HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT AFTER HEARING FROM 11 DIGNITARIES

The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its high-level segment after hearing from 11 dignitaries, who raised issues including the upcoming Universal Periodic Review process, combating terrorism while respecting human rights, respect for religions and cultures and freedom of expression, while many outlined their own national efforts in support of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Dignitaries from Cameroon, the United Kingdom, Botswana, Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Italy and Spain took the floor.

Mark Malloch-Brown, Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations of the United Kingdom, said international action could, and did, make a real difference in the improvement of human rights, particularly when efforts were sustained and coordinated. If anyone doubted that, he wished to consider two current examples, Pakistan where international pressure had made a difference, and Sri Lanka where it had not. To fulfill its mandate, the Human Rights Council must be prepared to face up to some of the big issues of the world.

Phandu T.C. Skelemani, Minister of Defence, Security and Human Rights of Botswana, said, as a nation, Botswana promoted, respected, cherished and upheld activities that united it as a nation and discouraged those that were likely to tear the nation apart. With this in mind Botswana had produced a common national vision – Vision 2016 – which set out ambitious, but achievable, goals for the attainment of a national dream. The vision espoused unity of purpose, common values, adherence to democratic principles and the rule of law.

Frank Belfrage, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, said that the common endeavour of promoting and protecting human rights held a rare quality among human pursuits, as it was a functioning combination of idealism and realism. Governments, organizations and individuals across the world daily referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights it covered. The main challenge today was to implement it.

Per Stig Moeller, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, said it was so vital that the world had the Human Rights Council as the central platform to promote universal adherence to human rights and as the key forum for dialogue within the United Nations on human rights issues. It should be used to reduce misunderstandings and mistrust among different opinions, civilizations, cultures and religions.

Oskaras Jusys, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, stated that the primary responsibility to guarantee human rights was a self evident duty of every State, but a single nation must be supported by international activities and partners. The Human Rights Council was a body that assisted in these international efforts by providing a forum for substantive work on human rights issues.

Günter Nooke, Vice-Minister and Commissioner of the Federal Government for Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of Germany, noted that if the Human Rights Council was the centre of the United Nations, then the Universal Periodic Review was at the heart of the Council. Germany had been actively engaged in the creation of a credible and transparent Universal Periodic Review procedure. Universal acceptance of the Universal Periodic Review could only be attained if the same standards and procedures applied to all.

Zaid bin Abdul Muhsin Al-Hussain, Vice-Minister for Human Rights of Saudi Arabia, said Islam considered freedom, dignity and equality to be fundamental principles, and it forbade attacks on human rights or peoples rights. The approach of Islam was to create a single human family. This was not one law for one people, but for all of humanity. Saudi Arabia was very concerned about the ongoing campaign against Islam and the phenomenon of Islamophobia. It was sad that the media was playing a main role in escalating this phenomenon, as this spread hatred and division between peoples of the world and weakened bridges of understanding and dialogue.

Patrick Anthony Chinamasa, Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs of Zimbabwe, said when Zimbabwe had sought to give substance to its people’s economic, social and cultural rights through a belated equitable land restitution exercise, they had drawn the wrath of the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union as well as the white Commonwealth countries. The Anglo-American treatment of Africa as their playground was rejected.

Aniceto Ebiaka Mohete, Vice-Prime Minister in charge of Human Rights of Equatorial Guinea, said Equatorial Guinea was aware of the need to pool efforts to eradicate the ills of terrorism and acts of mercenaries, as well as the problems of hunger, war, social conflicts, HIV/AIDS, malaria, trafficking of human beings and all other social ills and evils. There was a need to strengthen the work towards peace, which was Equatorial Guinea’s political commitment underpinned by human rights’ values.

Gianni Vernetti, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Italy, noted that international community must use the opportunity of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to strongly reaffirm the universality, the indivisibility and the interdependence of these principles. However, the contradiction between what was written in the Declaration and what happened in reality remained striking and thus challenged the capacity and determination of the international community every day to live up to the expectations the Declaration raised worldwide.

