HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS THAT REQUIRE ITS ATTENTION

The Human Rights Council this afternoon discussed issues under its agenda item on human rights situations that require the attention of the Council, hearing national delegations and representatives of non-governmental organizations raise alleged human rights violations in countries all around the world.

One delegation said that while no country had a perfect human rights record, there were situations that deserved highlighting. Another said that while the Council was reviewing the UN Member States without prejudice and with a view to protect human rights for all in the Universal Periodic Review process, there were situations of gross and systematic violations that were urgent and should be dealt with by the Council. It was important to draw the attention of the Council to where human rights had been violated. The Special Rapporteurs’ visits and recommendations should be taken into consideration, and continued dialogue between the Governments and the Special Procedures should continue. Others stressed that the Council should get rid of double standards and politicisation.

Speaking in the general debate were delegations of Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, the Netherlands, France, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, Switzerland, China, Bolivia, Sweden, Australia, Ireland, Iceland and New Zealand.

Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, Baha'i International Community; Asian Legal Resource Centre; Colombian Commission of Jurists; Human Rights Watch; Amnesty International; Liberation; International Educational Development; Interfaith International; International Commission of Jurists, in a joint statement with Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions; Society for Threatened Peoples; International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH); International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations; Association of World Citizens; International Human Rights Association of American Minorities; and the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia).

Speaking in right of reply were Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Sudan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, China and Bangladesh.

When the Council meets at 10 a.m. on Monday, 9 June, it will start consideration of reports on 32 countries prepared following the first two sessions of the Working Group for the Universal Periodic Review.

General Debate on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that no country had a perfect human rights record, the European Union States were no exception. However there were situations that deserved highlighting. The situation in Myanmar had been severely compounded with the Cyclone Nargis. The authorities were once again called on to speedily and fully implement all recommendations set out in the relevant Council resolutions. In the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the situation of human rights remained extremely serious and was not improving. The European Union remained seriously concerned about the situation in Sudan. All parties were called to cease violence immediately. Profound dismay was expressed with the Government’s continued failure to comply with its obligations under Security Council resolution 1593, including its refusal to arrest and surrender to the International Criminal Court the men whom it had issued arrest warrants for.

The European Union was further concerned at the State-sponsored campaign of violence and intimidation that threatened to spiral out of control ahead of the Zimbabwe presidential run off. The Government must bring to an immediate end the human rights abuses. The electoral process required conditions on the ground to be in full accordance with international standards. The European Union further continued to be concerned about the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka. Ongoing violence and human rights violations as well as inadequate investigation had given rise to a climate of impunity. The situation in Iran was also concerning, especially the mounting pressure under which civil society had to work. The United Nations High Commissioner for human rights’ visit to Tibet would be greatly welcomed. Of further concern was the situation in Kenya and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

ROBERT-JAN SIEBEN (Netherlands) said human rights issues constituted important challenges for all countries. The Netherlands trusted the Council to review the United Nations Member States without prejudice and with the view to protect human rights for all. There were situations of gross and systematic violations that were urgent and should be dealt with by the Council. The Universal Periodic Review could not be the only means of dealing with human rights violations on the country level. There was great concern about the deteriorating human rights and humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka. A crucial starting point in reversing this situation was the acknowledgement of the Government of Sri Lanka of the scope of the problem and the role of the security forces and non-state armed groups. The Netherlands urged the Government of Sri Lanka to effectively investigate allegations of attacks on civilians, including human rights defenders and media personnel and to safeguard their rights.

