HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES DEBATE ON REPORT OF HIGH-LEVEL MISSION ON SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN DARFUR

The Human Rights Council concluded this afternoon its general debate on the report of the high-level mission to assess the situation of human rights in Darfur and the needs of Sudan in that regard. It then concluded its discussion on follow-up to decisions taken by the Council.

Responding to comments and questions about the report of the high-level mission, Jody Williams, Head of the mission, said that, for those working on behalf of the civilian victims everywhere in the world, and more importantly, for the victims of abusive Governments themselves, the credibility of this Council could probably not comfortably rest on consensus and collegiality to find solutions. They had to address human rights violations head on to find solutions. The responsibility to protect was developed by the international community in response to the genocide in Rwanda, where nothing had been done to protect the people there. The world had hung its head in shame and said "never again". Too many had lost hoped that "never again" had no applicability whatsoever in Darfur. If the Council chose not to consider the report, that decision would have an impact on the Council – not on the members of the mission. If the work of the mission benefited the people in Darfur in any way, whatever the decision of the Council, then it would have done its job, which was to try to alleviate the suffering of the people of Darfur who were being raped, pillaged and burned while political wrangling went on in the hallowed halls of the United Nations.

Delegates raised a number of issues in connection with the report on Sudan, including whether it was valid and legitimate, or whether the circumstances surrounding its inception, namely the withdrawal of one member of the mission and the fact that the mission had not been to Sudan, rendered it unsound. However, many speakers agreed that what was clear was that the Council had to make a positive contribution on the issue of Darfur, a contribution which would help reinforce other efforts aimed at bringing peace to that area. The Council could not ignore the report that it requested, neither its existence nor substance, and should consider the report and take appropriate action, a speaker said.

The Government of Sudan should assume its responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens, speakers said. Only a credible political process could provide sustainable solutions to the crisis, but for this to take place, the overall security situation in Darfur had to improve. The Government of Sudan should implement its responsibility to protect the civilian population and refrain directly or through its allies, from questioning the credibility of the Council, a speaker said. Several speakers also pointed out the importance for the Council’s reputation and standing for it to ensure follow-up to its decisions, and the effectiveness of its activities.

Speaking this afternoon in the debate on the situation in Darfur were the Representatives of Nigeria, Uruguay, Peru, Philippines, Czech Republic, Norway, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Iceland, Qatar, Austria, New Zealand, Lebanon, Australia, Belgium, League of Arab States, Syria, Chile, Egypt, United States, Luxembourg, Iran, Belarus, Portugal, Palestine, Sweden, and Jordan.

Also speaking were Femmes Africa Solidarité, UN Watch, Amnesty International, Interfaith International, Fédération International des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme, Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, World Organization against Torture, Nord-Sud XXI, Cairo Institute of Human Rights Studies and Human Rights Watch.

The Council then heard statements from Norway, Algeria, Mexico, Peru and Guatemala as well as from non-governmental organizations on indigenous issues, as it concluded its discussion on follow-up to other decisions that had been taken by the Council. The country delegates made brief statements urging the General Assembly to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as adopted by the Human Rights Council.

Speaking in a right of reply was Canada.

The International Indian Treaty Council, Friends World Committee for Consultation, International League for the Rights and Liberations of Peoples, Comision Juridica paragraph al Autodesarrollo de los pueplos originarios Andinos, and Union de l’Action Féminine spoke about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The next meeting of the Council is scheduled for Monday, 19 March at 10 a.m., when it will be meeting behind closed doors to discuss its confidential 1503 procedure. At 3 p.m. on Monday, the Council is scheduled to hold a special event of violence against children, to be followed by a discussion on the report of the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances.

General Debate on Report of the High-Level Mission on Darfur

FRANK ISOH (Nigeria) said the situation in Dafur was very serious and important, and was a litmus test for the Human Rights Council's ability to protect all human rights, no matter the place of their violation. Nigeria considered the situation in Darfur with the utmost seriousness and importance. All the ingredients for peace, including human rights, had been studied in the report of the high-level mission. All parties to the conflict should reconsider their position in the interests of peace and the well being of the people of Darfur.

The procedures of the mission had been flawed, but that did not render it insignificant, nor make the report unacceptable. There was a history in the United Nations of reports that had been issued after missions had not been able to access the area which they were supposed to visit. If the circumstances were not improved and the dignity and human rights of those in Darfur restored, then the international community would have failed. This needed to take place in cooperation with the Government of Sudan. Today should be a day marking a new chapter in the history of Sudan, and the day that the international community stepped from its inertia into true progress in the protection and promotion of human rights. Civilians continued to suffer, and they needed no more reports.

