HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL OPENS FIRST SESSION

The Human Rights Council this morning opened its first session, hearing from the President of the General Assembly, the United Nations Secretary-General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and from a number of dignitaries as it started its high-level segment.

Jan Eliasson, President of the United Nations General Assembly, said they now had a Council that was built on cooperation and dialogue, yet principled and strongly anchored in human rights law. It was a Council that would review all Member States’ fulfilment of their human rights obligations, thereby ensuring equal treatment of all. In their task, the Council should be guided by a spirit of renewed cooperation and of upholding the highest standards of human rights.

Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, said the Council’s work should mark a clean break from the past, and that should be apparent in the way it developed and applied the universal periodic review mechanism; and in its willingness to confront hard issues and engage in difficult discussions, where these were necessary to remedy or to prevent human rights violations. The Council should never be allowed to become caught up in political point-scoring or petty manoeuvres; it should always think of those whose rights were denied.

Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said great hopes had been placed in the new Council, which should herald the way to a new period of affirmation of the ideals and standards of human rights, towards a period that would ensure their effective implementation. When national protection systems failed, the task of the Council was to acknowledge and respond to the despair or the outrage generated by abuse, inequity, and discrimination. It was uniquely positioned to redress the shortcomings of the past, as it was empowered to devise the means that would prevent abuses, protect the most vulnerable, and expose perpetrators.

Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, President of the first session of the Council, said a mechanism of universal and periodic evaluation to know the improvements and more pressing duties every State had in human rights issues should be generated, as this would avoid the excessive politicisation and the use of double standards of which the former Commission was accused. All those who would participate

(more)
in this process should bear in mind that a strong Council could only emerge from the legitimacy it would gain in effectively addressing the demands of men and women who wished for a full respect of their rights.

Wangari Maathi, Nobel Peace Laureate, said it was important to have institutions like the United Nations, and organs such as the Human Rights Council, which could monitor the state of human rights in the world, and ensure that all were protected. With its higher and more active status, the Council should be an effective forum that would also encourage States to honour their pledges to protect, especially the rights of their citizens but also those who found themselves in their jurisdiction.

Speaking under the high-level segment, dignitaries from Switzerland, Colombia, Spain, Nepal, Austria on behalf of the European Union, Argentina, Canada, the Netherlands, Chile, Finland and Romania took the floor.

Speakers urged Member States to fulfil the task they had set themselves, without descending into politicisation, remaining impartial, and always keeping in mind those whose rights were denied. Many speakers also raised the need to move quickly on the Convention on Involuntary Disappearances, and the draft Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Among other issues raised were that of terrorism, and the duty of States to protect their populations, whilst fully respecting the human rights of all. The importance of protecting and promoting the human rights of women was also brought up by several speakers.

Micheline Calmy-Rey, Federal Councillor and Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, said she hoped that it would be possible to create within the Council a space for dialogue, and not for systematic confrontation, when time came to discuss human rights on the multilateral level. It was primordial that during the session, the Convention on Involuntary Disappearances be adopted, and a decision taken on the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Francisco Santos Calderon, Vice-President of Colombia, said the Commission had been marked by ideological polarization, through the excessive politicisation and selectivity in dealing with country situations. The Council should set aside finger pointing in its consideration of human rights.

Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega, First Deputy Prime Minister of Spain, said the new Council had to build on the Commission, as well as being an instrument to implement new ideas in response to new challenges. It had to be more radical in the defence and promotion of human rights, and had to know that those who were the recipients of their work were human beings across the world.

K. P. Sharma Oli, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nepal, said the universal periodic review was one of the most important and innovative features and mechanisms of the Council. The best features of the Commission, such as the special procedures, the treaty bodies, the Sub-Commission, and the participation of non-governmental organizations, should be preserved.

Ursula Plassnik, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Austria, speaking for the European Union, said a Council which became the driving force for a strengthened United Nations human rights system would have to be built, and a lot of work still lay ahead to ensure that it could fully realise its potential. There were two particular human rights challenges that required a response: the first was the situation of women, the other the threat of terrorism.