The Government was gravely concerned about the situation in a number of countries in Africa that were torn by conflict and ongoing human rights violations. The Human Rights Council could not stand aside. It should deploy all available instruments and Special Procedures to monitor the situation and to protect victims of violations and human rights defenders. The human rights situation in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo where there was an ongoing war on women through widespread sexual violence was of great concern. The Netherlands was also concerned regarding the Government-instigated violence and intimidation campaign in Zimbabwe, and called for a fundamental investigation into the current human rights violations. It was also concerned about the random arrests of about 100 Darfuri people following the JEM attack on Omdurman and called on the Sudanese Government to put a halt to these arrests.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) said human rights situations in all countries deserved attention. The Human Rights Council had a responsibility to look at specific situations. For Burma/Myanmar, France reaffirmed the importance of the free movement and work of United Nations humanitarian officials. It condemned the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi. France called on the United Nations Security Council to call for the release of all political prisoners. It said the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had not improved and that all rights were being violated. France called for the Government to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur and to engage with the international community. France drew attention to the situation in Zimbabwe. It was alarmed by the two months of violence and the constant violation of human rights. It condemned the prohibition of international non governmental organizations and the arrest of opposition leaders.

France noted the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and called on the Government to agree to the request of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit the country. In Sudan, it called on the Government to allow free access for international human rights workers. It called on the Government to comply with the International Criminal Court and to capture those with international arrest warrants against them and to deliver them to the Court. In Iran, the Government was continuing draconian restrictions of freedom of expression and the press. France condemned the organized persecution of human rights workers. It condemned the violence against women. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, France called for the Government to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. It noted with alarm the levels of sexual violence against women.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) believed that a number of human rights situations required the Council’s attention. The need for free and democratic elections in Zimbabwe was underlined. Of deep concern was the suspension of operations of several non-governmental organizations. Unhindered access to those in need by humanitarian workers had to be ensured. In Iran, 370 individuals had been executed in 2007. Iran led the world in juvenile executions. The manipulation of the educational system to oppress and discredit the Baha’is was condemned. In Sudan, the Government was called on to increase measures to combat impunity. Full and unhindered humanitarian access had to be provided to everyone.

Further, the Democratic Republic of the Congo seemed to be taking its human rights commitments seriously; however the situation on the ground was still alarming. Women were still victims of sexual violence. Canada believed it was premature to end the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The human rights situation in Sri Lanka also remained alarming. Arbitrary arrests were common, as well as torture and restriction of movement. Sri Lanka had to allow the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights to report on the situation in the country. In Belarus, harassment of independent media and human rights defenders was disappointing. Finally, on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, there was nothing democratic about that country.

MICHAEL KLEPSCH (Germany) expressed grave concern about the deterioration of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. Unlawful killings, politically motivated kidnappings and systematic attacks on and harassment of the political opposition and human rights defenders had occurred and increased. Security forces had arbitrarily arrested and detained journalists, lawyers, demonstrators, religious leaders and human rights defenders. The recent arrest of opposition leaders Mutamabara and Tsvangirai were only concise examples of these practices. Access to food and basic social services was restricted in regions which were suspected to have supported the political opposition. The situation even worsened by the recent decision of the Zimbabwean Government to order an immediate end to all activities carried out by international non-governmental organizations.

In order to give all Zimbabweans the opportunity to freely choose their Government and determine the political course of action for their future, all acts of intimidation against political opponents, human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers or others had to cease immediately. Further, Germany called on the Zimbabwean Government to take resolute steps to put an end to the prevailing climate of impunity in the country, to investigate all human rights violations and to bring the perpetrators to justice.

ANWAR CHOUDHURY (United Kingdom) said it was important to draw attention of this body to where human rights had been violated. No country was perfect. The United Kingdom was concerned by the crack down on civil society in Belarus. It was pleased that monitors from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development would be present for the elections. The United Kingdom was concerned about the violence in Sudan and called on all parties to stop such violence. The Government must commit to its international obligations to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. It was concerned by the growing trend of capital punishment in Iran and for the safety of women’s right defenders and trade unionists. It drew attention to the problem of immunity of those committing violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, especially violence against women in the eastern part of the country. The perpetrators had to be held accountable for their actions.

In Kenya, all items identified by Kofi Anan had to be discussed and action must be taken on them. In Myanmar, the United Kingdom remained concerned that access to those in need was slow and called on the Government to allow relief workers access to those in need. It was worried by the environment that the referendum took place and by the extension of house arrest on Aung San Suu Kyi. The United Kingdom was deeply concerned by deteriorating conditions in Zimbabwe. It condemned the restriction of operations placed on international non-governmental organizations. The confinement of opposition leaders was unacceptable. This was not exhaustive list of countries worthy of concern. There were others, like the People’s Republic of Korea, Tibet and Sri Lanka. The United Kingdom would stand with any country that had a genuine wish to improve human rights in their country.

MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan) said that Japan would refer only to the negative and positive aspects that had come to their attention. Japan had felt reassured by the positive remarks made by Sri Lanka at the Universal Periodic Review that it would invigorate its efforts. It was hoped that the Government would continue its battle to ensure the arrest of the perpetrators of human rights violations and to bring them to justice. The Government of Japan would continue to follow the efforts of Sri Lanka and would help its Government with technical assistance. On the situation in Zimbabwe, the deterioration of the human rights situation and democracy was noted. Concerns remained over growing political pressure against the opposition party from the ruling party. It was hoped that the run-off election would be held in a democratic and transparent manner. Appreciation was expressed to the Government and people of Nepal for taking a new step forward by holding the Constitutional Assembly last week with a view to building a democratic country. Japan would continue to support efforts of the Nepalese people. Referring to the recent terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka, Japan expressed its deep condolences to the victims. Such acts were condemned by the Government of Japan.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said that the responsibility of States should be to protect human rights and the medium and long term goals of the countries should take this into account. In Zimbabwe there were increasing human rights abuses. The Government should respect the rule of law and human rights should be protected. It was the responsibility of all stakeholders at the national and international level. This should be addressed especially for the upcoming elections on June 22 2008, which must be run fairly. In Sudan, attacks on civil society were frequent, not only in Darfur but also in the surrounding areas. The Government should set up efforts and improve the human rights situation in the country, especially with the upcoming elections. In Sri Lanka, there was a human rights and humanitarian situation. Free and unimpeded access should be given to the humanitarian organizations and to access for people who were in need of these services. Further, Switzerland had noted intolerable acts against the media. The Special Rapporteurs’ visits and recommendations should be taken into consideration, and continued dialogue between the Governments and the Special Procedures should continue.

QIAN BO (China) said the Council should get rid of double standards and politicisation. China attached importance to the promotion and protection of human rights. The response to the earthquake in China was human centred and showed that human rights were respected in China. Tibet was a matter of national integrity and was about confronting a separatist movement. Members of the Human Rights Council showed a double standard when calling the events in Tibet a human rights issue. Tibetans enjoyed autonomy. Monks enjoyed freedom. Health facilities were found in the whole region. There were many schools. The Tibetan language was taught. The violent crimes in March of this year were actions of separatists organised by the Dali Lama. China hoped the Human Rights Council would help dispel the erroneous facts.

ANGELICA NAVARRO LLANOS (Bolivia) said that the Government of Bolivia wished to made public the serious human rights violations by non state groups against indigenous persons. On 24 May, indigenous leaders waiting for the visit of President Evo Morales in the city of Sucre had been beaten and publicly humiliated. The old colonial customs of humiliating indigenous people had re-emerged. Almost 20 years of democracy had not been enough to eradicate racism. This recent attack was part of a series of serious attacks against human rights violations that had taken place recently by unconstitutional armed groups. These attacks were based on racism. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bolivia had issued a statement saying that the violence of these events was incompatible with human rights. The Ministry of Justice had further submitted a criminal complaint against the authors of these acts and investigations had begun. All international organizations had to speak out and condemn these racist acts. Bolivia believed that the Human Rights Council should also take a stand on this matter.

HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden) said since this Council began its last session in March, two evolving situations, in Tibet and Zimbabwe, had raised human rights issues which needed the attention of the Council. In Tibet in March general violence following demonstrations led to a deplorable loss of life. In the course of these events, there were reports of acts of violence by security forces and other agents of the Government of China. Additional restrictions were imposed on religious institutions. Individuals were subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention. Interference with Internet service providers further restricted the freedom of expression including the right to information. Large numbers of persons remained in detention, while the denial of equal protection before the law had been reported.