Bernardino Leon Gross, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Spain, said several issues should guide the work of the Human Rights Council, one of which was to put an end to all forms of discrimination, which should no longer exist in this century. The Council also had to tackle issues of gender discrimination issue. Moreover, it was impossible to combat terrorism without respecting human rights.

Speaking in right of reply were Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan, Cuba, Mauritius, Iran and Sweden.

Following the conclusion of the high-level segment, the Human Rights Council will hold a panel discussion on human rights goals to be chaired by the President of the Council, Ambassador Doru Romulus Costea of Romania. The panel, which is an initiative of the Brazilian Government and is entitled “Panel on Human Rights Voluntary Goals and the 60th Anniversary pf the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, will be composed of government representatives and experts from Switzerland, Brazil, Italy, Morocco and Sri Lanka.

When the Council resumes its work following the panel event this afternoon, it will begin its general segment.

High-Level Segment

MARK MALLOCH-BROWN, Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations of the United Kingdom, said international action could, and did, make a real difference in the improvement of human rights, particularly when efforts were sustained and coordinated. If anyone doubted that, he wished to consider two current examples. In Pakistan the world remained concerned about the considerable human rights problems that existed, but it should also acknowledge the progress seen. Pressure by the international community helped convince President Musharraf to lift the state of emergency, to step down as chief of army staff, to release most political detainees and to remove media restrictions. Similarly, in Kenya the role of the international community expressed through the African Union and the United Nations, as well as directly by the European Union, the United States and others, gave Kofi Annan, the African Union mediator, added clout to mediate an agreement to form a new Government and stop the ethnically motivated violence. A field visit of the Office of the Higher Commissioner for Human Rights was a vital expression of the international community’s concern.

In Sri Lanka, a country facing considerable terrorist threat, unfortunately international concern had not made an impact. The international community condemned terrorism, but countering terrorism required respect for human rights. In Sri Lanka there were reports of disappearances, extra judicial killings and violence against the media. When Louise Arbour visited Sri Lanka in October last year, she was alarmed by the weakness of the rule of law and the prevalence of impunity. Little had changed, and those who committed these appalling crimes remained free. Sri Lanka’s human rights institutions could play a vital role, but to do so, they had to be independent and had to have the necessary authority and resources.

To fulfill its mandate, the Human Rights Council must be prepared to face up to some of the big issues of the world. The freedoms of religion and expression were two fundamental rights that were often seen to clash. The right of freedom of expression was a vital component of a free democratic society. The Human Rights Council had to find ways to overcome the misunderstanding and animosity that existed between people of different faiths and their governments. It must also play its part in ensuring that the fight against terrorism was not allowed to overwhelm people’s basic human rights. The world must ensure that human rights were genuinely universal. The Council must therefore continue to tackle the discrimination faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. It must also continue the fight to eliminate the use of torture as one of the worst violations of human rights. Three years ago the international community knew that the Human Rights Council needed to be established if it were to see the United Nations’ three pillars become a reality. Improved security, development, and human rights could not be seen in isolation.

PHANDU T. C. SKELEMANI, Minister of Defence, Security and Human Rights of Botswana, said Botswana attached great importance to the Human Rights Council, adding that the developments taking place within the Council served as an inspiration for Botswana as a young democracy. Botswana was founded on the basis of a Constitution, which continued to guarantee the civil liberties and fundamental freedoms of its citizens, including freedom of association, expression and religion. The nation’s collective progress on human rights issues was anchored on its commitment to work within the legal framework of its Constitution and the values it upheld. Among Botswana’s contributions to peace and human rights around the world was its participation in international assignments including in peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peacemaking efforts. Additionally, Botswana had, over the past four decades, hosted refugees and victims of civil wars and civil strife in its region.

