HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES SECOND DAY OF HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded the second day of its high-level segment, hearing statements on the role of the new body by dignitaries from the Holy See, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Timor-Leste, Mexico, Cyprus, China, the Russian Federation, Poland, Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Lithuania, and Viet Nam.

Many speakers highlighted the role and contributions made by the Commission on Human Rights, and urged the Member States of the Human Rights Council to work together to promote human rights in an efficient manner that avoided double standards and merely national interests. A new culture of human rights, based on dialogue and cooperation, was what was required, speakers said.

Giovanni Lajolo, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Holy See, said the new Human Rights Council was called upon to fill the gap between the texts of the human rights conventions system, and the reality of its application in the different parts of the world.

Marie-Madeleine Kalala, Minister for Human Rights of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said States should succeed in building a framework in which Governments of the whole world could work together to promote human rights in an efficient manner, as had never been done before.

Ana Pessao, Minister of State and Administration of Timor-Leste, said the Council had an explicitly defined function of periodically reviewing the record of all States, starting with that of its own members, in fulfilling human rights obligations, and this approach would strengthen and help to improve the human rights work of the Organization as a whole.

Maria del Refugio Gonzalez Dominguez, Deputy Foreign Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of Mexico, said that in order not to exacerbate differences, it was of utmost importance that the working methods of the Council avoid the polarization of positions, and creativity and courage would be needed to achieve this task, particularly to encourage collective efforts between countries with a view to promote consensus.

Sotos Zackheos, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cyprus, said it was expected that the Council would initiate an honest dialogue and cooperation in human rights, away from political controversies, double standards, and the pursuit of narrow national interests.

Yang Jiechi, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of China, said it was incumbent upon all Member States, and particularly the newly elected members of the Council, to demonstrate political commitment and exert real efforts to make the Council both dynamic and effective.

Alexander V. Yakovenko, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said the Council could not do without the system of special procedures, but that did not exclude a critical review of their role, place and mode of work in order to increase their efficiency and improve their performance. The participation of non-governmental organizations in the work of the Council was also something that was simply unquestionable.

Janusz Stanczyk, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Under-Secretary of State of Poland, said the new body should adopt a new philosophy: it should abandon confrontation and mutual lecturing, and focus on dialogue, cooperation and the exchange of experience, and this should lead to concrete results, laying the groundwork for authentic progress.

Mahmud Mammadquliyev, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, said the Council should focus on the implementation of the obligations and commitments undertaken, as well as on the mandates and mechanisms that needed further scrutiny. The number of resolutions should be reduced to expedient ones, and an effective monitoring mechanism for the implementation of Council decisions should be established.

Marta Altolaguirre Larraondo, Under-Secretary for Cooperation of the Ministry for Planning and Programming of Guatemala, said peace, security, justice and equal opportunities were essential in the promotion and respect of human rights. Effective human rights were fundamental pillars in achieving human and national development.

Oskaras Jusys, Under-Secretary of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, said the new Council should embody the new culture in the United Nations human rights protection system, should base its activities on dialogue and cooperation, and should serve as a forum where common solutions were found.

Le Van Bang, Deputy Foreign Minister of Viet Nam, said he hoped that the Council would make a fresh change, and introduce a new culture of cooperation and mutual understanding in the field of promotion and protection of human rights. It had to be ensured that the past practices of selectivity, double standards and excessive politicisation would not be repeated at the Council.

Speaking in right of reply were the delegations of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the United States, Japan, and Cuba.

The next plenary session of the Council will be held on Wednesday, 21 June at 10 a.m., when the Council will continue its high-level segment.

Statements

GIOVANNI LAJOLO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Holy See, said the new Human Rights Council was an important step in the important fight aiming to put mankind at the centre of all political, national and international activity. It was a key moment: international norms of human rights, which already recognised the essential elements of human dignity as well as every fundamental right deriving therefrom, were now moving towards the creation of procedures aiming to guarantee effective enjoyment of rights. In law and in the moral conscience of the international community today, mankind’s dignity was the seed from which all rights sprouted, and it replaced the sovereign and autonomous will of States as the ultimate foundation for the judicial system, including the international judicial system. This was an irreversible change, but, at the same time, it was clear that in many countries, the realisation of this supreme principle had not been accompanied by an increase of human rights.