Following the first round of elections in Zimbabwe on 29 March, large-scale human rights violations had been reported against persons alleged to have voted for parties in opposition to the Government as well as other persons. These violations had included arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and ill-treatment, interference with the freedom of assembly, interference with the freedom of expression and information, interference with the right to vote, including through physical harassment and other intimidation, and arbitrary deprivation and destruction of property. Further, Sweden believed that these situations should be given more attention by the Council and its mechanisms, including by its relevant Special Procedures.

GUY O'BRIEN (Australia) said there were numerous areas of concern. Australia called for the release of all prisoners in Myanmar. It was concerned by the referendum process in Myanmar, which had not been transparent. Zimbabwe was facing a humanitarian disaster. Australia condemned the decision of the Government to stop activities of non governmental organizations. It was shocked at the escalating levels of violence by State supported actors. In Sudan, Australia was very disturbed by lack of progress of the Government to comply with the International Criminal Court. It called on all parties to work for peace. Australia was sorry to learn of the arrest of religious leaders in Iran. It said the Human Rights Council needed to play an active role in ensuring all rights were respected.

MICHEAL TIERNEY (Ireland) said that Ireland was deeply concerned over the situation in Myanmar and the Government’s failure to comply with the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations. The situation in Sri Lanka was also of deep concern. A substantial increase of violence had been seen in this country; all sides had to urgently address their differences peacefully. The consistent failure of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to collaborate with the Special Rapporteur had to cease and the Government had to respect its international obligations. State sponsored violence in Zimbabwe was also of deep concern. A credible election process needed minimum standards. The renewed violence in Darfur had caused new suffering for its population. The Government was urged to comply with the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court.

INGIBJORG DAVIOSDOTTIR (Iceland) said that Iceland would continue to support the endeavours of the Council to constantly remind Governments of their responsibility to protect all citizens. Iceland strongly urged the Government of Burma/Myanmar to lift all restrictions on the deployment of international assistance to the people of Burma/Myanmar and to cooperate fully with humanitarian organizations. The Government of Burma/Myanmar was urged to ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and to lift all restraints on peaceful political activity. Iceland was concerned over the Government of Burma/Myanmar’s decision to extend once again Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest.

The protection of human rights in Sudan remained a concern, especially the recent violations escalating in the past few days. The human rights violations in Sudan must be stopped, victims must be assisted and those who were responsible for the violations must be brought to justice. Impunity had to end and human rights law and humanitarian law must be respected. Further, Iceland opposed the death penalty under all circumstances and urged all countries to abolish it. In this context Iceland expressed concern about news coming out of Iran that it was considering applying the death penalty for conversion of religion.

MICHAEL MCBRYDE (New Zealand) said New Zealand was concerned by the human rights violations in Zimbabwe. The Government was allowing for State sponsored terror aimed at political opposition and the general public. The election must be free. New Zealand was concerned by events in Darfur where many violations were being committed by Government security forces. It called on the Government to cooperate with the United Nations and the African Union. It urged the Government to comply with international law and to stop the oppression of its citizens. It noted progress in Kenya. There was a desire for peaceful solutions. New Zealand commended the actions of the African Union, Kofi Annan and others.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, drew attention to the situation in Bolivia. Indigenous people had been able to elect democratically and for the first time in history, an indigenous president. But President Evo Morales had been confronted with destabilisation attempts. Indigenous people had been the focus of recent racist attacks. Public appeals called to kill Indians or to treat them like animals. USAID had been reported to call during public meetings to murder the legally elected president. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had condemned these events. The Human Rights Council had to take swift action to strongly condemn these racist actions and to invite foreign powers not to support such actions.

DIANE ALA'I, of Baha’i International Community, said that on 14 May 2008, six members of the Baha’i leadership in Iran were summarily arrested in Tehran. They had not been given access to legal counsel, nor had their relatives been able to contact them. It was time for the Human Rights
Council to call on the Islamic Republic of Iran to abide by its international commitments. As a first step, the Council should call upon Iran to release the Baha’i leadership and grant all Iranian Baha’is their individual and collective human rights.

