HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORTS ON MISSIONS TO LEBANON AND ISRAEL BY SPECIAL PROCEDURES

The Human Rights Council this morning discussed a joint report by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, and the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, on their mission to Lebanon and Israel; a report by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food on his mission to Lebanon; and a report by the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity.

Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, presenting the joint report on the mission to Israel and Lebanon, said the report reflected the carefully considered views of four experts, and examined the situation in both Lebanon and Israel, and its principal focus was on the protection of the civilian population, both during and after the conflict. It also specifically addressed the role played by a non-State actor, Hezbollah, and addressed recommendations to it. Mere facts could not capture the terrible human consequences of the conflict, or the magnitude of the human rights violations that resulted. Serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel. Hezbollah had violated humanitarian law in many instances: it did so in some cases by targeting civilian populations and in others by disregarding the principle of distinction.

Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said a certain number of massacres of civilians took place. The crops in the south of Lebanon were practically destroyed, and this was also a violation of humanitarian law. During the war, 1.2 million anti-personnel cluster bombs were dropped, making it practically impossible for the returning population to return to the fields. Serious violations had been committed concerning international law and international humanitarian law. The Rome Court had stated that massacres of civilian populations, the destruction of infrastructure and the use of mines against civilian populations were war crimes. He urged the Israeli Government to hand over the maps showing the locations of the hundreds of thousands of mines and anti-personnel munitions, or peasants and children would continue to die.

A large number of speakers said the Experts who prepared the joint report had stretched their mandate. They said the report was politicized, not objective, and was not proportionate to the huge destruction caused by the Israeli military acts. There was praise given to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food.

Concluding remarks on the presentations were made by all four Experts: Philip Alston; Paul Hunt, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; Walter Kalin, Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons; and Miloon Kothari, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living. The Special Rapporteurs expressed disappointment that so many delegations had expressed negative perceptions with regards to the joint report. Mr. Ziegler welcomed the positive remarks on his report.

Speaking as concerned countries were the representatives of Israel and Lebanon.

The following countries participated in the interactive dialogue on the two reports: Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, Bahrain on behalf of the Arab Group, Egypt, Canada, Switzerland, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, United States, Syria, Morocco, Kuwait, China, Cuba, Indonesia, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Libya, Palestine, Tunisia, Jordan, Sudan, Russian Federation and Chile.

Speaking in right of reply was Lebanon

At the beginning of the meeting, Rudi Muhammad Rizki, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, said the former Commission on Human Rights had emphasised the importance of international solidarity as a vital component of the efforts of developing countries towards the realisation of the right to development of their people and the promotion of the full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights for everyone. Within the context of globalization and the widening gap between developed and developing countries, strengthening international solidarity was necessary for a more just and equitable international order, favourable to the effective realisation of human rights.

In the interactive dialogue on the report on human rights and international solidarity, the following speakers took the floor: Cuba, Argentina, Finland on behalf of the European Union, Indonesia and Ecuador. Also speaking were International Service for Human Rights, and Pax Romana.

The next meeting of the Council will take place at 3 p.m., when it is scheduled to hold a general debate on initiatives, issues, decisions and resolutions.

Report on Human Rights and International Solidarity

The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/96) entitled report of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, which is submitted at the request of the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 2005/55 in which the Commission decided, taking into account the urgent need to further develop guidelines, standards, norms and principles with a view to promoting and protecting rights closely related to the fundamental value of solidarity, to appoint an Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity for a period of three years.

The Commission requested the Independent Expert to study the issue and to prepare a draft declaration on the right of peoples to international solidarity. It further requested the Independent Expert to take into account the outcomes of all major United Nations and other global summits and ministerial meetings in the economic and social fields, as well as to seek views and contributions from Governments, United Nations agencies, other relevant organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the discharge of his or her mandate. The present report contains an overview of the Independent Expert’s approach to the mandate including objectives and methodology (sect. I), preliminary considerations that will be refined and developed in subsequent reports (sect. II) and possible main areas of focus (sect. III), followed by some concluding remarks (sect. IV).

Presentation of Report by Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity

RUDI MUHAMMAD RIZKI, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, said the former Commission on Human Rights had emphasised the importance of international solidarity as a vital component of the efforts of developing countries towards the realisation of the right to development of their people and the promotion of the full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights for everyone. The basic elements of the report included an overview of the Independent Expert’s approach to the mandate, preliminary considerations to be developed in subsequent reports, and possible main areas of focus, followed by some concluding remarks.

Human rights and international solidarity constituted an extremely broad area of research, which still aroused controversy and lacked deep analysis and study. Within the context of globalization and the widening gap between developed and developing countries, strengthening international solidarity was necessary for a more just and equitable international order, favourable to the effective realisation of human rights. The widening gap between the economically developed and developing countries was unsustainable and impeded the realisation of human rights, which made it all the more imperative for every nation, according to its capacities, to make the maximum possible effort to close the gap.

