COUNCIL ADOPTS TEXTS ON FOLLOW-UP TO RESOLUTIONS ON MISSIONS TO OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY; REVIEW OF MANDATES
The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted a resolution in which it called for the implementation of its resolutions and the dispatch of two urgent fact-finding missions to the occupied Palestinian territory. It also adopted a resolution in which it requested the Coordinating Committee of the Special Procedures to extend until the closure of the fifth session of the Council the deadline for the submission of comments on and inputs to the draft manual of Special Procedures; and requested the Working Group on the Review of Mandates to present to the fifth session the outcome of its deliberations on the code of conduct regulating the work of the Special Procedures.
In the resolution on the follow-up to the Human Rights Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, adopted without a vote, the Council, noting with regret that Israel, the occupying power, had not implemented to date these two resolutions and hindered the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions specified therein, called for the implementation of its resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, including the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions. It also requested the President of the Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council at its fifth session on their efforts for the implementation of the resolutions and on the compliance of Israel.
In the resolution on the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Review of Mandates, adopted without a vote, the Council requested the Coordinating Committee of the Special Procedures to extend until the closure of the fifth session of the Human Rights Council, which would be held from 11 to 18 June 2007, the deadline for the submission of comments on and inputs to the draft manual of Special Procedures. It also requested the Working Group to present to the fifth session of the Human Rights Council the outcome of its deliberations on the code of conduct regulating the work of the Special Procedures.
Speaking on the resolutions were Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab Group, Israel, Palestine, Netherlands, Germany on behalf of the European Union, Canada and Algeria.
The Council also took up the reports of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston; the Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, Peter Kasanda; and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou Diene.
Introducing his report, Mr. Alston said the role of the Special Rapporteur was a year-round one and the challenge was to devise ways of ensuring adequate attention was given to countries that did not cooperate or could not be visited due to lack of resources. Communications should not become a paper-chase; reports should not hesitate to address the situation in countries that did not cooperate; missions should not be isolated undertakings and systematic follow-up was essential; assisting development of jurisprudence was a key role of the rapporteur. This analysis had informed his report.
Mr. Kasanda said at its last session, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent had devoted its attention to submitting recommendations on the design, implementation and enforcement of effective measures to eliminate racial profiling that affected people of African descent and Africans in all parts of the world. The existence and prevalence of the problem of racial profiling had been acknowledged worldwide. Numerous studies had been made about the phenomenon. Racial profiling had been recognised as a specific problem as a result of the systematic and historic targeting of certain groups.
Mr. Diene said the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance was facing several challenges like the increase of racist violence against national minorities and ethnic communities, the criminalization of immigration questions and the general rise of the defamation of religions, among others. The Special Rapporteur mentioned three dire developments, legitimising the rise of racism and xenophobia. The first development was about the political and democratic legitimisation of racist and xenophobe parties and movements. The second development concerned the rise of racism of elites, where the most important example could be found in France with declarations and publications that were openly racist and xenophobic. The third alarming development was the rise of revisionism.
Speaking as concerned countries were Guatemala, Philippines, Switzerland and Italy.
The United States, Azerbaijan and Belarus spoke in right of reply.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue on the reports of its Special Procedures on the freedom of religion or belief, the freedom of opinion and expression, and on arbitrary detention.
Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief, in concluding remarks, said freedom of conversion was part of the freedom of religion, unless elements of coercion were included. The mandate received a long number of violations, and she emphasised that violent acts, even in the name of religion, could not be grounds for impunity. Governments were encouraged to present opportunities to these groups so that they could disengage themselves from those controlling their lives.
Ambeyi Ligabo, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, responding, said criminalization of the media would not help to promote freedom of expression. The media should be able to self regulate. Regarding state versus non-state actors, there was no distinction in the report. State actors were also required to uphold relevant human rights. On the safety of journalists, he was ready to undertake a study on this and look at root causes of violence against them and protection of them.
Leila Zerrougui, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, concluding, said concerning the protection of people in international transfers and the possibility of transferring people allowing them to be protected against torture, there had been more and more countries ratifying conventions for it. Persons suspected of terrorism must be brought before a judge, but within the framework of national law.
Speaking on the freedom of belief, freedom of expression and on arbitrary detention were the following non-governmental organizations: Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Fraternité Notre Dame, Reporters Without Borders International, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, Defence for Children International, Centrist Democratic International, Federation of Cuban Women, International Buddhist Foundation, Federation of Women and Family Planning, and Interfaith International.
When the Council meets at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 28 March, it will continue its consideration of the reports on extrajudicial executions, people of African descent and racial discrimination, before taking up reports on human rights and transnational corporations, the right to health and human rights defenders.