The new Human Rights Council was called upon to fill the gap between the texts of the human rights conventions system, and the reality of its application in the different parts of the world. All Member States of the Council should individually and collectively take responsibility for its defence and promotion. If the principle of the inalienable value of the human being was the source of all human rights and all social order, then the right to life and the rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion were the essential corollary of this fact. The response that the Council would bring to the challenges of liberty in many countries put to the test the credibility of the United Nations system and the entire international judicial system.

MARIE-MADELEINE KALALA, Minister for Human Rights of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said it was a crucial time for the implementation of the amendment of issues linked to human rights throughout the world. With regards to the goals of the Council, States should succeed in building a framework in which Governments of the whole world could work together to promote human rights in an efficient manner, as had never been done before, and the Council’s members should commit themselves to respecting the highest possible standards in the field of human rights, cooperate fully with the new body, and undergo themselves an examination during the course of their mandate.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo was sure that the Council would give the same attention, without distinction, to issues related to the fight against terrorism, extreme poverty throughout the world, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Issues linked to the right to development would receive the same attention as that given to civil and political rights. The role of civil society would be reinforced through the considerable participation of non-governmental organizations, and the leadership of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would be increased.

ANA PESSOA, Minister for State Administration of Timor-Leste, said that the new Human Rights Council reflected the universality of human rights by elevating the Council into a body directly elected by the General Assembly, giving it greater transparency and legitimacy. It also had an explicitly defined function of periodically reviewing the record of all States, starting with that of its own members, in fulfilling human rights obligations. That approach would strengthen and help to improve the human rights work of the Organization as a whole.

As all were aware, Timor-Leste was undergoing a crisis. On 10 May 2006, Timor-Leste’s Senior Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation had written to the High Commissioner for Human Rights to issue a standing invitation to all special procedures mandate holders of the Human Rights Council, and also specifically requested relevant mandates to undertake investigations into the events of 28 and 29 April 2006. Given the seriousness of the subsequent events in May, the Government had called for the establishment of an independent Special Inquiry Commission to review specific violent incidents and other related events or issues that had contributed to the present crisis. The establishment of the facts and circumstances relevant to the incidents on 28 and 29 April and on 23, 24 and 25 May, and other related events or issues, was critical for Timor-Leste to overcome its present crisis, achieve reconciliation and uphold the rule of law. The Government was committed to guaranteeing accountability for criminal and human rights violations allegedly perpetrated during recent events. The Government considered that the domestic justice system should be the primary setting of accountability for any criminal or human rights violations. That was deemed an important step in re-establishing public confidence in Timor-Leste’s justice system and security institutions, Ms. Pessoa said.

MARIA DEL REFUGIO GONZALEZ DOMINGUEZ, Deputy Foreign Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of Mexico, said establishment of the Council represented the beginning of a new era in the promotion and protection of human rights. It was an era in which the United Nations would be able to effectively respond to the enormous challenges posed by the current world situation. The international community should take advantage of the new opportunity to renew the endeavours to solve the problems that affected the full enjoyment of all human rights. The Council would be built upon the pillars contained in General Assembly resolution 60/251, as well as upon the strengths and legacies of the Commission on Human Rights. When working in the definition of the content and working methods of the Council, one should bear in mind that the most important task was to consolidate the norms, raise the international standards and ensure the compliance of all existing international obligations. It was essential to create the conditions that would enable the understanding and drawing closer of diverse points of view. It was imperative to develop cooperation and technical assistance mechanisms that would avoid confrontation, without affecting their objectives. Only in that way should one leave behind the politicization that did so much damage to the Commission.

The new Council should strengthen the participation in its work of organizations from civil society as well as that of national institutions for the protection of human rights. It should also assume the mandates, mechanisms and functions transferred by the Commission to the Council, including those that were of fundamental relevance for Mexico, such as the Special Rapporteurs on human rights of indigenous peoples, on human rights of migrants and on the protection of human rights in the fight against terrorism. In order not to exacerbate differences, it was of utmost importance that the working methods of the Council avoid the polarization of positions. Creativity and courage would be needed to achieve that task, particularly to encourage collective efforts between countries with a view to promote consensus. Only by building upon consensus, by bringing positions closer, by committing oneself with the rights of those most in need and by broadening cooperation, would the international community be able to move forward.