The elaboration of a theoretical basis for the mandate was necessary, given the dearth of research and lack of in-depth analysis done on the subject of international solidarity and human rights. For the purposes of the mandate, Mr. Rizki said, he preferred to use the term global solidarity, as the term international solidarity had acquired a particular connotation in international politics. There were three major areas of focus, which he would like to develop in the course of his mandate. The first area of focus would be international cooperation, which was of essential importance to promote more rapid development of developing countries. The second area of focus would be global responses to natural disasters, diseases and agricultural pests, and to the negative social, economic and environmental consequences of such events and occurrences. The third area of focus would be what the Commission had referred to as “third-generation rights”, which rights, closely related to the fundamental value of solidarity, needed further development within the United Nations human rights machinery, in order to respond to the increasing challenges of international cooperation in this field.

Interactive Debate on Human Rights and International Solidarity

YURI ARIEL GALA LOPEZ (Cuba) thanked Rudi Muhammad Rizki, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, for his useful and complete report, and reiterated Cuba’s support for his important mandate. Solidarity was one of the values recognized in the Millennium Development Goals. Cuba asked the Independent Expert which actions had to be taken to make this value, international solidarity, a clear standard of human rights, and how could this value be inscribed in the right to development or in any other mandatory human rights instrument.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the presentation had been listened to, and for preparing the theoretical basis and analysis mentioned by the Independent Expert, there was a need for a human rights approach. For this theoretical basis, the Council should take account of the two international human rights covenants on economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights, respectively. The task carried out for many years already by the Committee on economic, social and cultural rights, including the General Observations, already contained many elements linked to this theoretical basis. There was also a need for regional instruments on economic, social and cultural rights, and some of these already existed, and these were the elements that would provide a link with how this issue was dealt with within the Council. The intention was to avoid duplication. Apart from a theoretical debate, it was fundamentally important to identify specific practices to help the debate.

ANN MARI FROBERG (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the report and presentation provided a clear view of the methodology of the mandate of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity. International cooperation was crucial to guarantee equal access to the benefits of globalization, but the full realisation of human rights was not contingent on international assistance. States bore the primary responsibility for the protection and promotion of human rights, irrespective of international assistance. Could the Special Rapporteur elaborate on international cooperation and other issues and his approach to these in his future work?

DEDE A. RIFAI (Indonesia) thanked Rudi Muhammad Rizki, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, for his report. Indonesia appreciated the development perspective given in the report, and the need for cooperation among all stakeholders to deal with the growing divide between developed and developing nations. It was important to attain the full realization of the right to development and the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals.

GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador) said the report of the Independent Expert on the issue of international solidarity and human rights was very interesting. This was a complex problem, which presented a direct link between national solidarity and international cooperation. This principle of international cooperation could resolve international problems of an economic and social, as well as cultural and humanitarian nature. International cooperation and solidarity was enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations itself, and therefore Ecuador did not believe that the development of non-industrialised countries lay only in the hands of these countries themselves. International cooperation and solidarity was not an option, it was an obligation, and it should be an internationally binding legal norm.

CHRIS SIDOTI, of International Service for Human Rights, said the consideration of the concept of understanding contained in the report on human rights and international solidarity was fully supported. People, individually and in groups, had a right to international solidarity when their human rights were violated or not fulfilled. International solidarity was a right of people, individually and collectively, and not of States. In addressing the issue of third-generation rights, would the Independent Expert be dealing comprehensively with these in relation to all human rights, and not just some human rights?

BUDI TJAHJONO, of Pax Romana, said that in paragraph 10 of the report by Rudi Muhammad Rizki, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, the Independent Expert intended to relate human rights and international solidarity with the right to development. Pax Romana would like to hear a further explanation from the Independent Expert on the position of the right to development within international solidarity.


Concluding Remarks by Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity

RUDI MUHAMMAD RIZKI, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, responding to the comments from the delegations of Cuba, Argentina, Finland, Indonesia, and Ecuador, said that he would take those comments into serious consideration in finalizing his report. As he mentioned in his report, he had tried to be as comprehensive as possible in taking account of the relevant United Nations instruments and mechanisms. He was grateful for the contributions received so far from the different stakeholders --­­ members of the Council, as well as members of civil society and non-governmental organizations -- which would be very useful for the completion of his final report.

Reports on Missions to Lebanon and Israel

The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/7) entitled report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights of internally displaced persons, and Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, on their mission to Lebanon and Israel, which contains the findings of the four Special Procedure mandate holders concerning how the conduct of the hostilities by Israel and Hezbollah affected the rights to life, health and housing of the civilian population in Lebanon and Israel, as well as the rights of persons internally displaced by the armed conflict. The report also examines the major challenges to the enjoyment of these rights in the aftermath of the conflict.