Jorge Taiana, Minister for External Relations, International Trade and Worship of Argentina, said the first year of the Council would be very important. The Council would have to complete the transition from the Commission and start dealing with substantive questions, guided by the resolution by which it was set up. Any legal gap in protection should be avoided, and the Council should keep the system of procedures, experts and special rapporteurs, advisory services and complaint procedures.

Peter MacKay, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada, said violations of human rights continued to occur throughout the world. Canada believed that the Council had the tools to fulfil its mandate, and there were some significant innovations with the Council that would help to focus on implementation. Chief among them was the universal periodic review mechanism.

Bernard Rudolf Bot, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, said at the core of the Council’s mandate, and hopefully at the heart of its work, would be the assessing and addressing of country-specific situations, and the Council should assess the situation in all countries, whether or not they were members of the Council. The focus should always remain on practical implementation of human rights, and should always include clear, pragmatic and positive recommendations aimed at improving the human rights situation on the ground.

Paulina Veloso, Minister of the Presidency of Chile, said Chile was sure that the Human Rights Council would continue and strengthen its standard-setting function, which had been so significant for the development of the international human rights law. She requested the Council to adopt, in its first session, the Convention on Enforced Disappearances.

Erkki Tuomioja, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, said it was hoped that the Council would provide a forum for dialogue between civilisations to promote the human rights of all, including women, children, and ethnic, religious, sexual and other minorities. To turn this vision into reality, a new human rights culture was needed. The Council should be based on a renewed spirit of genuine partnership and shared responsibility.

Mihai-Razvan Ungureanu, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Romania, said the new Council should respond to the needs of the United Nations system with regards to the new challenges and requirements which had resulted from the evolution of society in the sixty years since the creation of the United Nations.

When the Council reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will continue with its high-level segment.

Opening Statements

JAN ELIASSON, President of the United Nations General Assembly, said that today, they were all part of an historic occasion, the opening of the first session of the Human Rights Council. They were entering a new chapter in the work of the United Nations on human rights. In the days and weeks to come the world would closely follow and scrutinize the Council’s work and its commitment to the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration and the founding resolution, General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006. Today, the world was behind them, supporting them, urging them to live up to that commitment. Mr. Eliasson paid a special tribute to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. His report, “In Larger Freedom”, had reinforced the vision of the United Nations founded on three pillars. To place human rights on the same level as peace and security and development, and to stress the independence of all three pillars, had been an historical contribution to achieve security in a broader sense, a life in dignity to all.

Negotiating the establishment of the Human Rights Council had been a challenge for all of them. Issues of human rights lay at the heart of nations and were particularly sensitive. Members States had felt strongly about certain issues. Ultimately, no Member State had obtained everything it wanted. But – and Mr. Eliasson said that this was critical – they had never compromised on the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration. They had constructed a sharper instrument to promote and protect human rights. They now had a Council that was built on cooperation and dialogue, yet principled and strongly anchored in human rights law. It was a Council that would review all Member States’ fulfilment of their human rights obligations, thereby ensuring equal treatment of all. They had all agreed to build on the strengths of the Commission on Human Rights, such as the non-governmental organization participation and the system of Special Procedures. But they also had to be vigilant of the negative dynamics of the past. In their task, they should be guided by a spirit of renewed cooperation and of upholding the highest standards of human rights.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA, President of the First Session of the Human Rights Council, said almost 60 years ago, with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a long path towards the construction of a system to promote and protect these rights had been begun. What had been achieved so far was not minor, and the best proof of this lay in the importance acquired by human rights and in response to the numerous victims of violations throughout the years. By creating this Council, the international community had the opportunity to enhance that system and, even more so, to bestow upon it a truly universal, fair and balanced character. From now on, human rights were not just going to be a priority in the work of the United Nations: they would also constitute one of its three fundamental pillars. It was time to show with facts how solid these commitments were and to demonstrate unwavering resolve to incorporate all actors of society in this effort.