SOTOS ZACKHEOS, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cyprus, said today was an important date for the international community: the official initiation of the work of the newly established Human Rights Council was solid proof of the enhanced importance the United Nations attached to the question of human rights. It was hoped that its establishment, whilst preserving the positive legacy of the Commission, would avoid its deficiencies and address the urgent need for monitoring the implementation of the international human rights covenants and conventions, with the aim of accelerating the process of realising the common vision of societies ruled by the rule of law and respect for human rights. The priority was of course to terminate on an urgent basis the most gross systematic violations and emergencies which stirred the world’s conscience. Impunity should come to an end, and the Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be adopted.

These were ambitious and lofty goals, but the debate was led by thorough pragmatists. The deliberations took place in an international environment marked by instability, fear about the future of the multilateral institutions, wars, and armed conflicts, inequality and poverty, and a mistrust of the intentions of the different groups making up the organization. It was expected that the Council would initiate an honest dialogue and cooperation in human rights, away from political controversies, double standards, and the pursuit of narrow national interests. The international community was focussed today on the fight against terrorism, which was a scourge and affront to human dignity and warranted international response and joint efforts, but this fight should not lead to the weakening of the human rights standards and norms that the international community had codified collectively.

YANG JIECHI, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of China, said that today, peace and development remained two primary challenges facing the world. The people of some countries and regions were still in the grip of war, conflict and poverty. More than ever before, the international community was conscious of the fact that peace, development and human rights were indivisible and mutually reinforcing, which, together, formed the foundation of collective security and human well-being. It was incumbent upon all the Member States of the United Nations, and particularly the newly elected members of the Council, to demonstrate political commitment and exert real efforts to make the Council both dynamic and effective. The Council should continue to focus its attention on widespread and gross violations of human rights caused by war and conflicts, and support intensified international efforts to prevent conflicts, rebuild peace and combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations. China would support the Council in continuing to closely monitor the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territory in the interest of early realization of the Palestinian people’s human rights, including the right to self-determination. The enjoyment of human rights by peoples in the developing world was seriously curtailed by poverty, disease and environmental degradation. The Council should urge the international community and United Nations agencies to take effective steps to help countries gain the right to development.

For a long time in its modern history, the Chinese nation had suffered greatly from aggression by imperialist powers, fighting among warlords, turbulence and poverty. That made the Chinese nation keenly aware of the value of peace, development and human rights. At present, the Chinese people enjoyed unprecedented freedom in movement, employment, and access to information, belief, and the choice of way of life, among other things. China had made important contributions to the cause of human rights. China was the world’s largest developing country. It faced numerous problems left over from the past and mounting pressure posed by a vast population, shortage of resources and environmental degradation. That meant that progress in human right and other areas in the country would be a long-term endeavour. In China, development was for the people, the people pursued it, and its fruit was shared among the people. China hoped that the Council would go farther than its predecessor along the right track and make greater contribution to improving the human well-being.

ALEXANDER V. YAKOVENKO, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said that the Russian Federation had no doubts about the need to preserve all the positive results of the work of the Commission on Human Rights in the Human Rights Council. In particular, it considered the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to be a necessary element. Another important component the Council could not do without was the system of special procedures, but that did not exclude a critical review of their role, place and mode of work in order to increase their efficiency and improve their performance. For the Russian Federation, the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the work of the Council was something that was simply unquestionable. The Russian Federation was of the view that the conditions for participation of NGOs in the work of the Commission should be transferred to the Council.

The issue of reforming the United Nations human rights machinery and increasing the effectiveness of its activities was inextricably linked to the issue of qualitative improvement in the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), increasing its transparency and accountability to United Nations Member States, including in equitable geographic representation in the course of staff recruitment. The Russian Federation welcomed the steps taken by the High Commissioner aimed at improving management, rationalizing its structure and clarifying accounting procedures. The Russian Federation reaffirmed its support to the High Commissioner’s mandate and its readiness to support her efforts in the cause of strengthening international cooperation in the area of human rights. The best illustration of that approach was the decision of 17 December 2005 to contribute $ 2 million to the budget of OHCHR. Mr. Yakovenko repeated that in the course of the large-scale reforms that they were undertaking, changes had to occur in the approaches of States, in their attitudes towards the very issue of international cooperation in the field of human rights.