Action on Resolution on Follow-Up to Council’s Resolutions Concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory
In a resolution (A/HRC/4/L.2) on the Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: follow-up to the Human Rights Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, adopted without a vote, the Council, noting with regret that Israel, the occupying power, has not implemented to date these two resolutions and hindered the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions specified therein, calls for the implementation of its resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, including the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions; and requests the President of the Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council at its fifth session on their efforts for the implementation of Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 and on the compliance of Israel, the occupying Power, with these two resolutions.
Introduction of Resolution on Missions to Occupied Palestinian Territory
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab Group, presenting draft resolution L.2, said resolution S/1 had been adopted by the first special session of the Human Rights Council. In it, the Council had decided to dispatch an urgent fact-finding mission headed by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, to report on the situation of the Palestinian people. The Council had also decided in resolution S-3/1 to dispatch a high-level mission to investigate the situation in Beit Hanoun, and to suggest ways and means of protecting Palestinian civilians from further assault. Last week, Mr. John Dugard, who was to have headed this mission, and Professor Christine Chinkin, who was to have been on the second mission, had told the Council how they had not been able to accomplish their missions. It was the goal of the Council to ensure the implementation in full of all its resolutions. It was hoped the Council would adopt draft resolution L.2 by consensus.
Statements by Concerned Countries
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said that resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 were prominent examples of selectivity, politicization and double standards. In conspicuous contrast to the broad, inclusive and intentionally vague language in the operative paragraphs of another resolution, which had been adopted by consensus, the language of those two resolutions was narrow, restrictive and very precisely delineated. Israel was never opposed to engagement with the international community through dialogue and consultation, rather the imposition of inequitable and unbalanced resolutions. Should the sponsors of those resolutions adhere to the Council’s stated goals of impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, Israel could assure them that there would be a commensurate shift in the Israeli approach to engagement as well. The adoption of the resolution contained in document L.2 was in marked contrast to the wish delegations had expressed to see the Council changing its course for the better. Israel urged delegations to consider that in casting their votes.
MOHAMMED ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, said Palestine renounced its right to speak as a concerned country and that aligned itself with the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union.
Other Statements on Missions to Occupied Palestinian Territory
MICHAEL STEINER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in a general comment, said the European Union remained concerned at the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and had repeatedly called on both sides to protect civilian life. The European Union had not been able to support Council resolutions S-1/1 an S-3/1, as they had not called for a cessation of the violence from both sides. But the need for full cooperation with the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council was a matter of principle. The European Union asked that the President propose the adoption of draft resolution L.2 without a vote.
GWYNETH KUTZ (Canada), in an explanation after adoption of the text, said Canada supported the substantive principle of the Council, and urged all parties to cooperate with the Council and its mechanisms. The Council had the important task of ensuring that when it took on situations, it did so in a fair way, taking into account the actions of all parties involved. The capacity of the Council to influence behaviour was a function of its standing, which was itself based on the standing of its resolutions. When taking decisions, the Council should be mindful of the call in General Assembly resolution 60/251 for universality, equality, and non-selectivity.
Had the previous resolutions been more even-handed and objective, then Canada would have supported them. However, endorsing follow-up compounded the original problem. The Council would have to move beyond scrutiny of one country. Canada disassociated itself from the Council’s decision in this regard.
BOUDEWIJN VAN EENENNAAM (Netherlands), in an explanation after adoption of the text, said the outcome of the Council's special sessions did not constitute a balanced approach, but the Netherlands joined in the decision to show support for the need for all States to cooperate with Council decisions.
Action on Resolution on the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Review of Mandates
In a resolution (A/HRC/4/L.6) on Intergovernmental Working Group on the Review of Mandates, adopted without a vote, the Council requests the Coordinating Committee of the Special Procedures to extend until the closure of the fifth session of the Human Rights Council, which will be held from 11 to 18 June 2007, the deadline for the submission of comments on and inputs to the draft manual of special procedures; also requests the Working Group to present to the fifth session of the Human Rights Council the outcome of its deliberations on the code of conduct regulating the work of the special procedures.
Introduction of Resolution
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), introducing draft resolution L.6, said if a progress report were to be given, then it would have to be said that there had been no progress, and that that was entirely due to the authors’ fault, namely the African Group, as it had taken them far longer than planned to draw up a draft code of conduct. As that had only taken place a short while ago, there had then been no time to discuss the issue in the Working Group. The resolution before them now was purely pro forma, indicating that there was a need to postpone the submission of comments until later. The Chair of the Coordinating Committee was agreeable to that result. The work would be submitted to the Working Group during the inter-sessional session, and presented to the Council at a later session.
Statements on Resolution on Review of Mandates
MICHAEL STEINER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union in a general comment, said that the European Union had not supported the decision taken in the Council's second session. However, the European Union had accepted the decision taken by the Human Rights Council to that effect. The European Union regarded draft resolution L.6 now before the Council as a purely procedural follow-up to that decision. It was under that understanding that the European Union would not break consensus on resolution L.6.