The Council also has before it a report (A/HRC/2/8) entitled report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, on his mission to Lebanon, which says the mission followed the war that took place from 12 July to 14 August 2006 between Hezbollah and Israel, following Hezbollah’s capture of soldiers in a raid across the border between Israel and Lebanon. The war has had far-reaching effects on the Lebanese population. During the war, a combination of destruction of road and transport infrastructure and repeated denial of safe transit by the Israeli armed forces made it very difficult for humanitarian agencies to transport food and other relief. The forced displacement of a vast number of people from their homes and agricultural lands disrupted normal access to food and left tens of thousands dependent on food aid.

Much farmland has been affected by bombing and will continue to be affected by unexploded bombs that continue to make access to many fields impossible. According to the United Nations Mine-Action Centre, hundreds of thousands of pieces of unexploded ordnance, mostly cluster bombs (anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets indiscriminately over a wide area), will need to be cleared before agriculture can be re-established. The long-term impacts of the war on livelihoods are the key concern today.

Presentation of Reports by Special Procedures on Missions to Lebanon and Israel

PHILIP ALSTON, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, introducing the joint report on the mission to Lebanon and Israel by the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, and the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, said the conflict that erupted in Lebanon and Israel was inevitably seen by many as a test case of the ability of the Human Rights Council to respond promptly, systematically and constructively in carrying out its mandate to address situations of violations of human rights and make recommendations thereon. The joint report reflected the carefully considered views of four experts, and examined the situation in both Lebanon and Israel, and its principal focus was on the protection of the civilian population, both during and after the conflict. It also specifically addressed the role played by a non-State actor, Hezbollah, and addressed recommendations to it. The report was the beginning, rather than the end of a process which was designed to ensure accountability for violations of international legal obligations and to promote respect for human rights in the post-conflict and recovery phase.

Mere facts could not capture the terrible human consequences of the conflict, nor the magnitude of the human rights violations that resulted, the Special Rapporteur said. The experts had concluded that serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel. In many instances, it had failed to distinguish between military and civilian objectives; to fully apply the principle of proportionality; and to take all feasible precautions to minimise civilian injury and damage. For its part, Hezbollah had violated humanitarian law in many instances: it did so in some cases by targeting civilian populations and in others by disregarding the principle of distinction. In addition to the toll of dead and wounded, the consequences of the violations continued to exert great suffering.

The experts’ recommendations could not be read in isolation from the detailed analysis in the report, the Special Rapporteur said. Israel was called upon urgently to provide full details of its use of cluster munitions to facilitate the destruction of the unexploded ordinance and to minimise civilian casualties. Israel should also, among other things, investigate allegations of unequal treatment of Arab citizens of Israel, formalise a policy of not intentionally targeting water and power installations during armed conflicts, and ensure the participation of those affected in reconstruction efforts. Lebanon should develop a comprehensive strategy to assist internally displaced persons and returnees. Hezbollah should publicly affirm the applicability of international humanitarian law to its activities to renounce the targeting of civilians in all circumstances.

The Human Rights Council should, by way of complementing its resolution on Israel’s conduct, ensure a thorough investigation of Hezbollah’s attacks. The Council should also call for urgent international action to ban cluster munitions under international law. The International Commission of Inquiry should examine whether Israeli attacks were always directed against legitimate military objectives, and respected the principle of proportionality; and whether reported attacks against fleeing civilians, ambulances and health facilities, large-scale displacement and the destruction of housing and property amounted to war crimes. The international community should ensure adequate support for Lebanese reconstruction activities, and give priority attention to efforts to address the mental and psychosocial health impacts of the conflict in both countries. The Council should act to avoid a repetition, to ensure accountability, and to encourage rehabilitation and reconstruction.

JEAN ZIEGLER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said that his mission followed the war that took place between 12 July and 14 August 2006 between Hezbollah and Israel, following Hezbollah’s capture of soldiers in a raid across the border between Israel and Lebanon. A certain number of massacres of civilians took place. The crops in the south of Lebanon were practically destroyed, and this was also a violation of humanitarian law. During the war, 1.2 million anti-personnel cluster bombs were dropped, making it practically impossible for the returning population to return to the fields. The United Nations was doing wonderful de-mining work, but only on the roads and in the ruins of towns and villages. The fields and irrigation systems were practically inaccessible due to the hundreds of bombs and mines. The Israeli Government had refused to hand over maps that would have made it possible to more safely de-mine these areas.

As to rights, all of the affirmations in the report which were based on Lebanese documents, both from the Government and civil society, would have to be checked. Serious violations had been committed concerning international law and international humanitarian law. Both Lebanon and Israel had signed the Geneva Conventions. The Rome Court had stated that massacres of civilian populations, the destruction of infrastructure and the use of mines against civilian populations were a war crime. In the first Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, there was an International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, which was created in order to carry out an investigation of this type, and to report to States.