As of today, a new institution able to respond to the expectations of the world’s peoples was being built. It was a complex task that would certainly require gradual measures, inherent to any transition, but also, and foremost, it provided an opportunity to overcome the deficiencies that contributed to discredit the institutions that preceded this Council. New instruments and working methods would be developed, as it was essential to obtain mechanisms for both the prevention and sanction of human rights violations, working with a mid and long term vision, on the one hand, and responding to emergency situations in a timely fashion, on the other. It was of great importance to agree on a balanced agenda that reflected the will to address all rights in all countries, to identify gaps and to avoid unnecessary duplications to strengthen the existing mechanisms. It was also necessary to improve coordination with bodies and agencies within and outside the United Nations System, and at the same time, to foster the incorporation of a human rights perspective in all their activities. A mechanism of universal and periodic evaluation to know the improvements and more pressing duties every State had in human rights issues should be generated, as this would avoid the excessive politicisation and the use of double standards of which the former Commission was accused.

KOFI ANNAN, Secretary-General of the United Nations, said it was hardly an exaggeration to say that the eyes of the world, especially the eyes of those whose human rights were denied, threatened, or infringed, were turned towards the Council. A great effort had been made by Member States and by civil society world-wide to reach this point, and a new era in the human rights work of the United Nations had been proclaimed. All members should be aware of the hopes that had been raised, and determined not to disappoint. The peoples of the world would be watching to see whether the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights were upheld. It was hoped that within five years the work done would have so clearly established the Human Rights Council’s authority that there would be a general will to amend the Charter, and to elevate it to the status of a Principal Organ of the United Nations. If that ambition was to be realised, the Council’s work should mark a clean break from the past, and that should be apparent in the way it developed and applied the universal periodic review mechanism; in its willingness to confront hard issues and engage in difficult discussions, where these were necessary to remedy – or, even better, to prevent – human rights violations; and in readiness to make good use of its ability to meet more frequently than the Commission did, and to call special sessions. What should be apparent, above all, was a change in culture.

The Secretary-General said whatever its recent shortcomings, the Commission did create many useful mechanisms. These should be retained and strengthened, in particular the system of special procedures, through which the Commission made itself not only the promoter but also the protector of human rights. These mechanisms constituted the frontline troops to protect human rights, and gave early warning of violations. The Commission also bequeathed two vital documents – the draft Convention on Enforced Disappearances and the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and this gave the Council a chance, by considering and approving them at the earliest opportunity, to start your work with a tangible achievement.

The Council should never be allowed to become caught up in political point-scoring or petty manoeuvre; it should always think of those whose rights were denied – whether those rights were civil and political, or economic, social and cultural; whether those people were perishing from brutal treatment by arbitrary rulers, or from ignorance, hunger and disease.

LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that 58 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they were on the threshold of a new era. Great hopes had been placed in the new Council, which should herald the way to a new period of affirmation of the ideals and standards of human rights, towards a period that would ensure their effective implementation. The gradual but unswerving recognition of the rights of the human person would not have been possible without the women and men that had dedicated their lives to their work in pursuit of those ideals. The creation of institutions, such as the Commission of Human Rights and now the Council, gave tangible form to their vision and also displayed that ideals could be not only a source of inspiration, but also a durable heritage for all.

Yet no institution maintained its legitimacy in perpetuity without the driving force and courage of reinvention, Ms. Arbour said. A reinvigorated vision for human rights was at the heart of the Secretary-General’s agenda for reform, which the World Summit had endorsed. They had come a long way in understanding the essential contours of that challenge and in identifying how to address all its ramifications. Today, there could be no doubt that human rights, peace and security, and economic and social development represented the three mutually reinforcing, interlinked pillars of the United Nations, and the prerequisites for the collective well-being. At the national level, effective protection required putting in place institutions to safeguard the rule of law and justice. Yet when national protection systems failed, the task of the Council was to acknowledge and respond to the despair or the outrage generated by abuse, inequity, and discrimination.
The Human Rights Council was uniquely positioned to redress the shortcomings of the past. It was empowered to devise the means that would prevent abuses, protect the most vulnerable, and expose perpetrators. It was incumbent upon all members of the Council to prove its critics wrong and earn the trust invested in the new body. The High Commissioner wished them all fresh inspiration and courage as they held in trust the hopes of the many and the rights of all.