JOANNE LEVASSEUR (Canada), speaking in an explanation, said the work of the intergovernmental Working Group on reviewing mandates had emerged out of consensus on reviewing human rights. Canada considered this an opportunity to review Special Procedures and set up a system that was as comprehensive as possible. The Working Group must conserve and strengthen the independence of Special Procedures, but Canada was concerned about a code of conduct that would hinder the effectiveness of Special Procedures in carrying out their mandates. Special Procedures should be able to hold free discussions on areas within their mandate, including with the media, without restraint.
Reports before the Council
The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston (A/HRC/4/20 and Add.1-3), which details the principal activities of the Special Rapporteur in 2006. It also examines four issues of particular importance and sets out the Special Rapporteur's views. On the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in armed conflicts, the Rapporteur rejects the notion that matters arising in the context of armed conflict are beyond the purview of the Special Rapporteur and of the Human Rights Council itself. With respect to "mercy killings" in armed conflict, he emphasizes the prohibition under international humanitarian law of killing those who have laid down their arms or have been placed hors de combat, which must be resolutely upheld. Regarding the requirement of human rights law that the death penalty should be imposed only for the "most serious crimes", the Special Rapporteur affirms that the death penalty can only be imposed in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life. As to mandatory death sentences, the Rapporteur says that individualized sentencing by the judiciary is required in order to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and the arbitrary deprivation of life.
A second addendum provides a report of the Rapporteur's visit to Guatemala, which he says is afflicted by social cleansing, the rapidly rising killing of women, lynching, the killing of persons for their sexual identity or orientation, the killing of human rights defenders, and prison violence. There is strong evidence that executions of gang members and other "undesirables" are committed by police, and that killings by prison inmates have been facilitated by guards. The report emphasizes the need for the Government and society of Guatemala to take control of its future. A third addendum contains the preliminary note of the Special Rapporteur's visit to the Philippines, prompted by reports of a large number of extrajudicial killings, especially of leftist activists and journalists, over the past six years or so. It notes that the consequences of a failure to end extrajudicial killings in the Philippines will be dire. [A/HRC/4/20/Add.1 not immediately available]
The Council has before it the note verbale dated 19 February 2007 from Australia addressed to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/4/G/1), which contains the Australian Government's response to the request for information from the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Mr. Philip Alston, concerning the death in custody of Cameron Doomadgee (Mulrunji), including the results of various investigations under way, detailed information on any penal or disciplinary sanctions that were imposed, and information relating to any compensation provided to the family of Mulrunji.
The Council has before it the report of the Working Group of Experts on People
of African Descent on its sixth session (Geneva, 29 January-2 February 2007) (A/HRC/4/39), by its Chairperson-Rapporteur, Peter Lesa Kasanda. At its sixth session, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent examined the theme of racial profiling. The Working Group acknowledged that racial profiling is a violation of the right to non-discrimination and recalled that international and regional norms make clear that racial discrimination in the administration of justice is unlawful. The Working Group urged States to clearly define and adopt explicit legislative provisions banning racial profiling; to take positive action to secure the real participation of people of African descent and other vulnerable groups at all levels throughout law enforcement agencies; and invited States to establish disaggregated data collection and oversight mechanisms to combat racial profiling. The Working Group also welcomed the General Assembly decision to convene in 2009 a review conference on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.
The Council has before it the report submitted by Mr. Doudou Diène, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (A/HRC/4/19 and Add.2 and Add.4), which says efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance encounter a number of serious major challenges manifested by worrying trends, including the resurgence of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia and their violent manifestations; the growing "democratic legitimization" of racism and xenophobia, demonstrated by the spread of racist and xenophobic political platforms and by their implementation through alliances with Governments; the criminalization of and the exclusively security-based approach to immigration, asylum seekers and the status of foreigners and national minorities; the general increase in the defamation of religions and racial and religious hatred, in particular anti-Semitism and Christianophobia, and more particularly, Islamophobia; and the increase in violent manifestations of racism in sport, in particular, football. To reverse these worrying trends, the Special Rapporteur is continuing to promote the development of a dual strategy – political and legal on the one hand, and cultural and ethical on the other – in order to identify their root causes. The political strategy aims to arouse and strengthen the political will of States to combat racism; and the legal strategy to enable States to adopt the appropriate mechanisms for that purpose in line with the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. The cultural and ethical strategy must target root causes of xenophobic attitudes and culture, particular identity constructs, foster acceptance of diversity and meet the central challenge of multiculturalism to promote coexistence in societies.