It was up to the perpetrating State to be responsible for civilian infrastructure that had been attacked. All those civilians and civilian businesses who had suffered from economic, social and cultural damage could request individual compensation and reparation from Israel. The Government of Lebanon should declare a moratorium on the debt of farmers and agricultural workers. The harvest for this year had almost entirely been destroyed, and there was no income for the present, and the farmers were falling into the terrible spiral of debt and poverty. The last recommendation, which was urgent, was for the Israeli Government to hand over the maps showing the locations of the hundreds of thousands of mines and anti-personnel munitions, or peasants and children would continue to die.

Statements by Concerned Countries

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel) said that for more than four consecutive weeks this past summer, thousands of missiles packed with thousands of metal ball bearings were intentionally launched by the Hezbollah terrorist organization over northern Israel. As the report of the four Special Rapporteurs correctly described, the conflict resulted from an unprovoked attack emanating from Lebanon and the missiles were fired from its soil. The clear intention was to inflict death and suffering to as many Israelis as possible. Hezbollah’s sinister plan to target Jews specifically was divulged by Hassan Nasrallah himself in an interview broadcast by Al-Manar TV station on 9 August 2006. It was troubling that the report made no reference to the responsibility of Lebanon for acts of hostility prepared and perpetrated within its territory. Israel was not aware of any Lebanese investigation into violations of the law of armed conflict by Hezbollah. It was the duty of the Council and its special mechanisms to portray an accurate picture of the conflict and all parties involved. However, the Rapporteurs undercut any intended censure by making recommendations that Hezbollah further “train its fighters”, somehow insinuating that it could continue to hold weapons and maintain an army.

The report failed to refer to any Lebanese responsibility and made recommendations solely to matters of reconstruction; ignored Security Council resolution 1559 calling for all militias in Lebanon to be disarmed; make a troubling equivalence between the State of Israel and Hezbollah, a non-state terrorist actor; and directed recommendations to Hezbollah, giving unwarranted legitimacy to the organization. The Council should make an unequivocal call for the immediate release of the abducted Israel servicemen. Israel had completed the withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon a few hours before starting Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, last Sunday, thus fulfilling its obligations under Security Council resolution 1701. The Lebanese army and UNFIL were deployed accordingly in South Lebanon. Full responsibility for the security, safely and tranquillity of that region now lay completely on the shoulders of Lebanon.

Referring to the report of Mr. Zeigler, Ambassador Levanon said that in order to give a clearer idea of his position, he wanted to quote two persons. Hassan Nasrallah, as quoted by the Lebanese newspaper Al Safir on 9 April, affirmed that “the Zionist entity is a cancerous growth that we should fight with courage and eradicate from the roots”. The second quote was from Mr. Zeigler himself, as quoted in an interview in the Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar on 18 September, in which he said “I refuse to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. It is a national movement of resistance”. Ambassador Levanon called on the Council to judge for themselves how relevant it was to give the report to a man who advocated on behalf of the illegal activities of a known terrorist group.

GHASSAN MOUNKHEIBER (Lebanon), Member of Lebanese Parliament, said the Lebanese Parliament had asked him to speak on behalf of Lebanon to emphasize how much they, the democratically elected representatives of the people, felt disappointed at the review of the first report submitted by the four Special Rapporteurs, particularly if compared to the second report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. He considered the latter report to be well researched and drafted, incorporating sound recommendations.

The first report rightly found Israel, in many of its sections, guilty of gross violations of the principles of distinction, proportionality and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks. However, it failed to address many other gross violations of international law that amounted, each one on its own count and merit, at least as a war crime. In this respect, Lebanon asked where was the proper analysis and discussion of the deliberate attacks of Israel against the Lebanese civilian population and civilian objects; where was the proper analysis and discussion of the targeting of civilians and civilian objects benefiting from special protection, such as buildings dedicated to religion, education, hospitals, medical units, and transport and personnel using the distinctive emblem of the Geneva Conventions.

Lebanon reaffirmed its dedication and commitment to defend and uphold international human rights law and international humanitarian law standards to the fullest. It called upon the Council not to pre-empt the report that was expected to be submitted by the High Level Commission of Inquiry as well as any other reports submitted by Special Procedure mandate holders related to rights other than those covered by the tabled first and second reports.

GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon), speaking with regards to the report of Mr. Ziegler, said there had been many Israeli atrocities. The Special Rapporteur on the right to food did not divulge a secret in his conclusions and recommendations with regards to the violations. The report was clear and meticulous, listing the violations that amounted to war crimes. The Special Rapporteur had raised the future unemployment of farmers and fishers, as part of the Israeli military legacy. The shortage of food, particularly in remote and isolated villages, worsened with the blockade imposed by Israel, even sheep were not allowed in, a senior UN Humanitarian Officer had told him. Mark Malloch Brown, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, was quite right when he said in a speech that “aid when there is a blockade is like putting someone on life support when there is a foot on his windpipe”. Lebanon was grateful that the report contained recommendations to the Government of the country, as it contained details of the extent of the violations committed by Israel.