WANGARI MAATHAI, Nobel Peace Laureate 2004, said it was important to have institutions like the United Nations, and organs such as the Human Rights Council, which could monitor the state of human rights in the world, and ensure that all were protected. With its higher and more active status, the Council should be an effective forum that would also encourage States to honour their pledges to protect, especially the rights of their citizens but also those who found themselves in their jurisdiction. That was necessary because even though human rights were guaranteed in many documents and national constitutions, many people still had their rights violated by those who should protect them. Also vulnerable were those whom States felt they had no responsibility towards or that nobody else should interfere with them, such as the internally displaced and those who were trafficked. They were tortured, denied many freedoms and excluded from sharing the national cake.
The challenge to the international community continued to be the lack of will to respect the rule of law and treat all peoples the same under the law. The old vices of greed, corruption, selfishness and blind pursuit for power and all the privileges that came with it, continued to be powerful forces, while the universal values of justice, integrity, compassion and love were scarified. Such a Council should serve to restrain strong nations so that they did not walk all over the weak ones. When there was a feeling of insecurity, there was a tendency to violate the rights of those one perceived as the enemy. Insecurity of individuals within the national boundaries exacerbated the insecurity of that country. Similarly, a feeling of insecurity by any nation threatened the security of the whole world.

Statements Under High-Level Segment

MICHELINE CALMY-REY, Federal Councillor of Switzerland and Head of the Federal Department for Foreign Affairs, said this was a historical moment. Homage should be given to Secretary-General Kofi Annan, as without his courage and vision, the process of reform of the Organization would never have reached this high point. This success by the international community, the United Nations, and all related actors gave rise to the thought that, despite the difficult period that the world was experiencing, nothing was impossible. This major step forward in United Nations history on the protection of human rights was however not fully completed. The general framework had been built, and it now required to be filled in. This would no doubt be a difficult task, but it was believed that it would be possible to create within the Council a space for dialogue, and not for systematic confrontation, when time came to discuss human rights on the multilateral level.

The Council should be the heart of the system, providing impetus, information, decisions and recommendations for all members of the international community. One of its challenges would be in particular to have a direct impact on people’s daily lives, in particular for those whose rights were ignored. In this regard, the role of the special procedures and of the non-governmental organizations was major, as without it the Council would function in a void, disconnected from the reality in the field. The special procedures should also have increased means to fulfil their mandates satisfactorily. During the session opening today, the Council would have to prove that it was capable not only of treating institutional issues, but also substantial issues. It was therefore primordial that during the session, the Convention on Involuntary Disappearances be adopted, and a decision taken on the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Another important theme which the Council would have to take up would be that of the respect of human rights in the fight against terrorism.

FRANCISO SANTOS CALDERON, Vice President of Colombia, said the Commission on Human Rights had developed numerous standards and valid international mechanisms. Its debate on a number of human rights situations and international human rights laws had contributed to the effective protection of the rights of men and women in different countries of the world, which also constituted a fundamental mechanism in advancing the realization of rights and liberties. When the Latin American continent suffered of military dictatorships and repression of freedoms, the Commission had served as a forum in which the immense abuses of many countries were exposed. After overcoming those dictatorships, the societies were now building modern democracies. Human rights were part of the domestic and external policies of those countries.