ALEJANDRA DE BELLIS (Uruguay) said Uruguay had signed the request for the convening of the special session on Darfur because it had believed the Human Rights Council should treat all human rights emergency situations with urgency. It had also supported the sending of an expert mission to gather information for the Council to make recommendations on the subject. Considering the consensus in the Council on the mission itself, the obstacles encountered by the mission were to be regretted. The challenge before them should be seen as an opportunity to enhance the credibility of the human rights system, and Uruguay hoped the Council would seek ways of implementing the mission. That would call for cooperation from the Government of Sudan.

CARLOS ALBERTO CHOCANO BURGA (Peru) said that Peru was among the member countries requesting a special session concerning the situation in Darfur. Peru understood that request as an expression of a new phase in the promotion and protection of human rights set on cooperation; the consensus resolution had been an expression reflecting the good will of the Member States of the Council and the Government of Sudan. Peru regretted that the mission had not been able to visit Darfur. That was the expression of a trend which affected the legitimacy of the Council and was especially serious in the context of the institution building of the Council.

It was essential that the Council recognized and fulfilled its obligations, Peru said. It had been impossible to visit Darfur because of reasons that went beyond the reach of the Council. The report should be taken into account, studied by the Council and given final approval.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines) said, based on today’s debate so far, the different comments on the report as well as its contents stemmed largely from the fact that the outcome of the mission appeared to be, in the words of the Asian Group, “incomplete” for reasons that were well-known to all. What was clear was that the Council had to make a positive contribution on the issue of Darfur, a contribution which would help reinforce other efforts aimed at bringing peace to that area.

Whether the report under consideration could be the basis for the Council’s actions on the issue was under debate, and would, no doubt, be discussed in coming days. What was ultimately important, however, was the need for the Council to agree by consensus on a credible and meaningful decision aimed at effectively addressing the human rights situation in Darfur. The Council was urged to work towards a consensus decision on the issue.

TOMAS HUSAK (Czech Republic) said the Czech Republic welcomed the preparation and submission of the high-level mission report, which pointed out serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law. Reservations had been expressed during the first special session of the Council, and earlier by the African Group at the second session, and the Czech Republic shared those concerns. The Government of Sudan had agreed to the high-level mission, but the Government had then refused to issue visas to the mission’s members. That diminished the role of the Human Rights Council and its procedures. The Council should act decisively on the findings of the high-level mission, as well as those of other United Nations mechanisms, and the African Union Mission in Sudan. The violations had to be stop, and humanitarian personnel had to be allowed access. The Government of Sudan should implement its responsibility to protect the civilian population in Darfur, and refrain, directly or through its allies, from questioning the credibility of the Council.

WEGGER STROMMEN (Norway) said that the report of the high-level mission on the situation in Darfur deserved concrete and credible action by the Council. Norway regretted that once again a country was not cooperating with the Council. Norway also regretted the non-cooperation of Israel following the decision of the third special session. The non-cooperation of the Government of Sudan was even more incomprehensible. The decision to establish the high-level mission had been taken by consensus and with the support of the Government of Sudan.

The mandate given to the high-level mission was to assess the human rights situation in Darfur and the needs of the Sudan in that regard. It was not a fact-finding mission. The facts on the ground were regularly and well documented by the African Union Mission in Sudan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. For that reason, the fact that the mission had not been able to visit Sudan and Darfur did not render the report worthless. The cooperation of the Government of Sudan would have been preferable, but non-cooperation could not prevent the Council from giving the report substantial consideration. Norway appreciated the focus in the report on concrete recommendations, and agreed that a key problem was the lack of implementation of existing agreements and recommendations. Norway therefore particularly appreciated the proposal to enhance follow-up through assessing and reporting on the degree of implementation of outstanding recommendations.

ISABEL FROMMELT (Liechtenstein) said the situation in Darfur had been amply documented in the past. The report was a good basis for establishing measures to be taken. The broad consensus on establishing the high-level mission meant that the Council had a firm obligation to follow-up on the report of the mission. The report and the existing mechanisms should be used as a basis for monitoring the situation and contributing to improvements of the human rights situation.

Liechtenstein regretted that not all parties to the conflict had signed the Darfur Peace Agreement. But that should not justify a lack of swift and effective action by the Sudanese Government to protect the entire civilian population. Observing that the report left some room for the view that the Peace Agreement would not be sufficient to ensure lasting peace, Liechtenstein wondered if the high-level mission could further elaborate on that impression. Liechtenstein also asked whether the request by the General Assembly for a list of foreign companies that had an adverse impact on the situation would be compiled and what criteria would be use to assess “adverse impact”.

