HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONSIDERS SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

The Human Rights Council this afternoon heard the presentation of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, after which it held an interactive dialogue on the report.

The Council also concluded its general debate on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, hearing from a series of non-governmental organizations which raised various issues, including violations of these rights in specific countries; the need for inter-religious dialogue; trafficking in human beings; the impact of the fight against terrorism on human rights; the rights of minorities and religious minorities; the effect of climate change on human rights; and the need to protect human rights defenders, among others.

Vitit Muntarbhorn, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said the country was under a one-party rule. At the pinnacle was an oppressive regime bent on personal survival, under which the ordinary people underwent intolerable and interminable sufferings. With regard to food and basic necessities, food grants based on rations provided by the State were practised from the early days of the regime as a means of State control over its inhabitants. The system had failed drastically in the 1990s with a critical food shortage leading to rampant malnutrition and other tragedies. Although prohibited by law, torture was extensively practised and abhorrent prison conditions resulted in a myriad of abuses and deprivations, ensuring that many prisons were a death trap for the inmates. The country should, inter alia, immediately ensure effective provision of and access to food and other basic necessities for those in need of assistance and cooperate constructively with United Nations agencies and other humanitarian actors on that issue.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking as a concerned country, said they did not accept the anti-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea “resolution” by which the Special Rapporteur was appointed and resolutely rejected his report running through with all sorts of fabrications and distortions. The report was a product of the hostile policy of the United States against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the politicization of human rights pursued by the European Union. As such, it was nothing more than a document of a political plot which attempted to defame the dignity and prestige of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Therefore, they did not consider the report as a subject item for any debate. The debate on the report was not helpful in any way in the effort for the promotion and protection of human rights.

Speaking in the interactive debate on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speakers said, among other things, that it was of concern that the human rights situation and that of basic freedoms had not changed - there were very serious violations to civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights in the country. As the latest reports showed, the ordinary people of the country continued to suffer from a broad range of systematic egregious human rights violations. On a daily basis, the basic freedoms associated with human rights and democracy such as the freedom of movement, the freedom of association, the freedom of information and the freedom of expression were infringed by the Government. A number of speakers joined the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in rejecting the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on that country, saying country specific mandates were a legacy of the defunct Human Rights Commission and should be rejected as experience showed they produced no results without the cooperation of the concerned States.

Speaking this afternoon in the interactive dialogue on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were the representatives of Chile, Cuba, Japan, Canada, China, Australia, Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union, Syria, Republic of Korea, Laos People’s Democratic Republic, United Kingdom, Thailand, Sweden, United States, Sri Lanka, Sudan, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Russian Federation. Human Rights Watch also took the floor.

Speaking in the general debate on the promotion and protection of all human rights were the following non-governmental organizations: Centrist Democratic International, Reporters without Borders - International, World Population Foundation, in a joint statement with International Humanist and Ethical Union, Association for World Education, and World Union for Progressive Judaism, International Humanist and Ethical Union, in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, International Association against Torture, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, CIVICUS - World Alliance for Citizen Participation, World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Associations (YMCA), International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, in a joint statement with Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education), International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies, International Club for Peace Research, in a joint statement with European Union of Public Relations, European Union of Public Relations, Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, World for World Organization, Recontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l'Homme, Union de l’action féminine, Cercle de recherche sur les droits et les devoirs de la personne humaine, Federación de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Iranian Elite Research Center, Society for Threatened Peoples, North-South XXI, Association of World Citizens, Institute for Women Studies and Research, China NGO Network for International Exchanges and Human Rights Watch.

Speaking in right of reply were the representatives of Republic of Korea, Georgia, Sri Lanka, Greece, Russian Federation, Algeria, Iraq, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Morocco.

When the Council meets at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 17 March, it will discuss the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and a joint report on the Democratic Republic of the Congo.


Continuation on General Debate on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights

SEMLALI ABEDILA, of Centrist Democratic International, said promoting human rights remained a universal challenge. The attention of the Council should be drawn to people living in camps. There were pressing needs in this area. Hundreds of families suffered from the phenomenon of forced disappearances in Algeria. Algeria was the main entity responsible for the human rights violations that were occurring on its territory.

GEORGE GORDON LENNOX, of Reporters without Borders - International, focusing on cases of journalists detained and victimized in countries with elected Governments, called for the immediate release of Perwiz Kambakhsh, a young Afghan journalist who had been sentenced to 20 years in prison, his sole crime having been to download an article about women in Islam. Reporters Without Borders requested the Council and the Special Rapporteurs to intervene in favour of Perwiz to obtain a presidential pardon from Hamid Karzai. Other calls for intervention were made on behalf of Tamil journalists Tissainayagam and Vithyatharan Tissainayagam from the Sunday Times, who were detained for writing about the war going in the country; and the case of journalists and bloggers detained in Iran, especially Mohammad Sadegh Kabovand, the editor of a Kurdish weekly, who was detained in prison despite his poor health.