JANUSZ STANCZYK, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Under-Secretary of State of Poland, said that by the inauguration of its work, the Human Rights Council had opened a new chapter in the activity of the United Nations in the field of human rights. All agreed that human rights observance had to be improved, and that those responsible for mass violations of human rights could no longer enjoy impunity. It was up to the Member States of the Council to ensure that it became more credible, more effective, and more responsive to the actual needs of people. The Council had a fundamental role to play in the promotion and protection of human rights: it was supposed to avert serious violations of human rights, and when they did occur, to respond expeditiously and effectively. Another important task of the Council would be to serve as a forum of dialogue to identify structural obstacles undermining human rights, and to elaborate ways to eradicate them.

The Council had been equipped with a variety of tools to implement its mission, prominently including human rights mainstreaming. The strength of the Council would also depend on good cooperation with other partners, mainly non-governmental organizations. One of its most urgent tasks was to elaborate the modalities of the universal periodic review, assessing the fulfilment of human rights commitments by Member States, and this should be tackled as soon as possible. Furthermore, the review of the special procedures should be concluded sooner than within twelve months, as this would send a very positive signal as to the intentions of the Council to be effective and efficient. The new body should adopt a new philosophy: it should abandon confrontation and mutual lecturing, and focus on dialogue, cooperation and the exchange of experience. Dialogue should lead to concrete results, laying the groundwork for authentic progress.

MAHMUD MAMMADQULIYEV, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, said that the Council should focus on the implementation of the obligations and commitments undertaken, as well as on the mandates and mechanisms that needed further scrutiny. The number of resolutions should be reduced to expedient ones, and effective monitoring mechanisms for the implementation of Council decisions should be established, and the General Assembly should not only take note of Council decisions, but should assist in making them workable in reality. Azerbaijan also favoured enhanced interaction between the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which would increase the sense of collective ownership by Members of the overall United Nations human rights machinery. The role of the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights should be reviewed and enhanced.

Mr. Mammadquliyev said that certain urgent human rights issues should be dealt with as pressing issues at this session, to be followed up as part of the programme of work for the first year: armed conflicts, resulting in foreign military occupation, and their implications and consequences on human rights; and the promotion of tolerance and respect for the freedom of religion and belief. Azerbaijan had to articulate that gross and systematic violations of human rights mainly occurred in situations of armed conflict. Azerbaijan was a clear example, when, as a result of the military aggression of neighbouring Armenia, a large part of its territory had fallen under foreign occupation and hundreds of thousands of people had been subjected to a notorious policy of ethnic cleansing and forced to leave their homes to become internally displaced persons and refugees, with a huge number of missing persons. That was the very manifestation of gross human rights violations. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan was not the only country that suffered from such continuing injustice. Members of the Council should not shy away from the difficult issues, but, realizing their common responsibility, they should join in genuine efforts to stand up to the challenges ahead of them.

MARTA ALTOLAGUIRRE LARRAONDO, Under-Secretary for Cooperation at the Ministry of Planning and Programming of Guatemala, said Guatemala recognized the important impact made by the Commission on Human Rights for the promotion and protection of human rights. With much satisfaction, Guatemala welcomed the establishment of the new Human Rights Council. Guatemala was convinced that peace, security, justice and equal opportunities were essential in the promotion and respect of human rights. Effective human rights were fundamental pillars in achieving human and national development. In 1996, Guatemala signed a peace agreement, which ended decades of internal armed conflict and initiated a new step in the promotion of democracy and peace, which became main elements in the designation of the State agenda. That national agenda was strengthened by the adoption last year of a law on the peace agreement, an agenda requiring dynamic and progressive measures in attaining the goals. The process was backed by the participation of public institutions and civil society, particularly the indigenous communities and municipalities.

In the past decade, Guatemala had the United Nations as its major ally; its bodies and the special mechanisms on human rights had assisted the State in building confidence and trust in its endeavours to implement its objectives. Since 2000, Guatemala had maintained a standing invitation to the Commission’s mechanisms and special procedures to visit the country. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples had already visited Guatemala. The Government was willing to extend its cooperation to all mechanisms and special procedures. Guatemala was paying special attention to the strengthening of the rights of indigenous peoples with regard to their economic, social and cultural rights, and non-discrimination. Guatemala would continue supporting the adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the General Assembly.

OSKARAS JUSYS, Under-Secretary of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, said the new Council should embody the new culture in the United Nations human rights protection system. The Council should base its activities on dialogue and cooperation, and should serve as a forum where common solutions were found. These principles were provided in the General Assembly resolution, and now had to find their place in the activities of the Council and real life. The Council was also responsible for not only reacting to serious situations, but also for promoting respect for human rights. This was a great preventative measure which had to be used. The Council would have multiple possibilities in carrying out its tasks. It should be able to incorporate inputs from civil society, and this could only be done by engaging with non-governmental organizations.