Interactive Debate on Missions to Lebanon and Israel

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC did not give full credence to the disclaimer in the joint report of the Special Procedures that their mission was independent of the Commission of Inquiry established by the Human Rights Council on August 11. The Special Rapporteurs seemed to have stretched their mandates to cover the remit of the Inquiry Commission in order to pre-empt and prejudge its conclusions. They acted post haste to give the impression that their findings were more “balanced”. It was also not clear why they excluded their fellow Special Rapporteur on the right to food from the mission. The report was a one-sided narrative. It lacked internal consistency and cohesiveness. It appeared to have been written by several authors and then pieced together. The analysis devoted to health, adequate housing and internal displacement seemed to be relatively fair but it was not reflected in the recommendations.

The report’s conclusions and recommendations fell short of expectations. First, there was an artificial spatial balancing. Second, the report was deferential to Israel, condescending to Lebanon and accusatory towards Hezbollah. The OIC believed that in the case of Lebanon, the principles of distinction between civilians and combatants, prohibition against indiscriminate attacks and proportionality had been violated. The OIC as a whole and OIC Council members had decided to distance themselves from the conclusions of the report, which did not have any operative value, direct or indirect.

ABDULLA ABDULLATIF ABDULLA (Bahrain), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that the Arab Group also associated itself with the statement of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference. The Arab Group welcomed the report by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food on his mission to Lebanon. It was a very objective report and reaffirmed that Israel had to abide by international law and compensate all victims who had suffered damage to their properties during the conflict. Israel had thrown thousands of cluster bombs into Lebanon, in particular during the last 72 hours of the conflict.

Bahrain was astonished by the content of the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights of internally displaced persons, and the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, on their mission to Lebanon and Israel. It was extremely politicized, neither objective nor independent. It tried to pre-empt the results of the Fact-Finding Commission. In consequence, Bahrain could not accept this report.

MAHY ABDEL LATIF (Egypt) said the non-objectivity of the joint report of the four Special Rapporteurs was regretted. The quality of the report on all parties to the conflict, in addition to recommendations delivered mainly to the Lebanese side, ignored the truth and was not proportionate to the huge destruction caused by the Israeli military acts. Over 30 per cent of victims had been innocent children. There had been a list of flagrant violations of international humanitarian law by Israel, including the rights to shelter and even to life. Israel’s targeted destruction of critical infrastructure had been included. Mr. Ziegler was thanked for mentioning in his report Israel’s duty to compensate all those who had suffered from the Israeli attacks.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said Canada was traditionally a supporter of the Special Procedures and it thanked the four Special Rapporteurs for their extensive efforts. Their report explored the breadth of human rights and humanitarian issues that had surfaced during the recent conflict between the terrorist group Hezbollah and Israel. The report included recommendations and Canada looked forward to reviewing them in detail. The international community was now focused on providing assistance for the Lebanese Government to rebuild and address the conditions that had given rise to this new chapter of hostilities in the region. Canada had announced the creation of a $ 25 million Lebanon Relief Fund, in addition to the $ 5.5 million it had already distributed to UN partners and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

JEAN DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) thanked the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights of internally displaced persons, and the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, on their mission to Lebanon and Israel and for their well balanced report. Switzerland asked the Special Rapporteur on the right to health for his comments with reference to paragraph 16 of the report dealing with the link between international humanitarian law and human rights in the context of the right to health.

SEYED KAZEM SAJJADPOUR (Iran) said the report by the four Special Procedures that was being examined had major structural deficiencies: in the mandate, in objectivity, and in the recommendations. The report was biased in the reflection of the realities on the ground in its historical, political, national and regional setting - there was no reference to the two-decades old Israeli occupation of Lebanon. It also did not show the difference between the numbers of victims on both sides, which showed who should be blamed. Views on health, housing, and internal displacement were not adequately reflected in the report. Based on these considerations, the report was rejected. However, the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food was appreciated.

ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said Security Council resolution 1701 had requested Israel to withdraw from Lebanon after 33 days of conflict. The Human Rights Council had also condemned Israel for its aggression and had requested Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. During the conflict, Israel had inflicted damage to the infrastructures of Lebanon, in addition to killing Lebanese citizens. Israel should be obliged to compensate the victims of the aggression and repair the damages it had caused. The report had attributed the responsibility of the aggression to both sides, which was unacceptable.

MUSTAFISUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) thanked the Special Rapporteurs for their reports. Bangladesh appreciated the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food on his mission to Lebanon for its objectivity and recommendations that dealt with the implementation of the right to food and with reconstruction. On the other hand, the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, and the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, barely contained in its recommendations references to the issues covered in their mandates.

Bangladesh wished to know whether other missions would be undertaken by other Special Rapporteurs to Lebanon; why was Mr. Ziegler not included in the team of the other four Special Rapporteurs; who had financed the joint mission to Lebanon and Israel; and why didn’t the joint report respect objectivity and proportionality upon reporting on the situation in Lebanon and Israel as a result of the conflict.

HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) said having studied the reports of the Special Rapporteurs on their mission, and having listened to the statement of Lebanon, Malaysia fully associated itself with the statement of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference. In the joint mission, the Special Rapporteurs seemed to have stretched their mandates. The Special Rapporteur on the right to food should have been included in the mission. The review of the reports brought the conclusion that two different standards had been used to judge the actions of Israel and Hezbollah. The conclusions and recommendations made by the Special Rapporteurs in their joint report were also of concern, as they were made in an effort to strike a balance in a situation where a balance could not be struck, and they were therefore misleading. Malaysia joined other countries from the Organization of Islamic Conference and distanced itself from the conclusions in the report.

NAJLA AL QASSIMI (United Arab Emirates) said Israel aggressed Lebanon for 33 days, which was by any account unacceptable. The use of force against a State could not create an improved situation in the region. The invasion of Lebanon did not enable Israel to free its two kidnapped soldiers. Israel had targeted the civilian population and vital infrastructures; it had also created obstacles to the movement of goods and people, which had seriously affected the economic situation of the country. Israel should be held responsible for the reparation of the damage caused in Lebanon.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said that the human suffering on both sides was a tragedy, and the United States Government remained committed to stand with the people of Israel and contribute to its reconstruction. The United States did not support the holding of the Council’s Special Session on Lebanon as it failed to condemn the acts of Hezbollah, including the launching of more than 3,000 rockets into Israel. It was beyond the scope of the Council to tackle complex questions of international humanitarian law, or render opinion on whether they complied with the laws in armed conflicts.

KHALIT BITAR (Syria) said all knew the people of Lebanon had suffered cruelly during the latest Israeli aggression, due to the intense shelling of Lebanese infrastructure, which did not even spare the United Nations. This shelling used the most devastating weapons against helpless women, children, and the elderly. Twenty-seven Syrians were also killed in a massacre on the 27 July, while Israel knew it was shelling innocent civilians. Until today, the consequences of this conflict remained, with cluster bombs continuing to take the lives of children. Israel continued to kill, heedless of the international community, and it was time for the international community to take action, ensuring that Israel paid compensation. It was unacceptable, when looking at the Israeli human rights violations in Lebanon, to equate the occupier and the victim, and the resistance, which was trying to ward off foreign invasion. The report alleged Hezbollah used missiles of Syrian origin, and this was not true. Including such allegations in a report that should concentrate on humanitarian issues caused concern.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said the report had exposed the magnitude of the damage perpetrated and the harm done to Lebanon. Morocco regretted the approach of the joint report. The people of Lebanon had suffered on the hands of Israel which had committed grave human rights violations in the region. Israel was responsible for the damage committed and for the suffering of the Lebanese people.

NAJEEB AL-BADER (Kuwait) said that Kuwait had considered the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food on his mission to Lebanon with attention. This report gave an accurate portrayal of the gross violations committed by Israel in Lebanon. Israel was responsible for violations to the right to food of Lebanese civilians, and it had to compensate civilians for any losses incurred by the population to their livelihoods.

With reference to the joint report, it did not reflect the bitter suffering of the Lebanese people and the serious violations committed by Israel.

LA YIFAN (China) said the joint report by the Special Procedures was noted. The conflict which took place in mid-July caused huge humanitarian damage, with wounded and displaced persons and shortages of food and fuel. It had also caused huge economic and environmental damage. A large amount of unexploded cluster bombs were still endangering the lives of civilians. The solution lay in negotiations - a military solution would not solve the Middle East problem. The Government of China was dedicated to peace and stability in the Middle East region, and had sent an envoy to work with both sides. The Chinese Government had also decided to send 1,000 troops to join peace-keeping operations in Lebanon, and urged the international community to make every effort to solve the situation.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said the joint report did not meet the expectations of the Council. Israel had aggressed Lebanon while Hezbollah had been resisting the invasion. Cuba asked why the Special Rapporteur of the right to food was not part of the mission. Cuba rejected some insinuations being manifested in the Council. Cuba appreciated the objectivity of the Special Reporter on the right to food.

WIWIEK SETYAWATI (Indonesia) said that Indonesia shared the concern of the Lebanese Ambassador with regard to a number of elements in the report of the joint mission to Lebanon and Israel, in particular recommendations given to various actors, including the Governments of Israel and Lebanon. Indonesia contended that these recommendations did not give a sufficiently impartial and balanced view of the various parties’ respective situations, both during and after the conflict, or of their respective capabilities in the face of the damage each had suffered. After three weeks of non-stop bombing of its towns, civilians, and infrastructure, Lebanon was a flattened and crippled country. The same could hardly be said of Israel. Therefore, the same yardstick could not be used in the various prescriptions applied to each of them. Aside from its unbalanced approach, the present report unfortunately detracted from any future work by the High-Level Commission of Inquiry.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) said the joint report and the Ziegler report had reached completely contradictory conclusions on the situation in Lebanon, although the facts in the field could not be two-fold. This raised questions on the criteria used by the various Special Rapporteurs on the issue. This made it incumbent on the Council to adopt standards to be used in the work of all Special Rapporteurs so that different positions were not reached, which would make the Council far from truly defending human rights whenever there was a violation of the rights of Arab and Muslim people and the need to resist these violations, even when they were committed by Israel. The report was ambiguous and over-generalising with regards to Israel, but made very serious and more specific accusations against Hezbollah. It was impossible to equate the responsibility of the invader and the victim, of a militarised State and a simple resistance force. The conclusions of the joint report were rejected, but the investigations of the report on the right to food were supported.