HANS GRUNNET (Denmark) said there was deep concern about the security situation in Darfur and the consequences it had on the humanitarian relief operation. Tribal fighting, thuggery, and the continued attacks against aid workers as well as the African Union’s Mission in Sudan had had a devastating impact on the civilian population. The Government of Sudan should assume its responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens, and all parties should ensure unhindered humanitarian access to those in need in Darfur.

The Sudanese Government's attitude of non-cooperation was to be deeply deplored. The Government bore considerable responsibility for the overall deterioration of the situation in Darfur. It was important that the Council remain seized of the human rights situation in Darfur, and the high-level mission’s report should be followed by credible action. Only a credible political process could provide sustainable solutions to the crisis, but for this to take place, the overall security situation in Darfur had to improve.

INGIBJORG DAVIOSDOTTIR (Iceland) said the human rights situation in Darfur remained grave. Iceland regretted that the Sudanese Government had not give entry permits to the members of the mission. Independent and effective monitoring were of the essence, and all States needed to cooperate in good faith with monitoring procedures. Sudan had joined in adoption of the World Summit Outcome document, explicitly accepting its responsibility to protect and pledging to act in accordance with it. Iceland urged the Sudanese Government to comply with its obligations under international law towards its citizens, and ensure free and safe movement of human rights monitors and humanitarian agencies.

NASSER RASHID AL NUAIMI (Qatar) said Qatar joined the statements made by the Arab and Asian Groups. There was a need to promote an interactive dialogue and the Council should oblige countries to comply with their obligations. The Council's working methods should be marked by transparency. In that connection, the resolution to send the high-level mission to Darfur had been adopted unanimously and had also been accepted by Sudan itself. Qatar thus hoped that a mission would be sent to Sudan and that the Sudan would cooperate. These problems could only be solved through dialogue.

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria) said that when the Human Rights Council had adopted its decision by consensus to dispatch a mission to assess the human rights situation in Darfur, there had been a sense of optimism that the Council had been able to address a situation of serious human rights violations in an effective and non-confrontational manner. There were now many arguments focusing on procedural aspects rather than on substance - and yet that should be at the centre of the debate.

Several years after the beginning of the crisis in Darfur, the situation had not improved or been resolved. The magnitude of the human rights crisis in Darfur necessitated firm action by the Council in line with its mandate to address serious human rights violations. The Council could not ignore the report that it requested – neither its existence nor substance – and should consider the report and take appropriate action. It should now focus on how to proceed with a follow-up as recommended. There were already a large number of recommendations by United Nations mechanisms on how to address and improve the situation of human rights in Sudan which had not been implemented so far.

AMY LAURENSON (New Zealand) concurred with other speakers as to the gravity of the situation in Darfur and the comprehensive and practical approach taken by the mission. Although the mission had not been allowed access to Sudan, the report was credible, was based on a wide range of resources, and with its analysis of the human rights situation based on the “responsibility to protect”, conveyed a strong message. The leadership shown by the mission was to be commended, as were its recommendations, notably on the need for a mechanism to monitor the situation and establish a credible independent national human rights commission for Sudan. The lack of cooperation from the Government of Sudan and the difficulties encountered by the mission were regrettable. A massive diplomatic effort was needed to resolve the crisis. The best hope was the strengthened UN/African Union Mission in Sudan force. This issue was a test of the Council's resolve and called for a united front.

GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon) said that, within the process of building the competencies of the Council, Lebanon had joined in the adoption by consensus of the resolution on the establishment of the high-level mission for Darfur. Unfortunately, Sudan had become a topic countries had started to fight over. No State could exempt itself from need to protect and promote human rights. The truth could only be reached through dialogue. The mission had not been able to be fully constituted and had not been able to take place at all, which was very disappointing. The comments made by the High Commissioner were quite striking. Efforts should continue to be taken together with the Government of Sudan to promote and protect human rights there.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) said the mission had presented its report, and the Council should act on it. The report clearly outlined that the Government of Sudan had failed to uphold its responsibility to protect its citizens. Particularly troubling was that abuses had often occurred with the collusion or direct involvement of Sudanese State actors. This was a critical test for the effectiveness of the Human Rights Council, in the first year of its existence, in its ability to respond quickly and effectively to urgent human rights situations as they occurred. Interested Governments and the international community were watching closely to see how the Council would respond. The Council should endorse the report: a credible and long-term follow-up process was critical to the future of the people of Darfur.

Australia did not accept allegations that the report was in some way illegitimate. The Council could not allow non-cooperation by a country under scrutiny for human rights violations to block action to address those violations, as that would be a serious breach of trust with those whose rights had been abused. Strong and effective follow-up steps should be adopted. The Council should pursue a strong and effective outcome from the process. Anything short of that would be regarded as a serious and unacceptable failure by the Council to live up to its responsibilities.