MICHAEL ANTHONY, of the Asian Legal Resource Centre, said the elections in Pakistan had brought hope of change. It appeared that after only two months in power, the Government of Pakistan was already failing in this regard. It did not reinstate the Chief Justice and other judges within 30 days. Instead a diluted constitutional package was introduced. The Asian Legal Resource Centre said it was difficult to see how any human rights could be possible without a functioning independent judiciary in place. Pakistan’s record made it one of Asia’s worst violators of human rights. In Bangladesh, the protection of human rights had been rendered near impossible since the declaration of a state of emergency. Under this, fundamental rights had been suspended. Reports by non-governmental organizations indicated that over 300,000 Bangladeshis had been arbitrarily arrested and detained. The order of magnitude of this problem spoke for itself. The Centre called on the Human Rights Council to demonstrate its commitment and to intervene with Bangladesh and urged the authorities to lift the state of emergency.

ISABELLE HEYER, of the Colombian Commission of Jurists, drew the attention of the Human Rights Council to the serious human rights violations of victims of crimes of war in Colombia as well as the ongoing attacks by Government officials on human rights defenders. The High Commissioner had in her last report stated that it was urgent to provide an adequate response to the request of victims, in full compliance with the rights of victims. This was important in order to achieve a lasting situation of peace. On 30 May the Government had extradited paramilitary members to the United States. This was contrary to the rights of victims and impeded them from being able to be informed on the whereabouts of their relatives.

SEBASTIEN GILLIOZ, of Human Rights Watch, said that this week the International Committee of the Red Cross called Somalia the worst tragedy of the past decade. Serious violations of international humanitarian law continued unabated and there had been no effort to establish accountability for past abuses, many of which amounted to war crimes. Human Rights Watch urged Member States to underscore the need to end impunity by calling for the establishment of an international commission of inquiry into recent crimes in violation of international law. There was concern for the pattern of serious violence of international humanitarian law documented in the Ogaden area of Ethiopia’s Somali Regional State. The Council should examine this situation and call for an end to the violence.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said it was very concerned that many grave situations escaped the Human Rights Council. Since September 11, the United States Government had carried out a determined assault on the rule of law. It had authorized interrogation methods that violated the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It has subjected detainees to secret detention, inter-state transfers without due process, and enforced disappearances. The CIA’s programme of secret detention was one part of this assault, the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was another. The Human Rights Council must demand the closure of Guantanamo.

In Tibet, protests, crackdowns, and arrests flowed in a cycle. Security forces continued to use excessive force, occasionally lethal, to put down peaceful protests. The Council must call on the Chinese authorities to show restraint in responding to protests, disclose the names, whereabouts and legal status of all detainees, and release anyone detained solely for protesting peacefully. In Zimbabwe, Amnesty International had documented torture and other violations against mainly Movement for Democratic Change supporters.

YOANNA CLAQUIN, of Liberation, brought to the notice of the Council unaccounted grave human rights violations being committed in north-eastern states of India that were under the control of the Indian army. The Army and the police were jointly involved in human killings under the Indian Government’s umbrella. Indian Courts were encouraging merciless human killings. The courts had told the Army and the Government that they could kill anybody if they paid the price fixed by court for such killings.

KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said that for Afghanistan, Iraq and Sri Lanka there was neither a Special Rapporteur nor an item 10 Independent Expert to look at the situation where protracted armed conflicts in these countries were continuing. These three situations illustrated the tragic results when the Council was backed into a corner by certain actors, not limited to the Governments of these countries, and rendered ineffective to stop the carnage, the near and actual starvation of civilian victims of armed conflict, genocidal policies and intents, and other grave breaches of humanitarian law. The Council must act in accordance with the wishes of the High Commissioner and many of the Council’s mandates.