TAPANI KIVELA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union was concerned at the shocking number of civilian casualties and human suffering caused by the conflict as well as the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure and the huge number of displaced persons. Now it was important to pave the way for early recovery and reconstruction. The European Union had already committed to save and preserve the lives of the populations affected by the crisis in Lebanon. It counted on Israel’s cooperation in order to locate mines in Lebanon. The Special Rapporteurs on housing and health were asked how they assessed the current focus of the reconstruction and humanitarian efforts from the point of view of the economic, social and cultural rights of the population in Lebanon and what were the primary actions that should be taken in order to assure the full enjoyment of the economic, social and cultural rights of the Israeli population affected by the conflict.

SEYMUR MARDALIYEV (Azerbaijan) associated Azerbaijan with the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, and expressed concern over the deficiencies of the joint report on the mission to Lebanon and Israel. The report’s conclusions and recommendations fell short of expectations since there was an artificial and misleading balancing that in turn put the objectivity and impartiality of the report in doubt. It was also regretful that the Special Rapporteur on the right to food was not enabled to visit Israel to examine the situation of the right to food of the affected Israeli population.

FAWZI ABUSAA (Libya) said the report of Mr. Ziegler was objective and based on his mandate, and the report was appreciated, as it spoke of the extent of the destruction perpetrated by Israel and the effect of the conflict on Lebanese livelihoods. The recommendations considered Israel responsible for the violation of the right to food, and it was therefore responsible for compensating the victims and repairing their livelihoods. The joint report had deficiencies and the recommendations were not in line with the rest of the report: they were clearly biased and had double standards. The Special Rapporteurs had gone beyond their mandate, encroaching on the mandate of the Special Commission of Inquiry.

MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine) said that those who resisted occupation were heroes and their name would be remembered in history, while those who occupied were terrorists. If Israel wanted peace, it should end its occupation of Lebanese territories and should free Lebanese citizens it was detaining. It should also leave the Golan Heights and Palestine so that the region could live in peace.

SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia) associated Tunisia with the statements of Bahrain and Pakistan on behalf of the Arab Group and the Organization of Islamic Conference respectively. Tunisia underlined the commitment of the Council, under paragraph four of its founding resolution, to objectivity and impartiality to assure the protection of all human rights. Unfortunately, the joint report to Lebanon and Israel was not objective. In addition, Tunisia thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for his mission to Lebanon for his objective and impartial report.

MOUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan) said the report of the Special Rapporteurs was a dilemma. The mandate of the four Special Rapporteurs was to see how the conduct of the hostilities had affected the rights and the life, health and housing of the civilian populations in Lebanon and Israel as well as the rights of persons internally displaced by the armed conflict, but it devoted considerable space to the issue of accountability and responsibility. This raised the questions of whether the issue of whether deciding the extent and magnitude of each of the two protagonists lay within the purview of the Council; whether it was true that the exercise purported to rectify an alleged imbalance in the resolution adopted by the Council on the Israeli war; whether it was true that the conclusions in the report aimed at pre-empting the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission formed by the Council to investigate Israel’s systematic targeting of civilian populations; and whether it was correct to conclude that the report was intended mainly to camouflage a political agenda under the veneer of humanitarian cause.
ILHAM AMHED (Sudan) said that Israel’s refusal to allow the Rapporteur on the right to food to visit the country violated relevant resolutions of the Council and the Security Council. Israel had used cluster bombs against civilians and it should not enjoy impunity. The joint report by the four Special Procedures was not objective. The United Nations was based on the principle of non-aggression and the Council should take into consideration that principle.

SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation) thanked all of the Experts for their reports. The Russian Federation shared the opinions expressed by Pakistan and suggested the four Experts responsible for the joint report should balance out their assessment of facts. The Russian Federation considered that the report lacked objectivity. In contrast, the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food on his mission to Lebanon was objective and the recommendations were of high quality. The Russian Federation expressed concern over the refusal of Israel to cooperate with this special procedure. It called upon all concerned parties, with the assistance of the international community, to reach a peaceful settlement in the region.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said it was timely at this stage to remind all of the words of Pope John Paul II, who had said Lebanon was more than a State, more than a nation, but was a message of hope, faith, tolerance, integration, and love of country. That message, through the children of Lebanon and their descendants in all parts of the world should have been heard more clearly, in which case there would not have been tanks to destroy it. War had had a major impact on Chile, which had made repeated appeals for a cease-fire, condemning disproportionate use of force and the loss of lives. The visit of the four Special Rapporteurs was a sign of the work being done by the Special Procedures mechanism to comply with the examination of specific situations of human rights violations in the field. The report of the Commission of Inquiry was also expected.