SAMUEL MVONDO AYOLO (Cameroon) said Cameroon took note of the report submitted in implementation of the Council's resolution S-4/101. The situation called for urgent action. The lives and security of children, women and other vulnerable people were seriously jeopardized and humanitarian action had become impossible. There was a high risk of destabilization in other regions of Africa, notably some Central African States. One could not reject a report that came about through and represented the consensus of the Council, and to accept the report did not constitute an act of hostility or enmity towards Sudan. The African Union had decided to provide assistance by sending troops to show solidarity. The Council should send out a strong signal to the community of nations that it would not stand by in the face of obvious violations. The Council's commitment to that path was also the best way of helping Sudan out of its difficulties.

ARUNA NARAIN (Mauritius) said that Mauritius had been one of the co-sponsors of the resolution calling for the dispatch of the high-level mission to Darfur. Much had been said during the course of this debate about the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of the report of the high-level mission. Mauritius, however, was of the view that what was at stake was the plight of thousands of civilians, including women and children, who were innocent victims of the ongoing conflict. The Council owed it to the people of Darfur to take concrete action to uphold and protect their human rights. Mauritius fully shared the views expressed by several Council members that the Council should remain seized of the situation in Darfur and take note of the report so that concrete and urgent action might be taken to address that situation.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium) said the facts described in the report unfortunately confirmed what the international community had already known for a long time: the conflict in Darfur continued in an over-armed region, putting the rule of law ever more in peril; the situation of human rights had deteriorated; and humanitarian space had shrunk. The mission had rightly noted the primary responsibility of the Government of Sudan to protect civilians against human rights violations and violence. To put an end to the spiral of violence, the Government should put an end to impunity, and should implement the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, cooperate with the International Criminal Court, and guarantee national justice.

The recommendations identified in the report of the mission gave the Council a chance to show determination in the implementation of its mandate. The implementation of those recommendations should be the Council’s priority, and the Government should cooperate fully with the follow-up which the Council should decide upon together, by consensus. The victims in Darfur were expecting a substantial and urgent reaction.

SAAD ALFARARGI (League of Arab States) said the mission had been dispatched with procedural haste, without making the necessary arrangements, and this had been detrimental to the credibility of the Council. Missions such as this must take place in cooperation with sovereign countries on the ground. The Government of Sudan had shown its intention to cooperate. Establishment of the Human Rights Council had taken place within overall reform of the United Nations encompassing development and security. Focusing only on development would lead to the whole building crumbling. For reasons which the League of Arab States did not fully understand, the mission made numerous questionable recommendations. It was essential to establish political mediation through African Union and European Union efforts. It was difficult to talk about the report on the situation in Darfur because of the many complex political and economic issues.

RANIA AL RIFAI (Syria) said that Syria wanted to associate itself with the statements made by Algeria, Pakistan and Sri Lanka on behalf of the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Asian Group respectively. Syria believed that the report was seriously flawed. The mission was supposed to have five highly qualified members, but some of them went to other countries and one was not considered to be objective and impartial. The mission thus deviated from its mandate. The Council decided to dispatch the mission in order to assess the situation on the ground in Darfur first hand. But the mission had gone to Chad and Ethiopia and that did not serve the purpose. Syria considered that the legitimacy and credibility of the Council in promoting and protecting human rights all over the world was important.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said it was regrettable that the mission had been unable to carry out its mandate. There should be no excuses and all missions of the Council should be able to carry out their missions. The responsibility of the Government of Sudan for this could not be ignored, as it had undertaken to cooperate with the mission, but this had not happened. The decision establishing the mission had been taken by consensus, with the participation of the delegation of Sudan. The mission had been able to fulfil its mandate despite the restrictions, and had done its best to do so. The dramatic and tragic situation in Darfur had been ongoing for some time, and was still present. The repeated and gross human rights violations continued. The responsibility to protect and the obligation to cooperate with the international community as represented in the Council constituted an unswerving and unavoidable duty for every Member State. The Council should continue to address this serious situation, and the Government of Sudan should cooperate with the international community.

AMIN MELEIKA (Egypt) said the African Group including Sudan had been an important component in the consensus to convene a special session on Darfur. The hope had been that the resolution adopted by the special session would help alleviate the plight of the people of Darfur and enhance the capacity of the Government. It was regrettable that the high-level mission had become an issue of dispute. The focus should have remained on fulfilling humanitarian objectives, through dialogue and consultation and absolute respect for principles and practices that governed the work of the Council. A greater degree of flexibility and patience should have been displayed. Any controversy surrounding a mission must cast doubt on the credibility of the entire process, both in procedure and substance.