Within the framework of the Commission, Colombia had set an example by putting in place policies of openness and willingness to the UN system in general and human rights in particular. It had extended standing invitations to the special rapporteurs of human rights mechanisms and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had been running an office in Colombia with the view to developing programmes of cooperation and institutional capacity building. However, the Office did not produce productive work. It had been engaged in finger pointing. The Council should set aside finger pointing in its universal consideration of human rights in many countries. While the international community required the respect for human rights, Colombia was shouldering the responsibilities through by increasing its struggle for democracy and overcoming its deficiencies. The terrorist acts that were perpetrated by the illegal armed group, with a total disregard of the international human rights law, had negatively affected the civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights of many Colombians. However, the State was struggling to reintegrate the 40,000 demobilized individuals into the society and fight impunity.

MARIA TERESA FERNANDEZ DE LA VEGA, Deputy Prime Minister of Spain, said the creation of a new Human Rights Council was a first step, but the second remained to be taken in a concrete way in various areas. The report of the Secretary-General had referred to the importance of offering solutions to the new challenges the international community was facing, and had pointed out the need to combine rights, security and development with a new and multilateral construct which was human security. The new Council had to build on the Commission, as well as being an instrument to implement new ideas in response to new challenges. It had to be more radical in the defence and promotion of human rights, and had to know that those who were the recipients of their work were human beings across the world.

The new Council would have added value, would be a capable institution, and would develop its mechanisms, including early warning and repair, she said. Today was the time when new innovative formulas which would make it possible to have global convergence towards the achievement of the highest level of human rights protection would have to be identified. It was up to each Government to respect its obligations towards its citizens as well as its international commitments. Spain was a country which already had a system of norms and jurisdictional guarantees that protected the broad list of rights and freedoms that were part of its system, but a national human rights plan could carry out new and interesting responsibilities, she said. Spain was committed to attaining the highest standards of human rights also on the international level. There should be a correction of the current asymmetry between rights on the international level. In order to achieve progress and guarantee that the basic objectives of the Conventions and treaties on human rights were achieved, there was a need for a structure to ensure this, and therefore the work of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was fully supported.

K. P. SHARMA OLI, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, said that Nepal welcomed the creation of the Human Rights Council as an important milestone. It illustrated the profound desire of the international community to bring human rights to a new height of global prominence and visibility consistent with the changing times. Nepal believed that the work of the Human Rights Council would be guided by the principles of universality, interdependence, objectivity and non-selectivity, and would be based on genuine international dialogue and cooperation. Nepal thought that the universal periodic review was one of the most important and innovative features and mechanisms of the Council. Also, the best features of the Commission, such as the special procedures, the treaty bodies, the Sub-Commission, and the participation of non-governmental organizations, should be preserved.

One of the urgent priorities of the present Government of Nepal was to seek to restore the international credibility and respectability of Nepal as a country committed to respecting all human rights norms and principles. To realize those objectives, Nepal had already deployed its immediate attention and efforts to initiate administrative, legislative and other necessary reforms relevant to consolidate human rights and to implement them with utmost urgency. Non-governmental organizations and civil societies had also played a very prominent role in defending and advancing the cause of democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the rule of law, in Nepal and elsewhere. Likewise, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Kathmandu established last year had played an important role during the democratic movement.

URSULA PLASSNIK, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Austria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union had demonstrated its full commitment to the establishment of an effective Human Rights Council, and would continue to do so. A Council which became the driving force for a strengthened United Nations human rights system would have to be built, and a lot of work still lay ahead to ensure that it could fully realise its potential. This work comprised several key elements, including building on the positive legacy of the Commission, whilst redressing its short-comings. It should help Member States to address the full range of human rights in a comprehensive manner. The ability of the Council to address promptly and effectively human rights issues and situations as they occurred would be the yardstick that it would be measured by. It would also provide an important forum to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding.

There was no room for complacency until every human being was able to fully enjoy his or her human rights. No State was immune to shortcomings in the field of human rights, and all countries had to face different challenges. This first session would be critical for laying the groundwork, and it was important that it be balanced and constructive. This was a crucial phase of establishing the foundations for the full capacity of the Council, and care should be taken not to overburden it right from the start with issues fraught with divisive international political controversy. There were two particular human rights challenges that required a response: the first was the situation of women, the other the threat of terrorism.

