, and appealed for restraint and moderation. The Council had been manipulated for various reasons ever since. This was part of a campaign of disinformation, orchestrated through the various reports on the human rights situation that were presented to the Council. While the contents remained the same, the different Special Rapporteurs found different forms of rhetorical adventurism in the reports.
Burundi continued to face challenges in the protection and promotion of human rights, which was an ideal all people strove for. Burundi, before the invasion of the colonists in 1896, had had an administration based on the rule of law and social cohesion. Ancestral values were abused and suppressed by the same countries that used the Council to bully Burundi, as it continued towards socio-economic development in the respect of the values of humanity and fundamental freedoms. Burundi was once again finding its legitimate place among other countries of the sub-region, benefiting from the support of other countries that had made the choice to read history correctly, and understand the choices made by Burundi to ensure that its people moved towards the future. This mandate did not contribute to the future of human rights in the country.
National Human Rights Institution of Burundi said human rights were a constant project, and Burundi, like any other country, had to work on this every day. There were challenges to overcome, such as in the judiciary or the prison population, but there were efforts that the Government should be encouraged to continue. The political situation was satisfactory, both internationally and domestically. Political parties functioned normally. The State was continuing to guarantee and protect the right to life, pursuing those guilty of crimes. The State had detained and brought before justice members of law enforcement accused of crimes, and punished them where guilt was established. Members of the party in power had been convicted in various cases. Burundi should ratify the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. The Government and its partners should increase their support to the national human rights institution to allow it to continue to fulfil its mandate.
Discussion
In the ensuing discussion, some speakers took note of some human rights progress and welcomed the commitment of the Government during the recent Universal Periodic Review process, but remained concerned about the human rights situation, given the allegations of torture, intolerable detention conditions, forced disappearances, and others. The Government must cooperate with the Council, the human rights system, and the Special Rapporteur. The National Human Rights Institution of Burundi must fulfil its mandate. One speaker regretted that Burundi had ceased its participation with the Human Rights Committee and had withdrawn from the Rome Statute.
The Special Rapporteur was thanked for his report. Some speakers expressed concern that the situation in the country was not significantly and structurally improving despite the good intentions of the President to work in favour of reform for the rule of law. Civil and political spaces were still very much limited; human rights defenders were harassed, arrested and imprisoned; the pressure on journalists was increasing, with arrests of journalists on political grounds as well as of entrepreneurs and persons of minority sexual orientations.
Some speakers noted that the Government had still not allowed the Special Rapporteur to visit the country. The Special Rapporteur had been able to collect data from the Burundian diaspora. The intimidation and violence committed against civil society and members of the opposition, including violence, torture, sexual-based violence and executions committed by law enforcement and others, were condemned. Some progress had been made, but concerns remained in too many areas.
The efforts of the Government to reduce instability and improve the human rights situation despite the challenges faced by the country were appreciated, a speaker said, repeating that country mechanisms that were not accepted by the country concerned were not helpful, and rejecting this mandate in particular. There should be a constructive dialogue with States aiming to improve their capacities and based on their self-identified needs.
Among questions raised were: what could be done to ensure national reconciliation in a manner that was fair, sustainable and lasting; what could the international community do to help; and what specific steps had already been taken and what could be taken in future to implement a dialogue with the authorities.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
HRC23.087E