As a nation, Botswana promoted, respected, cherished and upheld activities that united it as a nation and discouraged those that were likely to tear the nation apart, the Minister said. With this in mind Botswana had produced a common national vision – Vision 2016 – which set out ambitious, but achievable, goals for the attainment of a national dream. The vision espoused unity of purpose, common values, adherence to democratic principles and the rule of law. In the context of the Vision 2016 plan, Botswana was determined that the following pillar objectives would be attained: prosperity for all, a united and proud nation, a safe and secure nation, health for all and a vibrant and competitive nation. The synergy between Vision 2016 and the country’s National Development Plan would inevitably result in the promotion and protection of human rights issues in Botswana. Botswana called on the international community to assist willing States like Botswana with the necessary technical and other support to strengthen their implementation and development capacity with respect to human rights instruments. Botswana suggested that operational guidelines be put in place for Special Rapporteurs to discourage the negative reporting of the past. Moreover, Botswana was concerned that some of the people seeking a safe haven in the country were inclined to pose security threats to vulnerable communities along its boundaries and, in this connection, called on the Council to move with speed and make interventions where large scale human rights violations were reported.

FRANK BELFRAGE, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, said that the common endeavour of promoting and protecting human rights held a rare quality among human pursuits, as it was a functioning combination of idealism and realism. Governments, organizations and individuals across the world daily referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights it covered. The main challenge today was to implement it. The United Nations was at the heart of international human rights work and human rights thus should be the DNA of the United Nations. The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights was a key to the success of the United Nations’ human rights work and the High Commissioner’s independent mandate was crucial. After a year marked by institutional issues, Sweden now expected the Human Rights Council to move on to address the many pressing issues. The credibility of the Council demanded that it addressed ongoing violations, wherever they occurred. Last year’s special sessions had demonstrated their value. Special Procedures were crucial and country mandates were needed to keep the Council informed of serious situations and to give support and guidance to the concerned countries.

Mr. Belfrage noted that at the moment the world could see a number of grave and escalating human rights situations of serious concern, like in Somalia, the Ogaden region of Ethiopia and Sri Lanka. Sweden condemned the recent attacks in the Gaza strip. Dealing with human rights violations could serve as an early warning mechanism for protection of civilians and conflict prevention. The Council should be able to deal with situations before they became threats to international peace and security. The continuing large-scale use of the death penalty in countries like China, the United States and Iran remained deeply distressing. The development of new media and information technology had created possibilities for exchanging thoughts and ideas in new ways, and was reaching populations of authoritarian States. The Universal Declaration was the most translated document, but there were still too many people, speaking too many languages, who did not enjoy respect for human rights and democracy.

PER STIG MOELLER, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, said, with almost 200 Member States, the United Nations family represented a unique and unrivaled melting pot of cultural and political diversity. Human rights were universal. That was why it was so vital that the world had the Human Rights Council as the central platform to promote universal adherence to human rights and as the key form for dialogue within the United Nations on human rights issues. It should be used to reduce misunderstandings and mistrust among different opinions, civilizations, cultures and religions. The need for dialogue could not be disputed. This included dialogue on freedom of expression and religion and it meant accepting differences of opinion and respecting religious feelings. It was up to the international community to secure that the Council indeed became this central platform. This required full use of the toolbox developed since the establishment of the Human Rights Council. One of the yardsticks in this regard was the Universal Periodic Review to be launched next month. Denmark felt confident that the Universal Periodic Review provided a unique tool in the protection and promotion of human rights through monitoring and dialogue. In this sense, Denmark saw this tool as a confidence building measure.

Non-governmental organizations and human rights institutions were important stakeholders in observing and warning about the human rights violations in the world. He hoped they to the fullest possible extent would become actively involved in the process. Whether they represented specific concerns such as the rights of indigenous people, or were more broadly founded, their participation was an important component in making the Universal Periodic Review a credible and facilitating dialogue. Another yardstick would be the review of the Special Procedures mandates, and Denmark believed there was a need to strengthen the Special Procedures, their independence and efficiency. Also, it was of paramount importance to preserve the independent functioning of the office of the high commissioner for Human Rights, and all attempts to encroach the independency by micromanagement or any other means must be consistently redressed. Freedom of expression was one of the core human rights, but dissatisfaction with a concrete exercise of the freedom of expression could never justify death threats or indeed killing another person. Concerning the recent re-publication of a cartoon of the Prophet Mohamed, the Danish Government condemned any action that attempted to demonize people on the basis of their religion or ethnic background. Denmark expected all religions to respect each other and it respected Islam as one of the world’s major religions. The Danish Government took the concerns voiced by large numbers of Muslims very seriously. The way forward was through dialogue, collaboration and cultural understanding.