PRITPAL SINGH, of Interfaith International, said the Human Rights Council must not be deceived by the sweet talk of democracy and pluralism in India. Rapes occurred in the north east of India perpetrated by Indian forces. The forces enjoyed protection under the draconian Armed Forces Special Power Act. This Council must not approve India’s effort to deepen invisibility and voicelessness of the unfortunate people of these territories. After the assassination of Indira Gandhi, retaliatory pogroms of Sikhs were encouraged by the ruling Congress Party. The victims of this genocide and their families still awaited justice while more of the primary accused had been acquitted. The Human Rights Council must not tolerate this impunity. In 2002, thousands of Muslims were put to death in the state if Gujrat. Why was the Council silent? Why didn’t it demand justice for those who were wronged?

LUKAS MACHON, of International Commission of Jurists, in a joint statement with Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, said that in its March session, they had urged the Council to press Zimbabwe to ensure free and fair polling but the Zimbabwean Government had taken the Council’s silence for granted. The leader of the opposition party and members of his team had been arrested. The Council had to request its relevant Special Procedures to address the Zimbabwean crisis as a matter of priority. Human rights lawyers and human rights defenders faced death threats for their professional activities. The Council was requested to adopt a resolution in order to address the situation. On the violent crackdown on the peaceful protest in Tibet in March, the Chinese authorities were urged to assist the investigation by relevant Special Procedures.

TENZIN S. KAYTA, of the Society for Threatened Peoples, said that China was responsible for the suffering, humiliation and current mental trauma and physical state of two former-Tibetan political prisoners, one who survived more than three decades of imprisonment and the other 15 years of imprisonment. There had been repeated attempts to stifle discussion on the present Tibetan uprising at the Council, despite the massive human rights violations which were taking place on the Tibetan Plateau. Since 10 March, due to a military crackdown on the so-called people’s war, more than 200 were killed with over 5,700 arbitrarily detained. Many arrested Tibetans had just disappeared. These were facts as far as the Tibetan people were concerned. These acts and others required the immediate attention of the Council.

SIMIA AHMADI, of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, was concerned by the situation in Zimbabwe. Restrictive domestic laws were used to stop political opposition. The International Federation condemned the arrest of opposition politicians. It called on the Human Rights Council to pass a resolution condemning the actions of the Government of Zimbabwe. It was concerned by the situation in Iran, especially the arrest of supporters of women’s right and human rights workers, journalists, and students. Last year, more than 300 people were executed by application of the death penalty for minor crimes. The International Federation urged the Human Rights Council to condemn the actions of the Government of Iran.

SYED FAIZ NAQSHBANDI, of the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said that the human rights situation in Kashmir required the Council’s attention. Children had been killed by Indian troops and some had disappeared since years, others were being detained in prisons all over India, far away from their parents. In the name of security, special laws had been enacted by India to facilitate human rights violations. Soldiers could shoot and kill in full impunity. The Council was requested to urge the Government of India to put an end to all human rights violations. A special mission should be sent to Kashmir, so that facts could come to light.

GENEVIEVE JOURDAN, of the Association of World Citizens, was gravely concerned at the number of deaths as a result of escalating violence in many parts of the world. Deep structural issues were at the heart of the inability of the world society to meet the needs of the world’s citizens. There needed to be an analysis of financial flows and their impact on grains or the world would break in violence and xenophobic attitudes.

SARDAR AMJAD YOUSEF KHAN, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, raised concerns about missing persons in Kashmir. It said the Association of the Parents of Disappeared Persons had documented 8,000 to 10,000 enforced or involuntary disappearances of their loved ones. In Tehsil Uri between 970 and 1,000 nameless graves were found. According to the locals, the graves were dug at the order of the Indian security forces. Now the lives of the people digging the graves were also under threat.

BIYOUN KIM, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), wanted to remind the Council of the joint appeal of 65 Asian non-governmental organizations sent to the Council’s President in March, urging the Council to hold a Special Session on the human rights situation in Tibet and to send a fact-finding mission there. Grave concern was expressed on the fact that the Council had failed to respond to their appeal. A rally had been held in front of the Palais during the current session. However, it seemed that their voices had been still ignored by the Council. The Council was urged to immediately send an independent international fact-finding mission into Tibet.