More challenges would be faced by the international community while organising the work of the Council. These could only be resolved by joint actions of all Member States, although particular responsibility lay with the members of the Council. However, all States should be engaged: all should feel responsible for the future of the Council and for the future of the whole United Nations human rights protection system, otherwise, a situation could be faced when the universality of the system would be questioned, and this possibility should be avoided by all means. The world looked at the Council with great expectations: indeed, it could change the perception of the international system of human rights protection, and this should result in better protection of the rights of all.

LE VAN BANG, Deputy Foreign Minister of Viet Nam, said the establishment of the Council marked a historic moment, and a new beginning for the United Nations, and the world community expected that human rights would be further protected and promoted in a comprehensive manner henceforth. The effective implementation of the new mechanism would require an unprecedented level of balance, efficiency and good faith by Member States. It was hoped that the Council would make a fresh change, and introduce a new culture of cooperation and mutual understanding in the field of the promotion and protection of human rights. It had to be ensured that the past practices of selectivity, double standards and excessive politicisation would not be repeated at the Council.

Work would have to be done to make sure that the Council would be more cohesive and effective, and that it would not be a forum only for the strong and the rich to condemn the poor and powerless. The Council should promote objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity in all spheres of work. It should be the forum to equally address problems relating not only to civil and political rights, but also to economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development. To make those goals achievable, it was important that all helped to build the Council into a forum for increased cooperation among United Nations members, individually and collectively, a forum where cooperation and dialogue were based on mutual trust and understanding, respect for independence and sovereignty.

Right of Reply

A Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in a right of reply, said that the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regretted the statements made by the Japanese and “South Korean” Ministers, in defiance of the cooperative atmosphere of the discussions. It was Japan who had unresolved issues in its relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, such as the abduction and enslavement of Korean girls and women during its colonial rule. Japan did not acknowledge that historical fact and indeed tried to hide it. As for the “South Korean” allegations, they were confrontational, and it was regrettable that the Minister had failed to distinguish between confrontation and cooperation. That Minister should be held responsible for all consequences arising out of his allegations.

A Representative of the United States, speaking in a right of reply in response to a statement made by Cuba this morning, said that Cuba, rather than explaining how it intended to comply with its pledges, chose instead to engage in gratuitous and unfounded attacks against the United States. Perhaps it was because those pledges sounded hollow, especially in the ears of the Cuban people. The American people needed no one else to speak for them, particularly officials of an autocratic government.

A Representative of Japan, speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the statement of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the abduction issues were not only issues related to the lives and security of Japanese citizens, but were an internationally wrong series of acts, and no satisfactory explanation had been provided by the authorities as to the victims, and Japan could not accept that this issue had been resolved. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea should allow the survivors to return to their countries, conduct an investigation, and turn over those who were responsible. The Government of Japan recognised the facts of history, and had expressed contrition and remorse on several occasions. The history issue was separate from the abduction issue, as this latter was an ongoing violation of human rights, and the two should not be mixed. The figures given by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were not substantiated.

A Representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speaking in a second right of reply, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea categorically rejected the allegations just made by Japan. The number quoted was not unsubstantiated, it was historically documented. The abduction cases had been resolved completely and fundamentally. Japan’s first and foremost obligation now was to settle the crimes against humanity that it had perpetrated in the past, however, Japan had never settled these at all, and it was better for Japan, instead of talking about human rights in other countries, to mind its own business including these crimes against humanity.

A Representative of Cuba, speaking in a right of reply, said Cuba did not have to make promises or pledges as human rights were a concrete reality in the country. He said the abuse suffered by Afro-Descendants in the United States was ongoing, as was the abuse committed in detention centres in Guantanamo and in prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet the United States continued to attack Cuba, when it uttered only truths, which had been stated by the Committee against Torture and other bodies. All the peoples of the world knew what had taken place in Guantanamo and the civilian victims. These were not attacks, they were truths.

A Representative of Japan, speaking in a second right of reply, said he wished to stress that the President of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had accepted the mistake of the abductions and had apologized. The issue had not been resolved. The delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should clearly explain the issue without any distortion.

HRHRC06010E