JORGE TAIANA, Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of Argentina, said his presence in the Council today coincided with a very significant and outstanding year for human rights in Argentina. On March 24, in his country and in other countries, they commemorated the thirtieth anniversary of the last military coup, which had ushered in the most and sad episode in Argentina’s contemporary history. The year 1976 marked a turning point not only with respect to the concept of human rights but also with respect to the place human rights occupied in private life and on the political agenda of the country. Starting from the suffering of the most brutal and systematic practice of violations of rights and freedoms the concept of human rights became a collective and historical experience and was incorporated into the society’s daily and institutional language. The fight against the dictatorship was led by relatives of the victims and by different human rights organizations, which were born in those years. They were united by horror and courage, and they gave the most genuine example of selfless, democratic and solidarity defence of human rights. That constant struggle during the dictatorship, which was continued after the restoration of democracy in order to achieve truth and justice, was the most positive element generated into the social fabric, and something that Argentineans were very proud of.

At present, in order to strengthen the international law of human rights, the international community needed to assure the success of the Human Rights Council. The first year of the Council would be very important. The Council would have to complete the transition from the Commission and start dealing with substantive questions, guided by the resolution by which it was set up. Any legal gap in protection should be avoided, and the Council should keep the Commission’s system of procedures, experts and special rapporteurs, advisory services and complaint procedures. The Council should show the international community that the reform was not only cosmetic and that it was really prepared to provide more guarantees of protection to those who required them in any part of the world.

PETER MACKAY, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada, said that human rights were not just an abstract thought or political theory: human rights were about how people lived; about how they could make themselves heard, individually or collectively; about how they participated in governance; and about what they believed and how they manifested that. Human rights touched all aspects of our lives. Yet, violations of those rights continued to occur throughout the world. Canada believed that the Council had the tools to fulfil its mandate. There were some significant innovations with the Council that would help to focus on implementation. Chief among them was the universal periodic review mechanism through which the human rights records of all United Nations Member States would be considered fairly and equally. Canada had been a strong advocate of that process.

They would need to ensure that the Council preserved and built on the strengths of the Commission on Human Rights and its important accomplishments, Mr. Mackay said. Observers had an important role to play. Particularly valuable roles were played by non-governmental organizations and human rights defenders, who were often on the front line of efforts to promote and protect human rights. A new, dynamic, flexible, action-oriented agenda was needed to address all human rights fairly: an agenda that could continue to make progress on long-standing human rights priorities – such as the rights of women and indigenous peoples – but that could respond quickly to emerging thematic and country-specific situations, in a creative and graduated way. Canada would work to ensure that the Council was able to respond to urgent human rights situations and that it maintained a focus on the implementation of the rights that belonged to all citizens.

BERNARD RUDOLF BOT, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, said that today was truly an historic day. The Council made human rights a top priority within the United Nations, on an equal footing with security and development. The new Council clearly had the potential to become a great improvement on the Commission on Human Rights. But practical results, not good intentions, would be the yardstick by which the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Council were measured. At the core of the Council’s mandate, and hopefully at the heart of its work, would be assessing and addressing of country-specific situations. But the Netherlands believed that the focus should always remain on practical implementation of human rights, and should always include clear, pragmatic and positive recommendations aimed at improving the human rights situation on the ground. No country was a human rights paradise, but that did not mean they should not all strive for higher standards.

In his opinion, there were several elements crucial for the success of the universal periodic review system: the Council should assess the human rights situation in every country once every four years; a separate, standing chamber or working group should be created to conduct the reviews so that they would not take up all of the 10 weeks allocated to the Council’s work; the working group should produce a report for each country under scrutiny, based on information from different sources, among others, the Government of the country in question, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and non-governmental organizations; the Council should take a decision based on the report of the working group, which should include conclusions and recommendations aimed at improving the human rights situation in the country under review; and, finally, the working group should closely monitor the implementation of the recommendations.