Right of Reply

SHARINDRA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka), in a right of reply, said that this morning buses carrying women, children and men were attacked leaving 23 people dead and 70 people injured. This was typical of the types of threats civilians faced day to day. The LTTE were responsible for such crimes. The right to life was one of the most important human rights. The Government of Japan was thanked for the human resource training assistance it provided, which supported the national institutions to enhance their capacity. Switzerland mentioned that Sri Lanka should have free and unimpeded access for humanitarian actors and Sri Lanka said that they would never comprise security concerns. In regards to the comments made about the lack of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights presence in the country negatively impacting the country, Sri Lanka said that during the Universal Periodic Review they gave presence to such a mission. This Council had passed many resolutions for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to have better regional geographical representation, but little had been done to that effect.

ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, said the list of the countries which spoke out on Zimbabwe spoke for itself. They were the biggest violators of human rights. The enunciations of the Governments had a certain odour which should be deflected back onto the authors of the political and economic destabilisation of Zimbabwe, the United States and the United Kingdom and their allies. These Governments had created bogus non governmental organizations (NGOs). They were the new foot soldiers of the empire. The Government of Zimbabwe had exposed illegal vote-buying schemes of these NGOs sponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom in the recent election. Foreign diplomats who behaved undiplomatically would be constrained. Zimbabweans would elect their leader in their own freedom. There was no need for tutelage from the United Kingdom and the United States. Zimbabwe knew what they did to black people.

OMER DAHAB FADOL MOHAMED (Sudan), speaking in a right of reply, said that, regarding the statement on the International Criminal Court, they could not fail to note that all activities of the International Criminal Court at the level of investigations and indictment were all confined to alleged crimes in Africa and only there. A pillar of justice was equality. It was discouraging to see such a selective justice. Regarding the latest armed attacks, Sudan was pleased that the attacks which had claimed many casualties had been met with wide international condemnation. Only the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the High Commissioner had failed to condemn them. It was hoped that they would soon follow. Regarding the investigations and arrests that had followed the attacks, no one had been arbitrarily arrested. Sudan was ready to stand before any request of information on individual cases. Regarding the Human Rights Council’s resolutions on Sudan, cooperation with the Council had been enhanced. The Special Rapporteur would visit the country in June for two weeks and her report would be sent to the Council in September.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea rejected the groundless allegations made by countries against it. It was in fact these countries that had human rights violations and harboured those demonstrating acts of xenophobia. These countries always argued that human rights violations whenever, wherever should be brought to justice. The so-called human rights violations claimed by these countries were only aimed at shaming other countries.

ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran), speaking in a right of reply, said that Iran was fully aware and committed to the promotion and protection of human rights. Iran called on countries to look at their own human rights violations and records. With regard to the death penalty, within the legal code of the country a long legal procedure took place. In accordance with the Constitution, no one was detained for his or her belief, but only if they committed a contravention of the law.


BO QIAN (China), speaking in a right of reply, strongly rejected the criticism expressed by Sweden whose statement did not reflect reality. First of all, Tibet was an internal affair of China. The Chinese Government intended to maintain its national integrity while ensuring security in Tibet. The criminal and violent events had given rise to several deaths. China protected legal rights of the suspected criminals. Progress in human rights could not be covered by lies. About 50 years ago, China was living in a feudal system and most of the population was living under the poverty line. Acts of violence against children in Sweden were alarming and the Swedish Government should rather take actions in this regard.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh), speaking in a right of reply, said that Bangladesh did not comment on statements made by non governmental organizations, but rather listened and make appropriate judgements on their statements. If the Asian Legal Resource Centre had not crossed the line, there would have been no need to comment. That organization had accused Bangladesh of detaining 300,000 people. This was not possible and illustrated that some non-governmental organizations used their right for spreading propaganda with malicious purposes. Bangladesh was home to 15,000 non governmental organizations, some of whom were internationally acclaimed and some that were bigger than some nations. There should be a code of conduct established for non governmental organizations so that they did not abuse their rights, such as the Asian Legal Resource Centre had done today.

1Joint statement on behalf of: France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; and Europe-Third World Centre.



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08064E