A second addendum to the report (A/HRC/4/19/Add.2) contains the report of the Rapporteur's visit to Switzerland in January 2006, which concludes that there is a dynamic of racism and xenophobia in Switzerland. There is deep-rooted cultural resistance within Swiss society to the multiculturalization process, especially where persons of south-eastern European and non-European origin are concerned, and a growing prevalence of racist and xenophobic stances in political programmes and discourse. The Special Rapporteur's recommends development of a national programme of action against racism and xenophobia comprising national legislation for this purpose and a cultural and ethical strategy for the long-term construction of a multicultural society.
A fourth addendum contains the report of the Special Rapporteur's mission to Italy in October 2006, which concludes that, while Italian society is not marked by a profound phenomenon of racism, it is facing a disturbing trend of xenophobia and the development of manifestations of racism, primarily affecting the Sinti and Roma community, immigrants and asylum-seekers primarily of African origin but also from Eastern Europe, and the Muslim community. In his recommendations, the Rapporteur calls for reform of the so-called Bossi-Fini Law regulating immigration and, partially, asylum, the adoption of a comprehensive asylum law and policy, and the recognition of the Roma and Sinti community as a national minority whose culture and language are to be protected.
Presentation of Reports on Extrajudicial Executions, People of African Descent and Racial Discrimination
PHILIP ALSTON, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution, said country missions were often seen as a raison d’etre of the rapporteur system. In reality, the role of the Special Rapporteur was a year-round one and the challenge was to devise ways of ensuring adequate attention was given to countries that did not cooperate or could not be visited due to lack of resources.
Communications should not become a paper-chase; reports should not hesitate to address the situation in countries that did not cooperate; missions should not be isolated undertakings and systematic follow-up was essential; assisting development of jurisprudence was a key role of the rapporteur. This analysis had informed his report.
Mr. Alston said his report contained a detailed rebuttal to claims by the United States that targeted killing of individuals on the Afghan-Pakistani border in 2005 as apart of the “war on terror” did not entail international human rights laws or the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. The interpretation of the United States would overturn the policy established and followed since the beginning of the Commission for Human Rights mandate in 1982. Concerning the death penalty, some Member States of the Council supported it while others had abolished it. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was neither abolitionist nor retentionist and was rather one that enjoined States to participate in dialogue concerning the application of norms regulating the death penalty where it legally existed. Some norms were quite clear – on juveniles for example. Others less so – on due process rights preceding execution for instance. There were many reports of procedural violations that made execution unacceptable. Others were more controversial, like the notion of the death penalty being applied only for “most serious crimes”.
The report addressed a number of related points, such as the assumption that the notion of “most serious crimes” was to be clarified in the light of jurisprudence by such bodies as the Human Rights Council, and the idea that determination of whether a crime fell under such a category was to be determined by international law, not individual States. On the death penalty more generally, the report concluded, among other things, that mandatory death sentences were inherently over-inclusive, and that in order to prevent cruel and inhuman punishment, judges must be allowed to decide not to impose the death penalty.
During country visits, Mr. Alston said he had a standing invitation from Iran but Iran had repeatedly failed to respond to his request for a visiting date to be set. There had been several cases of minors executed in Iran, some for murder or rape, others for acts “contrary to chastity”. The information on these was credible and constituted clear violations of Iran’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on Civil and Political Rights. The juvenile death penalty had been abolished in almost every other country. The Council should respond to the situation in Iran.
In Guatemala, Mr. Alston concluded that reports that personnel working for a particular division of the national police were involved in social cleansing were credible. The international community needed to act to ensure the situation was addressed, and prosecutions carried out. There was a problem of impunity due to corruption. There was a shocking, deliberate failure to allocate resources to the criminal justice system, for protection of ordinary people from murder, rape and other criminal violations. It appeared that the system was designed to be ineffective, and Congress resisted taxation which could help redress this. There was a lack of political will. Privatised law and order protected the elites while the rest remained insecure. The State had very limited responsibilities towards society. In the Philippines, he remained unconvinced of efforts to respond to the significant number of killings attributed to the military. The Government had shown no commitment to change the situation.
Finally, on Sir Lanka, Mr. Alston said his report argued that some sort of human rights monitoring mission in Sri Lanka was essential to prevent an escalating human rights disaster.
PETER KASANDA, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, said at its last session, the Working Group devoted its attention to submitting recommendations on the design, implementation and enforcement of effective measures to eliminate racial profiling that affected people of African descent and Africans in all parts of the world. In this sense, the session served as a forum for discussion, analysis, and an exchange of views among experts of the Working Group, panellists, representatives of Member States and civil society organizations. The report aimed at providing suggestions for Governments, international human rights bodies, and civil society in their efforts to contribute to the elimination of the practice of racial profiling, a serious human rights problem affecting millions of people, and affecting even the most routine aspects of their daily lives.