OSKARAS JUSYS, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, said Lithuania considered that the Council was an excellent platform to demonstrate each country’s work and progress in implementing human rights. Lithuania also believed that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was a great opportunity for each United Nations Member State to present its achievements in the field of human rights and it wished a very successful start for the continuous process of the Universal Periodic Review. The Universal Periodic Review would encourage States for positive developments and allow sharing best practices emphasizing and enhancing cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights. Lithuania considered that the selection and appointment of mandate holders of the Special Procedures was a very important question today. Lithuania expressed its hope that the process of review, rationalization and improvement of the United Nations’ Special Procedures would be successfully completed. The system maintained by the Commission on Human Rights must be maintained and strengthened and all Governments should cooperate with them. Lithuania, hence, invited all the United Nations Members States to cooperate with Special Procedures and Special Rapporteurs regarding country and particular thematic questions.

Human rights were all about collective responsibility, he affirmed. The primary responsibility to guarantee human rights was a self evident duty of every State, but a single nation must be supported by international activities and partners. The Human Rights Council was a body that assisted in these international efforts by providing a forum for substantive work on human rights issues. As a global institution, the Council’s special mandate should be approximately and equally implemented. However, Lithuania noted that four out of six special sessions were devoted only to one region. Lithuania considered that planning of the Council’s special sessions should be based on a reasonable regional necessity and it should reflect the entire world’s human rights promotion and protection needs. Lithuania did believe in and expect efficient work to be carried out by the Council, which would allow the international community to reach the goals that were set up when the United Nations reform process had started. Lithuania believed that the Council would function as an objective, constructive and non-selective instrument of the United Nations to fight human rights violations all over the world. Moreover, Lithuania believed that the Human Rights Council would embody a new culture of human rights and the highest human rights standards would become the key factor for the entire international community. Success of the Council’s work was in the hands of the international community. Lithuania therefore encouraged everyone to hear the voice of the people who were in the greatest demand today for the protection of their rights and freedoms.

GUNTER NOOKE, Vice Minister and Commissioner of the Federal Government for Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of Germany, said that by adopting a comprehensive institution-building package, the Human Rights Council had formalised the results of a year-long negotiation process. The Council was now equipped with the tools and procedures required to enable it to fulfil its role as an efficient and credible centrepiece of the United Nations’ human rights protection system. As it was moving from organisational matters, the ability to quickly respond to current situations started to emerge, as shown by the last special sessions. Yet, concerns remained and not all objectives had been met. The Council remained divided on a number of procedural and substantive issues, and a continued tendency of States to belong to camps was witnessed. This was undermining the very concept of universality of human rights. The recent statement made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, underlining that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights constituted customary international law, was welcomed.

Mr. Nooke noted that, if the Human Rights Council was the centre of the United Nations, then the Universal Periodic Review was at the heart of the Council. Germany had been actively engaged in the creation of a credible and transparent Universal Periodic Review procedure. Universal acceptance of the Universal Periodic Review could only be attained if the same standards and procedures applied to all. Equal responsibility was shared in making the Universal Periodic Review a success. At the same time, there was no need to over regulate the process before it had even begun. One important issue for Germany was the access to free drinking water and sanitation. Germany, together with Spain, would introduce at the current session an initiative to establish this right as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to health.