The Council had an instrumental role to play in promoting and protecting the human rights of all people and should extend the necessary support to the Government of Sudan, financial and technical, and humanitarian non-governmental organizations in the field, and urge other parties that had not yet done so to sign the Abuja peace agreement. Only through objective and impartial evaluation could the real needs of the Sudanese people be addressed.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said that the United States welcomed the report of the high-level assessment mission, which confirmed unequivocally the tragic and ongoing violence in the region. There should be no further doubt that the situation demanded action on behalf of the Government of Sudan and of this very Council. It was important to make clear that the international community respected human life. The United States was deeply disappointed that, after its extensive engagement in the Council’s special session that established this mission, the Government of Sudan had refused to cooperate and denied that mission access to the country. This Council must act. The world was watching. The people of Darfur, the people of Chad, who were now victims of the region’s instability, were watching.

The United States called on this Council to review this report carefully and accept the mission’s recommendations to establish a follow up mechanism with specific focus on Darfur. The United States again called on the Government of Sudan, and all armed groups to pursue a peaceful resolution to the crisis and abide by their agreements with the international community. This Council was empowered to influence the events on the ground and should not let this opportunity go to waste. The Council should respond to the call for action from countless non-governmental organizations, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the High Commissioner, and others. It must continue to adequately respond to situations like Sudan, and provide follow up to its actions if it was to become a credible body.

JEAN FEYDER (Luxembourg) said the comprehensive and detailed report assessed the human rights situation in Darfur, including the historic background, the diversity and complexity of the situation, and formulated recommendations. There was concern for the human rights situation in Darfur, which was very serious. The Council could not remain mute, but should express itself on the report and its conclusions, which were a solid base allowing the Council to take consensual measures which would put an end to the serious and grave human rights violations. The credibility of the Council was at stake: the people of Darfur were entitled to protection and stability.

The facts denounced in the mission’s assessment were deplored, as it gave a strong message regarding the Government of Sudan’s responsibility to protect. The Council now needed to identify the recommendations which could be implemented to put an end to the serious and systematic human rights violations taking place in Darfur: all of the instruments available to the Council should be used to this end, and the Council should have the cooperation of all.

SEYED KAZEM SAJJADPOUR (Iran) said that Iran associated itself with the statements of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Asian Group. The Council had mandated the high-level mission to assist Sudan but the mission had not been able to fulfill its mandate. It had not visited Sudan to assess the needs and prepare a report based on facts on the ground. There were several major deficiencies as a result and the credibility of the report was seriously challenged due to unfulfilment of the mission. The Iranian delegation could not therefore comment on the content of the report.

ANDREI MOLCHAN (Belarus) said that Belarus had been pleased with the consensus decision with which the high-level mission had been created. But dialogue and cooperation should continue to be the basis of the Council. Belarus observed serious shortcomings in the way the decision had been implemented. The work of the mission had shown cracks, not only procedural but also political. The inclusion in the mission of a person known for him polemic position was unacceptable. This politicisation had made it impossible to find a solution. The original decision of the Council should be implemented scrupulously, with the participation of the Government of Sudan.

FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal) said the report, based on information provided by wide-ranging and credible sources, confirmed the graveness and seriousness of the human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur. The mandate of the Council was to protect and promote the human rights of individuals everywhere. This should be its main concern and its main goal. The suffering of the people of Darfur could not be ignored for procedural or political considerations. The Council should act on the report, and call upon the Government of Sudan to assume its responsibility to protect civilians. All parties to the conflict were called upon to cease immediately the abuses and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

The report recalled and included important recommendations on how to improve the situation. The Council should work constructively, in cooperation with the Government of Sudan, and provide assistance through international cooperation to implement these recommendations, and to improve the situation on the ground, thus reaching the expectations the international community had for the Council, and rising up to the responsibility to protect victims of human rights violations in Darfur.

MOHAMMED ABU-KOASH (Palestine) said Palestine was not impressed by the polarization and division within the Council. It was clear that some arguments were driven by political considerations. Palestine asked whether the groups involved in the high profile debate here over Sudan would do the same with regard to Palestine. Israel had refused to give access to missions sent by the Council and Special Rapporteurs, but it had not been condemned. Sudan had oil, Palestine had oil too – olive oil - but olive oil did not attract oil companies. Sudan was large and could be split, whereas Palestine was already split back in 1947 by the same protagonists of the campaign against Sudan. History repeated itself. Israel ‘s failure to allow fact-finding missions to Palestine had been dealt with in a hush-hush manner. The Council was a clear display of sickness with no sign of a cure. International law was being utilized as a tool to coerce the weak and the poor.

JAN AXEL NORDANDER (Sweden) said that Sweden would like to align itself with the statement made by the European Union presidency. It was the duty of all States to cooperate with the Council and the United Nations Special Procedures. The humanitarian situation in Sudan was extremely grave. The civilian population in Darfur must be protected. The international community must act in favour of peace and human rights. In doing so, the reputation of this Council would also be enhanced.

MOUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan) said when the Council adopted the resolution establishing the mission, it had been stressed that it was important to obtain objective facts from impartial sources. However, this had not been possible. The mission had chosen to deviate from its original mandate of fact-finding. The mandate that was enunciated came as a result of lengthy and arduous negotiations, and was a balanced compromise to which all agreed. This should not escape the attention of the Council. The report should be withheld from consideration by the Council.

However, the situation in Darfur was very complex and difficult, with many facets, and had assumed regional and international dimensions. None could deny the Sudanese Government was working hard to find solutions to the multiple facets of the conflict. Sudan was neither unable nor unwilling to bring an end to the conflict, and the international community should help Khartoum to find means for improving security for the people of the country. Sudan was a least-developed country and the people of Darfur were an integral part of Sudan and deserved the support of the international community as this was a beneficial way of ensuring their human rights. The readiness of the Sudanese Government to cooperate with the Council was a must, and all members should resume the consensus mood, cooperating fully.

BINETA DIOP, of Femmes Africa Solidarité, said the most urgent need in Darfur was effective protection of the civilian population. The situation was deteriorating daily, with rape and sexual violence of particular concern. The camps for internally displaced persons should be secured. While Africa’s contribution to solving the crisis was welcome, all the international community must assist the peacekeeping mission with financial, technical and personnel assistance. The mission had noted that a military solution was not possible, and therefore further Abuja negotiations were needed. The protagonists of the conflict must be made accountable and brought to justice. Although several bodies had been created in Sudan to address violence against women, in reality justice remained limited. The mission recommended compensation for victims but this would not be enough to help victims of sexual violence. The root causes of the conflict must also be addressed. The mission had highlighted economic marginalization and underdevelopment and the benefits of Sudan’s natural resources should be redistributed to allow women access to land, credit and education. Concrete actions must be taken to end atrocities

HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said that the Darfur mission asked the Council to recognize what every ordinary citizen already knew: that Sudan bore responsibility for innocents being killed and driven from their homes, villages destroyed, and rape used as a weapon on a massive scale. The credibility of this Council was now at stake. Several statements made this morning were encouraging. However, United Nations Watch was deeply disappointed by comments challenging the legitimacy of this mission and treating its work as a non-report. United Nations Watch called on these parties to recognize that this mission and report were eminently credible.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said the high-level mission’s findings confirmed Amnesty’s research and those of other organizations including the United Nations. Although armed groups opposed to the Government had committed serious human rights violations and had violated international humanitarian law, the Government bore the primary responsibility for protecting civilians in Darfur. The report provided the Council with a considered and authoritative assessment of the current situation in Darfur, offering sound recommendations for the protection of the population. The Human Rights Council should take immediate action to address the grave human rights violations taking place in Darfur, and to contribute to the efforts of the United Nations and the African Union to protect the civilian population of Darfur.

CHARLES GRAVES, of Interfaith International, said the report was yet another warning signal to the world. Interfaith International regretted the unwillingness of the Government of Sudan to cooperate with the high-level mission. The report shed light on the profound credibility gap between Sudan’s statements and the reality on the ground. It established a clear link between the Government’s military policy and the massive destruction of lives and livelihoods in that region. No tribal conflict could displace such large numbers of people, or involve the use of the heavy military hardware against civilians such as that seen in Darfur. The situation was marked by two criminal realities: premeditated mass killing of indigenous tribes of the Darfur region based on their ethnicity; and the appropriation of land livestock and even “protection” money with full knowledge of Government authorities. Concrete action was needed to stop a humanitarian tragedy on a large scale.

SONIA AHMADI, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said the Federation continued to be seriously concerned about the situation in Darfur The report of the high-level mission on the human rights situation confirmed that the crisis there remained as tragic as ever. It was deplorable that the Sudanese Government publicly announced its refusal to grant visas to members of the mission, contradicting its past agreements with the Council. The report was a compelling and an authoritative assessment of the current situation confirming the alarming accounts already denounced by the Security Council, other United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations. The Human Rights Council must react urgently and strongly to the continuing gross and systematic human rights violations in Darfur. The Council should recommend the adoption of individual and targeted sanctions should the Government continue to refuse to cooperate with the Council.

ACTINA ROM, of Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, said when a State was unable or unwilling to protect its population from genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, then the international community had the obligation to act. The report of the mission stressed that the Sudanese Government had failed to uphold this principle, and emphasised the urgency for action. The Council should support the deployment of the proposed United Nations/African Union peacekeeping/protection force. A credible national human rights commission should be created in Sudan. The Council should reset its moral compass and urge the Security Council to take immediate and effective action to halt the ongoing gross abuse of human rights in Darfur, and end the impunity surrounding these actions.