The existence and prevalence of the problem of racial profiling had been acknowledged worldwide. Numerous studies had been made about the phenomenon. Racial profiling had been recognised as a specific problem as a result of the systematic and historic targeting of certain groups. The use of criteria such as race, religion, ethnicity, nationality or skin colour in police procedures aimed at identifying trends in criminal acts or punishing a propensity for legal violations led to the stigmatization of people of African descent and other groups which had historically been discriminated against and assigned inferior status in society. The Working Group expressed its concern about this sort of institutionalised racism, and believed that States should eradicate such practices as a matter of urgency.
The Working Group had found that the unlawful use of racial profiling in police, immigration and airport security procedures had expanded since the terrorist attacks of September 11, and strongly believed that terrorist profiling practices that were based on race violated international human rights standards. It also expressed its concern about manifestations of intolerance and discrimination against Muslims that affected not only the daily lives of Muslim communities, but also the societies where they lived. To remedy this negative and disturbing phenomenon, sound strategies and educational campaigns should be developed and vigorously implemented. There should be no excuse to justify racial profiling. When racial profiling had been used as a tool to protect national security, no significant results had been achieved in terms of enhanced security. On the contrary, it institutionalised prejudice and legitimised public prejudice against those being profiled.
DOUDOU DIÈNE, Special Rapporteur on the contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and associated intolerance, said that he wanted to draw the Council’s attention to the central observations he had developed in his general report showing the increase of phenomena and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia throughout the world. The fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance was facing several challenges like the increase of racist violence against national minorities and ethnic communities, the criminalization of immigration questions and the general rise of the defamation of religions, among others. The Special Rapporteur mentioned three dire developments legitimising the rise of racism and xenophobia. The first development was about the political and democratic legitimisation of racist and xenophobe parties and movements. The second development concerned the rise of racism of elites, where the most important example could be found in France with declarations and publications that were openly racist and xenophobic. The third alarming development was the rise of revisionism. The combat against racism was first of all a combat of memory.
The Special Rapporteur then turned to his visits to Switzerland and Italy. In Switzerland, a reality of a dynamic of racism and xenophobia could be noted. In spite of the existence of competent mechanisms and motivated responsible people, the absence on a national level of this reality and of a political and legal strategy against racism and xenophobia could be noted as well. The Special Rapporteur’s recommendations to the Swiss authorities included the acceptance of a dynamic of racism and xenophobia and the expression of a public will to combat it, the set up of means, mechanisms and institutions to translate the political will into facts and the reinforcement of the existing structures to fight racism, among others.
With regard to the visit to Italy, the Special Rapporteur noted the firm commitment of the new Government to fight racism and xenophobia. This political will was illustrated by legislative reforms concerning immigration and citizenship. However, even though the Italian society was not profoundly imprinted by a phenomenon of racism, a worrying dynamic of xenophobia and a rise in manifestations of racism were developing, Mr. Diene said. The tendencies and manifestations were primarily a concern for the Sinti and Roma communities, migrants and people seeking asylum. In recommendations to the Italian Government, the Special Rapporteur pointed out the necessity to attack socio-economic inequalities, which the discriminated communities were facing, and to continue to express at the highest state level a firm willingness to combat racial discrimination. Further recommendations were the adoption of a juridical strategy, the redefinition of the national action plan and the reform of the immigration laws, among others. A particularly positive development could be noted in Japan, where an international non-governmental organization against racism and discrimination had been established.
Statements by Concerned Countries
FRANK LA RUE (Guatemala), speaking as a concerned country, said Guatemala was aware of the need for unrestricted respect for human rights as a fundamental, indispensable state obligation. Factors like a solid justice system, and reliable internal security mechanisms to protect the people and allow them to enjoy their rights to life and health and their economic, cultural and social rights were key contributing issues. While there had been significant progress in human rights in Guatemala, this had not been as speedy as had been hoped, and there had been breaks to take stock of the directions the country should follow. The report of the Special Rapporteur on Guatemala had been listened to carefully, and the country reiterated that it maintained the political will to change the situation. Important moves were under way to achieve a redrawing of national strategy, especially in strengthening justice, civil security and the fight against impunity.
Since the visit of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, there had been numerous actions: a presidential order to selectively screen the national civil police and introduce disciplinary reforms; a presidential commission on national security aimed at restructuring the national police; and a decree on the entry into force of the Convention. Guatemalans were the ones who were facing the realities in their country and they knew how to tackle their problems. The Peace Accords were an important reference for orienting action.
There were huge walls to be demolished in the process, but there was confidence that future actions would be effective, and Guatemala hoped to have the continued support and solidarity of the Special Rapporteur, and of donor countries and international organizations.
ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines), speaking as a concerned country, said that a number of improvements of a factual nature in the preliminary note could be made in order that a more accurate and clearer picture of the Government’s efforts and the prevailing situation was presented. In this regard, the Philippines had submitted factual changes and points of law in connection with the initial draft of the preliminary note. The Philippines hoped that its submissions would be given due consideration and would be fully reflected in Professor Alston’s final report. The Philippines wished to make specific observations and comments on the preliminary note. The Philippines condemned extrajudicial killings in the strongest terms and was taking urgent action to stop such killings and to identify and prosecute those who perpetrated them. The Special Rapporteur’s observation in paragraph 5 was welcomed about the note that there had been a strong institutional response by the Philippines at the national level.
The Government of the Philippines had also consistently engaged in partnerships with the international and national human rights community and acknowledged the role of civil society in monitoring these cases. In the Philippine’s criminal justice system, unlike that of the United States and Australia for example, the independent role of the prosecutor could be perceived as passive. This independence, or which could be misconstrued as passivity, was necessary lest the prosecutor be charged with partiality by either party to a criminal complaint. Nevertheless, the Government was exploring how cases might be evaluated and improved without damaging the prosecutor’s credibility. The Philippines noted the interim recommendations of Professor Alston. Regarding the first one, concrete steps had been taken. The Philippines was looking forward to further dialogue with the Special Rapporteur.
BLAISE GODET (Switzerland), speaking as a concerned country, said Switzerland saluted the work of the Special Rapporteur on racism, as racial discrimination was a grave violation of human rights. In this context, the fight against racism could not be limited to the ratification of international conventions, but required a constant effort for their implementation by each State. In that regard, the Special Rapporteur’s analysis represented an important source of information on the problems which persisted in the field of integration of foreigners and racial discrimination. On the basis of information received and his observations, the Special Rapporteur had noted the existence of a dynamic of racism and xenophobia in Switzerland.
The report noted a number of points that required improvement. Switzerland did not wish to embellish the situation, nor deny that unacceptable acts were committed. Switzerland had a long experience of migration, and despite a high level of immigration, no ghettoization had taken place, as foreigners were in general well integrated and accepted by the Swiss population. The Government had put into place structures to facilitate the integration of foreigners, and fought against all forms of racial discrimination. Regarding the fight against racism at the international level, Switzerland had implemented its commitments under the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Switzerland was determined to protect and promote human rights, both in all regions of the world, and on its own territory, and looked forward to continuing the fruitful discussion with the Special Rapporteur.
PASQUALE D'AVINO (Italy), speaking as a concerned country, said the Italian Government had been and remained determined to effectively protect and promote human rights and more specifically, to combat racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. Because of the complexity of certain issues, they had not been exhaustively and properly considered in Mr. Diene’s report. The Citizenship Bill was currently under consideration, and foreigners were entitled to citizenship after five years’ legal residence, or after three years for asylum seekers with refugee status. The Government was also working on a legal agreement between the State and Italian Muslim communities. There were technical problems with that agreement, caused by endorsement of the authority of the Muslim representatives within their communities, but a consultative council had been established to sort out the problem. On migrant workers, the Government was about to present to Parliament a comprehensive reform of the current immigration law, which would provide better protection for the human rights of migrant workers and their families, including health care rights, flexible modalities on entry rights, and others. There were new measures also to protect foreign temporary workers in the agriculture sector against exploitation, to protect the rights of Roma people, and to harmonize the asylum system.
Right of Reply
VELIA DE PIRRO (United States), speaking in a right of reply, wished to address the issue of the five men who had been convicted in federal court for their long-term involvement in a network in the service of the Cuban Directorate of Intelligence. Following a jury trial in Miami, during which the accused had received the full protection of the United States legal system, including counsellors and lawyers, they had been condemned. After a trial lasting seven months, they had been convicted and given prison sentences. On August 2006, the United States Appeals Court upheld that decision. In its final decision, the appellate court had unanimously confirmed the Miami Court’s handling of the trial. During their trial the five defendants had never denied their covert activities, nor their services to the Government of Cuba, and the United States Government believed that those five individuals had been given the full service of democracy.
AZAD CAFAROV (Azerbaijan), speaking in a right of reply, wished to respond to the remarks of Armenia. Because of the Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan no single Azerbaijani historic or cultural monument had been left undamaged, and practically no holy places had escaped desecration with the economic infrastructure of Azerbaijan having been purposefully damaged and dismantled. In that connection, Azerbaijan would soon submit the list of all cultural objects representing the cultural heritage of the Azerbaijani people that had been subjected to vandalism by the Armenian side in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan as well as in Armenia proper. Azerbaijan had appealed to the Council of Europe and to UNESCO to dispatch a monitoring group to investigate the state of cultural and historical monuments in the Nagorno Karabakh region and other occupied territories of Azerbaijan, and in Armenia proper.