ZAID BIN ABDUL MUHSIN, Vice Minister of Human Rights of Saudi Arabia, said the Council had as part of its creative process carried out a review of past practices of the Commission on Human Rights, both positive and negative. Optimists would see the Human Rights Council as a good tool to fulfill an important mission and to ensure greater prosperity and happiness to human beings. Achieving this mission was not impossible. Every people had the right and an obligation to develop their own culture so that the diversity of cultures created a joint heritage of mankind. The human rights principles ensured the respect for peoples identities, peoples who refused to be dictated and who held on to their special cultures. This was the view of the optimist, he who invented the aeroplane. The pessimist was he who invented the parachute. The pessimist would look at the Council through figures that reflected the picture of modern man and his rights according to international and regional human rights treaties. Human rights were not granted by anyone and were not the property of Governments or persons. Some figures noted that 10 million
children below the age of five died annually; 400 million children suffered from malnutrition because of poverty; and 18,000 children died daily from hunger. If this was the situation of children, the future of humanity, one could only imagine what more they would face as adults.

The obvious example of the violation of human rights in the world was the Israeli practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These flagrant violations went against all conventions. These massacres of children, women and men and the destruction of homes were examples of how the Israeli officials looked down at people with consciences and condemning voices from around the world who condemned these terrible crimes against humanity in the Occupied Territories. Islam considered freedom, dignity and equality to be fundamental principles, and it forbade attacks on human rights or peoples rights. The approach of Islam was to create a single human family. Islam considered human beings as being created by God and totally banned jeopardizing the right of individuals and anything which caused injustice because it would destroy the human family. This was not one law for one people, but for all of humanity.

Mr. Al-Hussain pointed out that the image of the Prophet Mohamed could not be distorted as it was he who had raised the banner of human dignity. The Prophet had drawn a very clear path of tolerance, forgiveness and understanding among all and these values were enshrined in the Koran. The Commission on Human Rights in Saudi Arabia had condemned in very strong terms the publication of caricatures of the Prophet. Saudi Arabia was very concerned about the ongoing campaign against Islam and the phenomenon of Islamophobia. It was sad that the media was playing a main role in escalating this phenomenon, as this spread hatred and division between peoples of the world and weakened bridges of understanding and dialogue. This was against all human rights and treaties.

PATRICK ANTHONY CHINAMASA, Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs of Zimbabwe, said that in a few weeks, the first group of States would appear before the Universal Periodic Review. This would be historic, as the Universal Periodic Review was accepted as the most significant innovation characteristic of the Human Rights Council, setting it apart from the defunct Commission. Zimbabwe hoped that those who had for too long named and shamed would also stand and be scrutinised. Zimbabwe was looking forward to its appearance before the Universal Periodic Review in 2011. Zimbabwe joined others in voicing its discontent with the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights for repeated dereliction of duty and a failure to consult intergovernmental bodies in the preparation of important programmes such as the strategic management plan. Zimbabwe continued to be amazed at the High Commissioner’s continued disregard of the directive of her superior, the Secretary-General. Regrettably the Office was seeing itself as some deified oracle which spewed out edicts that all had to follow. The Office had to be clear that this behaviour could only result in non-cooperation. Zimbabwe still remained committed to cooperating with the Office when it conducted itself appropriately.

Mr. Chinamasa said that Zimbabwe’s detractors remained unrelenting in their condemnation of its government. When Zimbabwe had sought to give substance to its people’s economic, social and cultural rights through a belated equitable land restitution exercise, they had drawn the wrath of the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union as well as the white Commonwealth countries. The Anglo-American treatment of Africa as their playground was rejected. Zimbabwe remained opposed to the machinations of the West. Zimbabwe was now moving towards an election period, out of which authentically elected persons would come, not some foreign anointed pseudo leaders. It was utterly unacceptable to be lectured on good governance and democracy by an unelected United Kingdom Minister. Human rights belonged to all countries and they were not gifts from the developed world.

ANICETO EBIAKA MOHETE, Vice Prime Minister in charge of Human Rights of Equatorial Guinea, recalled that it was in this chamber exactly one year ago when Equatorial Guinea informed the Council of the unswerving will of Equatorial Guinea to promote, guarantee, protect and consolidate human rights in the country and consequently in the entire world. Equatorial Guinea maintained close relations with the United Nations to ensure equality, justice and peace. Equatorial Guinea had been experiencing important socio-economic changes over the past few years. The Government, in July 2007, invited the Working Group on arbitrary detention to visit the country and the Group had the opportunity to carry out its work as planned. Equatorial Guinea was the second African country to receive the Working Group. In 2004, Equatorial Guinea came very close to a mercenary invasion with financing and support from external elements. This year, on 23 January, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe issued a verdict leading to the extradition of Simon Man, a mercenary who was eventually handed over to the authorities of Equatorial Guinea and would be duly prosecuted. Equatorial Guinea condemned all acts of terrorism and acts by mercenaries. The Government would be inviting in the near future the Human Rights Council Working Group on Mercenaries to provide assistance on this specific case.