JEFFREY HALLER, of World Organization against Torture, said the World Organization against Torture welcomed the report of the mission, but was concerned about the lack of cooperation of the Government of Sudan with the high-level mission trip to Darfur and the current challenging of the report and recommendations. The report confirmed well-documented facts from other missions. The Human Rights Council was mandated to promote the full implementation of human rights obligations undertaken by States, and respond promptly to human rights emergencies. The World Organization against Torture asked whether the high-level mission would provide more information on the size, composition and timeframe for the proposed procedure or mechanism that would monitor and report to the Council on the human rights situation in Darfur and the specificities of its collaboration with the Special Rapporteur on Sudan. There was concern over the lack of cooperation shown by Israel regarding the high-level fact-finding mission established under Human Rights Council resolution S-3/1

ABDELBAGI JIBRIL, of North South XXI, said that North South XXI welcomed the report of the high-level mission on Darfur. The report was yet another indicting document on the criminal practice of the Government of Sudan and its allied militia groups. It was regrettable that the Government of Sudan refused to cooperate with the Human Rights Council to conceal the truth about what was taking place in Darfur. In addition, the economic aspects of the crisis in Darfur should be considered by the Council in its future consideration of the situation in Darfur.

JEREMIE SMITH, of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, said the international community had carried out its Article 1 obligation of the Geneva Conventions to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law in relation to the Arab region in a discriminatory manner. A highly selective approach had been seen in efforts to ensure that humanitarian law and human rights standards were abided by in the Occupied Palestinian Territories on the one hand, and in the Darfur region of Sudan on the other. The use of double standards and selectivity in efforts to ensure that civilian protection obligations were abided by in conflict situations not only contradicted the obligations created by Article 1, but also threatened to undermine the principle of non-discrimination that underpinned all civilian protection standards, including human rights law.

PEGGY HICKS, of Human Rights Watch, said the Human Rights Council should decide what was most important - the needs of victims or the procedural technicalities. Delay was itself a decision and sent a signal that victims’ needs came second. The situation had worsened in Darfur. The European Union mission had confirmed that the Sudanese Government continued to be responsible for attacks and Sudan continued to deny the accusations and obstruct journalists and humanitarian relief agencies, including physical attacks, with 12 deaths of aid workers in the last 9 months. Now was the time and this was the place to address suffering in Darfur. The Council should address the report of the high-level mission, condemn the violations of human rights and humatariain law and hold the Government and militia accountable, and call for cooperation from the Sudan Government and an end to obstruction. The Council should call for Sudan to cooperate with the International Criminal Court, improve reporting mechanisms, and establish a credible human rights commission in Sudan

Concluding Remarks by Members of the High-Level Mission

MART NUTT, Member of Parliament of Estonia and Member of the Council of Europe’s European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance and member of the High-Level Mission, said that solidarity must be focused on the victims and not to the violators.

PATRICE TONDA, Permanent Representative of Gabon to the International Organizations in Geneva and Member of the High-Level Mission to Sudan, said after the adoption of the decision to establish a mission by consensus, he had not been a candidate for this, but he had agreed to participate, encouraged by the visit he had already made to Sudan, and also by the consensus on the convening of the special session and on the sending of the mission. The mission went to Addis Ababa, and decided this from the outset. This was to gather first-hand information gathered by those working in the field.

Mr. Tonda said he did not go to Chad, and this decision was taken with the other members of the mission. In the group, he had only encountered cooperation and understanding, and the report had been negotiated intensely, as the members of the mission sought to avoid virulence.

SIMA SAMAR, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Sudan, said she did not want to talk about the legality or technicality of the mission, but said that denying the problem would not stop the problem. It was clear that there was no military solution. Rebel groups, the Government of Sudan, the United Nations and the international community should work together to solve it. She called on Arab and Asian countries to solve the problem, not ignore it, and to work to stop the culture of impunity. She thanked the Government of Sudan for cooperating with her during her work.

JODY WILLIAMS, Head of the High-Level Mission, said that, regarding legality, the mission had always consulted with the Secretariat in New York to make sure that beyond any legal doubt every action that they took had been within their mandated powers and responsibilities and in line with the precedents of other such missions. Regarding objectivity, Ms. Williams felt that if the Council were to send the same people with the same mandate, but they were asked to assess the situation with regard to the situation in Palestine, the discussions in the Council would be amazingly different. Because it did not matter what country it was. What mattered was the people who were being violated. Regarding credibility of the mission, she said that that word seemed to have a rarefied meaning in this Council that was not shared by the public at large. Every State that had committed violations within its territory had always done everything in its power to avoid discussing those violations, such as had been the case during apartheid in South Africa, and under the dictatorship that ruled El Salvador in the 1970s and 1980s.