ANDREY TARANDA (Belarus), speaking in a right of reply, said that the demonstration referred to by the German Representative on behalf of the European Union had been authorized to take place in a given place. The demonstration had then been held in a different place and the law enforcement officers had asked the participants to move and had provided buses for the purpose. The participants had ignored those suggestions, yet the law enforcement officers had not used force or detained demonstrators. By contrast, there had been repeated recent suppression of demonstrations inside the European Union, events that had been widely covered in the media. Belarus invoked once again the principle of non-selectivity in the work of the Council.
Continuation of Interactive Dialogue on Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression, and on Arbitrary Detention
ANGELA WU, of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said religious freedom was best preserved through the protection of the religious exercise of people of all faiths, not through restricting the speech of people of some faiths. Defamation of religion laws claimed to protect vulnerable religious communities. However, there were already laws against assault, false imprisonment, fraud and even defamation of persons. Defamation of religion laws was mere though control and in practice worked solely to the advantage of religious majorities. If the Council adopted measures encouraging defamation of religion laws, it should make clear what these resolutions really were – thought control – so that people were aware that their rights as they knew them were being stripped by the Council.
MARIE-SABINE LEGRAND, of Fraternité Notre Dame, said the organization’s aim was to teach respect for all human beings, and it worked voluntarily around the world. It had endured discrimination for many years, and had fled to the United States from France due to persecution. France was conducting an anti-religious campaign and this was characteristic of totalitarianism. France operated on a sectarian model. France should reverse its institutional discriminatory approach.
GEORGE GORDON LENNOX, of Reporters Without Borders International, said the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression once again had placed emphasis on the freedom of journalists. Many journalists had been killed, injured or taken hostage in various parts of the world. In 2006, the Security Council had adopted a resolution on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, with particular regard for journalists, and this was a great step forward. The highest political organ of the United Nations recognised the importance of the issue, and condemned such attacks. Would the Special Rapporteur or the Council make available all the information they had to the United Nations Secretary-General for inclusion in his report to the Security Council, and would the Special Rapporteur insist that the resolution be complied with, the speaker asked?
TAHIRA JALEEN KHAN, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said issues addressed by Ms. Zerrougui’s report were important. In Indian–held Kashmir, security forces routinely abused the rights of innocent Kashmiris including jail without trial and illegal and arbitrary detentions. The absence of internal checks and the silence of the international conscience had only served to worsen the agony of the Kashmiris. The curse had reached to the levels where even the Indian national media had to report on the severity of the situation. The Association called on the Council to allow a Special Rapporteur visit to India to examine the situation.
REBECCA MORTON, of Defence for Children International, in a joint statement with World Organization against Torture, said the report of the Working Group on arbitrary detention was welcomed, in particular the attention given to the large number of people in pre-trial detention, many of whom had not been arrested for a valid crime. The Group’s failure to acknowledge that over 1 million of the world’s detainees were children was regretted, as many of these suffered human rights abuses, lacking access to basic needs such as health, education and security. It was child detainees who were most affected by this phenomenon, suffering physical and sexual abuses.
LAKHRIF AHMED, of Centrist Democratic International, said that as a non-governmental organization concerned by human rights throughout the world, the organization remained concerned about the drama ongoing for decades in Tinduf in southern Algeria. The organization wanted once again to make a call against one if the most anachronistic situations of our time. Bloody repression was taking place and aggressions and imprisonment without trial as well. Given this situation it was necessary to show solidarity with those who suffered in the Tinduf camps. The necessary provisions needed to be taken to protect those people from retaliation. The international community was asked to act and to intervene so that human rights were respected.
ADRIANA PEREZ, of Federation of Cuban Women, said five anti-terrorist Cubans had been imprisoned in the United States since 1998, even two years after the Working Group on arbitrary detention issued an opinion saying that this was arbitrary, and in contravention of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Group then requested the United States Government to adopt the necessary steps to remedy the situation. The deprivation of liberty of these people for the past nine years violated their human rights, the international conventions and treaties currently in force, as well as the United States Constitution. These violations extended the legal process against them indefinitely, and they should therefore be released immediately.
DOUGLAS WICKSAMRATNO, of International Buddhist Foundation, welcomed the report on freedom of religion. Sri Lanka was threatened by the Tamil Tigers. The kidnapping of children and their use as child soldiers continued. In Sri Lanka there was freedom of religion, guaranteeing to every faith the celebration of their festivities. Tamil Tigers attempted to destroy temples representing important cultural heritages. The international community should not stand silent when the Tamil Tigers were violating human rights and the freedom of religion. Young girls were taken away as sex slaves. Parents who campaigned against the abduction of their children were tortured and imprisoned in torture chambers.
WANDA NOWINCKA, of Federation for Women and Family Planning, in a joint statement with Action Canada for Population and Development, said the Special Rapporteur was commended on her excellent report, particularly her consideration of discrimination and practices harmful to the health of women and girls that were applied within communities for reasons of religious belief. The recommendations made to address cultural practices based on religion that were harmful, which clearly included those that sought to control their sexuality, were also welcomed. What steps would the Special Rapporteur recommend that Governments take to eliminate the “conscientious objection” barrier to women’s access to reproductive health services, and what should Governments do to ensure that doctors who objected to providing reproductive health services on religious grounds actually fulfilled their obligations to refer patients to those who did provide these services, the Federation asked?