Equatorial Guinea was aware of the need to pool efforts to eradicate the ills of terrorism and acts of mercenaries, as well as the problems of hunger, war, social conflicts, HIV/AIDS, malaria, trafficking of human beings and all other social ills and evils, the Minister said. There was a need to strengthen the work towards peace. This was Equatorial Guinea’s political commitment underpinned by human rights’ values. Since the last session of the Council, the Government of Equatorial Guinea had been working on the promotion of human rights in the country in close cooperation with bilateral organizations whose plans were being implemented jointly. In November 2007, a second Economic National Conference was held in order to adopt a financial national plan. The conference proposed a socio-economic development model for Equatorial Guinea up to 2020. Among other things, Equatorial Guinea had endeavored to strengthen its institutional capacities and had instituted programmes of actions on the rights of women and children in the education system. Despite these efforts, Equatorial Guinea still required technical assistance in order to reach the goals it had set for itself.

GIANNI VERNETTI, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Italy, while remarking that the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights marked a turning point in the history of human rights, noted that the international community must take this opportunity to strongly reaffirm the universality, the indivisibility and the interdependence of these principles. However, the contradiction between what was written in the Declaration and what happened in reality remained striking and thus challenged the capacity and determination of the international community every day to live up to the expectations the Declaration raised worldwide. This session of the Council provided the international community with a good opportunity to address the most urgent and critical human rights issues and to strengthen the capacity of the Council to tackle them. Italy hoped that the panel dedicated to intercultural dialogue on human rights would enhance mutual understanding and would yield a positive impact on the functioning of the Council.

While referring to the country and thematic mandates as crucial tools for the Council’s action, Italy expressed the wish that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar would be renewed and strengthened so as to enhance the collaboration between the Government of Myanmar and the Special Rapporteur, which had recently resumed after several years of interruption. Italy believed that Myanmar must remain high on the agenda of the international community as well as of the Human Rights Council in the light of the latest development concerning the announcement of the constitutional referendum to be held in May 2008 and general elections planned for 2010.

While underlining that mandates served as an important vehicle for technical assistance and cooperation, the Under-Secretary announced that Italy would be working to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert on Somalia. Italy called on the Human Rights Council to devote its attention to Somali and find ways and means to keep the Somali crisis in the focus of the international community. With regard to the situation in Darfur, the full implementation of the prioritized recommendations indicated in the report of the Group of Experts, presented at the last session of the Council, was a crucial step towards the enhancement of the human rights situation in Darfur. Italy also renewed its strong commitment towards the universal abolition of the death penalty and was interested in the possibility of appointing a personality that might represent a reference for the international community in the pursuit of a global moratorium on executions. Finally, Italy attached importance to the question of equitable access to safe water.

BERNARDINO LEON GROSS, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Spain, said that Spain was pleased that it had been possible for the Council to overcome the obstacles of the institution building package and to move now forward to the real work. It was important to protect human rights. The main challenge facing the Council was to tackle all human rights situations. The most visible parts of the work of the Council were the interactive debates and the resolutions.

Mr. Gross said that several issues should guide the work of the Human Rights Council, one of which was to put an end to all forms of discrimination. It should not exist anymore in this century. The Council also had to tackle the gender discrimination issue. Also, it was impossible to combat terrorism without respecting human rights. It was unacceptable that States did not respect the law while combating terrorism. The Council should also tackle issues related to development. It should help countries to meet Millennium Development Goals. Spain reiterated its wish to see the death penalty abolished worldwide. The Universal Periodic Review had still to show its effects but it would surely become a very valuable tool. Spain was a candidate to be member of the Council. Spain would be presenting, together with Germany, a draft resolution on the right to free access to safe drinking water. The Universal Declaration was seen as central to the work of the Council.