For those working on behalf of the civilian victims everywhere in the world, and more importantly, for the victims of abusive Governments themselves, the credibility of this Council could probably not comfortably rest on consensus and collegiality to find solutions. Unfortunately, such solutions had tended to protect abusive Governments in power, and not civilians, from the abuses of that power. They had to address human rights violations head on to find solutions. The responsibility to protect was developed by the international community in response to the genocide in Rwanda, where nothing had been done to protect the people there. The world had hung its head in shame and said "never again". Too many had lost hoped that "never again" had no applicability whatsoever in Darfur. If the Council chose not to consider the report, that decision would have an impact on the Council – not on the members of the mission. If the work of the mission benefited the people in Darfur in any way, whatever the decision of the Council, then it would have done its job, which was to try to alleviate the suffering of the people of Darfur who were being raped, pillaged and burned while political wrangling went on in the hallowed halls of the United Nations.

Further Follow-Up to Decisions of the Human Rights Council

VEBJORN HEINES (Norway) called upon all Member States to ensure that the decision taken by the Human Rights Council at its first meeting last year to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be implemented, and efforts made to ensure the General Assembly adopted that Declaration before the end of the year.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said the Council had taken a position on this Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the issue was now in the hands of the General Assembly. The Council might only be able to encourage the General Assembly to follow through.

ESTEBANCIO CASTRO, of the International Indian Treaty Council, said that the International Indian Treaty Council was concerned by the actions of some States to politicize indigenous peoples’ human rights, stall the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the General Assembly, and thereby undermine the essential work and achievements of the Human Rights Council. It recognized that the General Assembly’s resolution 61/178 from December 2006 called for more time for further consultations. Those consultations should focus on dialogue and discussions in order to clarify the contents of the Declaration for those States which may not have actively participated in these discussions to date. Throughout the world, indigenous people were suffering from human rights violations of the greatest urgency.

RACHEL BRETT, of Friends World Committee for Consultation (QUAKER), said the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was an affirmation of the human rights of the world’s most vulnerable and frequently victimized peoples. A few States were attempting to exploit this moment to initiate a new process of negotiating the Declaration, and had promoted a reopening of the text through extreme and unsubstantiated claims about its impact. There was much to be appreciated and nothing to be feared in the Declaration. It was now time for States, indigenous peoples and civil society to work together to create a reality where the human rights of indigenous peoples were recognized, affirmed and implemented.

ROMUALD PIAL MEZALA, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said the credibility of the Council would be measured by its implementation of decisions and the effectiveness of its protection of human rights. Adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples had been a key moment in the birth of the Council, and the International League was concerned by the General Assembly’s decision to delay adoption of the text. The International League called on the Council to reaffirm its support for the Declaration and press for rapid adoption by the Assembly. While the capacity to examine questions of human rights violations was good, international enthusiasm waned in the face of poor results. Three missions in four had failed to fulfil their mandates through lack of cooperation by States. Cooperation had become a sort of right to veto that could be used to prevent implementation of a given decision.

TOMAS ALARCON, of the Comision Jurudica para el Autodesarollo de los Pueblos Originarios Andinos, said that the right to self-determination, including land and natural resources, was recognized by article one of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights so that all peoples all over the world could enjoy that right without discrimination. The Commission wished to highlight the importance of the right of indigenous people to possess, develop, and control their land and resources as part of their economic, social and cultural rights. The Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be finally adopted.

ELIA SOSA (Mexico) said Mexico endorsed the statement made by Norway, as, after 21 years of negotiations, it was very important that the General Assembly adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it was adopted by the Council. All delegations should work to ensure the General Assembly fulfilled that historic responsibility.

CARLOS ALBERTO CHOCANO BURGA (Peru) said Peru associated itself with the statements of Norway and Mexico on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration had been adopted by the Human Rights Council and the Council should ensure follow-up. Peru was concerned that the Declaration had not been adopted at the General Assembly and urged that that be done as soon as possible.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTÍNEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala) said Guatemala was interested in and committed to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Some of the delegations were urging a reforming of a Working Group. In Guatemala's view, the Declaration had been one of the great achievements of the Council. Guatemala was now working on this matter in New York to ensure the General Assembly would adopt the Declaration.


Right of Reply

TERRY CORMIER (Canada), speaking in a right of reply, said that it had not wanted to react on some statements made earlier. However, Canada affirmed that it had a long tradition not only of supporting but also of advancing indigenous peoples' rights.


For use of the information media; not an official record


HRC07013E