Concluding Remarks by the Special Procedures

PHILIP ALSTON, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, responding to comments and questions, said that they had carried out their mission according to the mandates given to them. Their report focused on the situation of the war and reflected the reality. He considered as without foundation the allegations that the four Special Procedures had attempted to pre-empt the conclusions of the International Commission of Inquiry.

PAUL HUNT, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, in answering questions from the floor, said that he was somewhat puzzled by the response of some delegations to their joint report. A close consideration showed that both reports had a great deal in common. He welcomed the statement of Pakistan referring to the treatment of the right to health in the report as relatively fair. With reference to the representative of Lebanon lamenting that the joint report did not address attacks on hospitals and medical units, Paul Hunt said that this had been addressed in paragraph 47. Likewise, reference on the bombardment of electricity plants was actually in paragraph 92 of the report. Lastly, on a question by Switzerland on the complementarily between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, Mr. Hunt said that international humanitarian law, for instance, had detailed provision on the protection of ambulances and medical convoys, and therefore deepened human right laws. On the other hand, international human rights law had much to teach, so to speak, international humanitarian law about discrimination, equality and vulnerability.

WALTER KALIN, Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, said it was unfortunate but unavoidable that the report had been made available to delegations very late. Delegations were urged not to rely on drafts that might have been circulated, but on the final version of the report. There were some comments from delegations on quotes that were not in the report. As to the question from the European Union and the remarks from several that the issue of internally displaced persons had not been adequately reflected in the recommendations, in Israel, most of the displaced persons had been able to go back. The recommendation in this regard was to be better prepared in the future for such problems. As regards Lebanon, there were six or seven recommendations in paragraph 104, which addressed issues of internal displacement, including the challenges that needed to be addressed, including the problem of unexploded ordinance, particularly in the South, which made it impossible for so many internally displaced persons to go home.

MILOON KOTHARI, Special Rapporteur to the right to adequate housing, said that the task of working collectively was a responsibly of all in order to improve the housing situation in the region. In Lebanon, there were thousands of people living in shelters that lacked water and other facilities. Much had to be done to remove the problem that Lebanon faced. All should work collectively in order to help those living in a post-conflict situation in both sides.

JEAN ZIEGLER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said he thanked all those who had supported the report and made comments on it. Three questions had been asked: the European Union had asked what needed to be done to protect the right to food now. All specialised agencies of the United Nations should be asked by all States not to leave Lebanon. The Lebanese Government was very concerned about this, as the humanitarian situation had not ended, and there were thousands of families who were confronted with a disaster. The humanitarian organizations of the United Nations and all other organizations should remain in the area. They should not leave Lebanon, and should continue to provide assistance. All should urge the United Nations to this effect. If nothing happened, humanitarian assistance would end next week, and that would be catastrophic for the victims of the war.

The Ambassador of Israel had made an intervention which the Special Rapporteur had not quite understood, and the Special Rapporteur believed the Ambassador wished to discredit his report. The Special Rapporteur could not respond to comments, but with regards to the text, in any democratic country such as Lebanon, when the Special Rapporteur carried out a mission, the rules of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was that he respond to questions posed by the press, and the Special Rapporteur had done this at the end of his mission, but he had not given any interview or provided any text. He had discussed the war with the Minister of Agriculture of the Government of Lebanon, and this Minister was a member of Hezbollah, which was a democratic legal party in Lebanon.

The mission of Lebanon was encouraged to seek reparation for the victims of the war, Mr. Ziegler concluded.

Right of Reply

GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon), exercising a right of reply, said that Lebanon was used to stereotypes. Therefore, he would focus instead on references made by the Representative of Israel. It was regretful that the statements as well as the joint report of the four Rapporteurs did not contain accurate figures about the bombs and shells that had been used against Lebanon. A UN official had stated that 2.8 million individual bomblets had been thrown, amongst them 1.2 million unexploded submunitions. There were 15,000 Israeli air raids against Lebanon during this operation. The deliberate use of cluster bombs against civilians amounted to a war crime. As for security, it lay in Israel abandoning its occupation policy and accepting just and comprehensive peace for all in the region.

GHASSAN MOUKHEIBER (Lebanon), speaking in a continuation of the right of reply, said there was a conflict between what was legal and what was political. The comments made in the name of the Lebanese delegation were focusing on the different approach which he could have wished the report to follow. The question was simply focusing on the re-statement of war crimes as included in the Rome Statute rather than simply focusing on the proportionality of indiscriminate attacks.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06058E