Right of Reply

MAHINDA SAMARASINGHE (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply, expressed regret for the misguided approach expressed by the Minister of the United Kingdom to the Council this morning. Sri Lanka shared the concerns of other members of the international community that such an approach only supported the belief that it was difficult for some countries to let go of their colonial possessions. The report of the Minister had not been supported. Countering terrorism required full respect for human rights. Sri Lanka was well aware of this and had over the years developed new institutions in that regard. Sri Lanka was proud of its records for combating terrorism, while minimizing harm to civilians. The United Kingdom Minister referred to reports of wars in Sri Lanka, but failed to note the substantial improvement the country had made. Sri Lanka was strengthening democracy and pluralism in a manner that had proved difficult in the past.

AKMAL SAIDOV (Uzbekistan), speaking in a right of reply, said that Uzbekistan regretted the double standards, inertia and selectivity in the statement made by Sweden. Uzbekistan did not understood why Sweden said that in Uzbekistan people were not able to take part in democracy. Uzbekistan wondered if this was a reference to the Presidential elections last December. More than 90 percent of the population had voted in those elections. There had been alternatives and a freedom of choice in the elections, as noted by the more than 300 foreign observers who had attended the elections. Uzbekistan was surprised that instead of a constructive approach on behalf of the State Secretary, he had made an attempt to be a teacher and present what a democracy should be.

Yuri GALA (Cuba), speaking in a right of reply in response to the comments made by Sweden, said that Cuba vigorously rejected these inappropriate comments, as they were false. Sweden appeared to have forgotten, or perhaps it was not aware, that there was no single model for democracy. Cuba was the genuine result of a popular revolution. The Council should function on a new basis, stressing genuine dialogue. It should not pick up selective and double standard type judgements which ended in discredit in the Human Rights Commission. There were also limitations in Sweden and the Minister should have referred to the current insufficiencies to the enjoyment of certain economic, social and cultural rights by the Swedish people, the ill-treatment of migrants and the growing acts of xenophobia. Secret flights of the CIA had taken place with the complicity of Sweden. These were the issues that the statement of Sweden should have included.

MOHAMED IQBAL LATONA (Mauritius), speaking in a right of reply in reference to the speech of the United Kingdom which spoke of past use of British territory for extraordinary rendition, Mauritius believed that the Minister was referring to the extraordinary rendition flights to the Island of Diego Garcia as reported lately. Mauritius reiterated the sovereignty claims of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago, including the island of Diego Garcia, and expressed concern over the use of the island for rendition flights.

ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran), speaking in a right of reply, said that, regarding the statements by the United Kingdom and Sweden, as Iran had stated before, Iran, inspired by Islamic teaching and in accordance with the Constitution and its internationally accepted commitments, was fully committed to the full protection and promotion of human rights for all. With regards to capital punishment, many countries kept it in its legislation and it was first and foremost an issue of the criminal justice system and an important deterrence element vis a vis the most serious crimes. This was in conformity with article six of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. This punishment was implemented within the legal framework with full respect to due reference of law and after the exhaustion of a lengthy and careful process. Every country had an inalienable right to chose its political, economic, social and legal system without interference in any form by another States.

ELINOR HAMMARSHJOLD (Sweden), speaking in a right of reply in reference to the statement made by Cuba, said Sweden believed that the Council would only be able to live up to the expectations placed on it if it was a body where criticism of human rights was leveled where it was due and support was provided where it was needed. This was the view that guided the statement made by the Secretary of State of Sweden this morning.

YURI GALA (Cuba), speaking in a second right of reply, reiterated that the Swedish delegate should have begun his statement by focusing on the complicated situation of migrants in his own country, caused by the actions of racism and xenophobia that occurred in that society. The fact that these problems were going on made Cuba question whether there was a true democracy in Sweden.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08010E