KELTOUM IRBAH, of Interfaith International, said that in recent years, the repression in the Western Sahara had intensified. Human rights defenders had been targeted by the Moroccan regime. It was thus important that the international community redoubled its efforts by setting up mechanisms of concrete action so that the fundamental rights of freedom and security could also be respected in the Western Sahara.
Concluding Remarks
ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion and belief, said freedom of conversion was part of the freedom of religion, unless elements of coercion were included. The mandate received a long list of violations, and she had emphasised that violent acts, even in the name of religion, could not be grounds for impunity. Governments were encouraged to present opportunities to these groups so that they could disengage themselves from those controlling their lives. On the defamation of religion, the Special Rapporteur had presented a report last year, and believed that derogation from freedom of expression and of religion could only be made in extremely rare cases. Repressed religious sentiments should not be criminalized. Neutrality of Governments in matters of religion was crucial, and religious rights should be decriminalised. Religion should not be used or misused for political motives.
On the law of blasphemy, per se it did not restrict freedom of religion, but incidents and practice showed a pattern of concern. Most religious minorities were accused of blasphemy, often in perpetuation of an agenda of religious intolerance and religious violence. The application of these laws was disproportionate and selective, and they discriminated for these reasons. Justice was not fairly dispensed in these circumstances. Generally, States did not interfere with the attire or dress of women. When the issue was raised, they should deal with the issue in a balanced and non-alarmist manner, conforming to international standards on freedom of religion and belief. In a few countries, laws required women to abide by a dress code, and there had been positive trends in this regard.
There had been outstanding cooperation between the Special Rapporteur and the Governments of Azerbaijan and the Maldives, and this was excellent, as it gave an encouraging opportunity to publicise the mandate. The Special Rapporteur hoped that she would receive increasing positive responses to her requests to visit from various countries. With regards to defamation of religions, this could be a counter-productive issue, and should be broached carefully. There had been good practices regarding the rights of women, which interfaced with freedom of religion and belief. Women had gained freedom in terms of challenging religious intolerance, and this was to be commended.
AMBEYI LIGABO, Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, responding, said, regarding disinformation, that independent mechanisms should be established regarding the media. Criminalization of the media would not help to promote freedom of expression. The media should be able to self regulate. Regarding state versus non-state actors, there was no distinction in the report. State actors were also required to uphold relevant human rights. On the safety of journalists, he was ready to undertake a study on this and look at root causes of violence against them and protection of them. He had proposed a voluntary fund for journalists killed in the line of duty.
There were various limitations brought up by some governments on freedom of expression. One was close monitoring of websites to monitor opposition. This had led to citizens being arrested for expressing opinions on the Internet. Powerful media groups were business and profit oriented and this went some way to endangering rather than protecting freedom of individuals. Media guidelines or legislation was not a good idea, however, and self-regulation was preferred.
On Zimbabwe, Mr. Ligabo said he had no plan to visit in the near future, and had not had a response to a request to visit in 2003. He was ready and available to the Security Council to offer his proposals. On the empowerment of women, he had covered this amply in his reports. On Internet governance, a working group was working on this issue.
LEILA ZERROUGUI, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, said that she wanted to thank all of those who supported her work and expressed her special appreciation to the Governments of the countries which had been visited. Concerning the questions asked, the Special Rapporteur started with the question from Germany on behalf of the European Union. There had been an increase in cases the Working Group received. Contributions to the right of free trial could be made. There was the risk of arbitrary detention. Looking at the causes for the increase, there were security concerns because there was less interest in the protection of the people. People who were considered as security threats preferred to leave the country.
Concerning the protection of those people in international transfers and the possibility of transferring people allowing them to be protected against torture, there had been more and more countries ratifying conventions for it, Ms. Zerrougui said. Persons suspected of terrorism must be brought before a judge, but within the framework of national law. Concerning the second session questions about concerns with regard to the increase of the prison population and the violations of detainees rights, the Special Rapporteur stressed that the resources were not enough and were not allocated to the prisons. The resources were rather used to reinforce security measures.
Countries could do better and allocate more resources to rehabilitation and reintegration, also with international cooperation, she said. Regarding the example of Nicaragua, the situation could be improved. Concerning the best practices, there had been some measures, which allowed the reduction of the number of prisoners. One could learn from what was being done in other countries. Concerning the question on the problem of judicial appeals, there were weaknesses in Special Procedures. The follow up should be ensured. There was still a concern about the visit of children that were detained to ensure that detention for minors was the last resort.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC07026E