PAULINA VELOSO, Minister of the Presidency of Chile, said Chile valued the decision that the Council should preserve the strengths of the Commission on Human Rights, particularly with regard to the important work of the special rapporteurs and independent experts, known as the system of special procedures, and it should maintain the ample and active participation of civil society in the preservation and promotion of human rights. Chile also underscored the necessity of increasing the capacity of the multilateral human rights system of responding to emergency situations and favoured the establishment of a universal periodic review mechanism in order to reduce political selectivity in the review of country situations.

Chile was sure that the Human Rights Council would continue and strengthen a standard-setting function, which had been so significant for the development of the international human rights law. She requested the Council to adopt, in its first session, the Convention on Enforced Disappearances, which recognized the right of every person to be protected from enforced disappearance, as well as the right to justice and reparation, and which typified the general and systematic use of enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity, which affirmed the right to know the truth about the circumstances of an enforced disappearance and about the fate of the disappeared person, among other things. Chile wished to stress once against the universality, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights, civil and political or economic, social and cultural rights, and the necessity to attribute equal importance and concern to all of them. Chile was convinced that the combat against intolerance and discrimination based on race, gender, national or social origin, colour or religion or whatever other conditions should be a moral, ethical as well as political imperative for all nations.

ERKKI TUOMIOJA, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland, said the Council was needed to address current human rights challenges, such as a more effective protection of human rights in the combat of terrorism, and contribution towards more balanced globalisation, to name but a few of the challenges. It was hoped that the Council would provide a forum for dialogue between civilisations to promote the human rights of all, including women, children, and ethnic, religious, sexual and other minorities. To turn this vision into reality, a new human rights culture was needed. The Council should be based on a renewed spirit of genuine partnership and shared responsibility.

It was important that the Council make a fresh start. Present challenges for human rights protection necessitated a heightened focus on implementation. The new Council needed to be more practical, and it should be oriented towards ongoing developments and the useful role it could play. Human rights were a political subject, and in the future difficult situations would arise. However, a lot could be achieved by developing new working methods geared towards implementation, dialogue, and, to the greatest extent possible, cooperation. Dealing with country situations was an example. According to the resolution establishing the Council, it had a mandate to address human rights situations, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon. It would be in everyone’s interest to search for innovative ways that would, above all, be useful from the point of view of improving the situation on the ground. It was essential that the Council continue to work in an open and transparent manner, making it possible for all interested parties to follow how the mandate was used. The main focus should be on tangible measures aimed at promoting human rights.

MIHAI-RAZVAN UNGUREANU, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Romania, said a decisive moment had been reached both with regards to the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as for the reaffirmation of the place of the United Nations on the international level. Keeping in mind the importance of the three pillars of the United Nations, namely development, peace and security and human rights, the Member States of the United Nations had the fundamental responsibility to ensure the implementation of the commitments made last September during the World Summit on the Millennium Development Goals for development. The new Council should respond to the needs of the United Nations system with regards to the new challenges and requirements which had resulted from the evolution of society in the sixty years since the creation of the United Nations.

In responding to these challenges, the Member States would admit the fact that the complex problem of human rights had to be addressed through the bias of an effective, flexible and inclusive mechanism, based on cooperation and dialogue as a method of work, and built on assimilation and the exercise of fundamental values of human rights. One of the expectations with regards to the new Council was the creation of a universal mechanism for periodic evaluation which would have the goal of establishing the extent to which all States Member fulfilled their obligations and duties with regards to human rights. It was hoped that this evaluation would help to avoid as much as possible politicisation and selectivity. Its inclusive nature should provide a framework for constructive dialogue between Governments and civil society. The High Commissioner for Human Rights should remain a privileged partner in all work. Democracy guaranteed the possibility to remedy deficiencies and the capacity of appropriate institutions to sanction human rights violations in an equitable and opportune manner.