DAVID CORNUT, of World Population Foundation, in a joint statement with International Humanist and Ethical Union, Association for World Education, and World Union for Progressive Judaism, said with regard to the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, the World Population Fund wished to bring to the attention of the Council the report issued on 12 February 2009 by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime relating to the United Nations Protocol of 2003 on trafficking. The report included statistics that showed that numerous African States did not have any legislation against trafficking in persons. The reaction by States had been weak. The Fund noted that despite the fact that a large number of slaves were not trafficked, they had been born into slavery. For example over 600,000 people were victims of slavery in Mauritania alone.

ROY BROWN, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, said there was a need for inter-religious dialogue, and it should be as inclusive as possible, in an atmosphere of honest and open debate. In matters of faith there could be no absolute certainty. A problem could arise when the beliefs of one part, and the actions that arose from those beliefs, adversely affected the human rights of others. Some States continued to insist that certain forms of expression, what they called defamation of religions, adversely affected the religious freedom of others. Defamation of religion had no place in human rights discourse - religious sensitivities could not and must not be permitted to inhibit the promotion and protection of human rights. Once freedom of expression was curtailed, tyranny was never far behind.

EDURNE IRIONDO, of International Association against Torture, noted with great concern the impact which invoking this ever wider fight against anti-terrorism had had on human rights. Noted was the case of the Spanish individual who had been held on terror charges in the context of Basque separatist movement, and there were increasingly reports coming out of violations in that regard. However, this information seemed to be falling into a black hole. Last year the Special Rapporteur on torture had reported on Spain, with a number of findings of concern, including arbitrary use of personal data in the context of anti-terrorism actions.

L. BENNETT GRAHAM, of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said three laws were consistently being used to suppress the fundamental right to believe and to profess that belief in public; those included, registration and licensing laws, anti-conversion laws, and defamation of religions (or anti-blasphemy) laws. In their work, the Becket Fund found that countries around the world, especially in Central and East Asia, were using registration laws as a means to control and oftentimes oppress minority religious groups. The Fund commended Kazakhstan for rejecting a law earlier this year that would have overly restricted groups like Baptists, the Unification Church, and Hare Krishnas. Unfortunately, countries like Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkmenistan and China continued to use registration laws as a tool to control peaceful religious practice.

RENATA BLOEM, of CIVICUS - World Alliance for Citizen Participation, said the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders was welcome. Her recommendations to States under review of the Universal Periodic Review, but also to the Council as a whole in relation to this process would hopefully have a far-reaching impact, in particular the need to give space to civil society in the interactive dialogue when the process was reviewed in 2011. A growing number of countries were introducing laws, policies and practices that stifled individuals’ rights to free association, assembly and expression, and therefore the ability of civil society to operate freely. These threats, however, were only addressed after they had already restricted civil society’s work. By addressing the first signs of danger, both activists and decision-makers could be alerted to possibly prevent such threats from progressing further.

DARWIN ALVAREZ, of World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Associations (YMCA), said the World Alliance was fully committed to building a more fair society and promoting and protecting human rights, focusing on those who were most vulnerable. The World Alliance supported what had been said by the Government of Honduras, but deplored the violence there. It was recognized as one of the most violent countries in the region. In 2008, there had been repeated acts of violence against young people, and many murders. Those crimes had never been punished. There were also extrajudicial killings, sometimes by the police, as mentioned by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2004. Honduras had been responsible for acts of torture against young people. The Council and the Honduran State were called upon to put into a place a mechanism to reintegrate and rehabilitate such young victims and to prevent further acts of violence against them.

GARCIA-ALIX PEREZ, of International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, in a joint statement with Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education), welcomed the report of the High Commissioner on climate change and human rights. It was of particular interest to the Group and the special recognition of climate change and climate change mitigation measures and their affects on indigenous populations were welcomed. The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs said there were a number of staggering cases involving the building of large electro-magnetic dams, among other things, without the consultation of the indigenous groups living in those areas which was of concern. The Group called on the Council to recognize the specific vulnerabilities of indigenous peoples to the affects of climate change, and urged the Council to implement all the recommendations contained in the report of the High Commissioner in this context. They also recommended that the members of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change involved indigenous peoples in key decision making bodies.

Mr. A. SKOHLI, of International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies, said with regards to human rights and climate change, the effects of climate change on the world in general and on certain countries in particular had had a wide variation of effects on human rights, including on the rights to water, to food, and to means of subsistence. Large populations were living on islands or in low-lying coastal areas, and developing countries with fragile ecosystems, as well as groups such as women, children and those with disabilities often suffered adverse effects of climate change on their human rights.

STEPHAN CICCOLI, of International Club for Peace Research, in a joint statement with European Union of Public Relations, said that involuntary disappearances generally took place in situations of armed conflict, in totalitarian States and through the action of terrorist groups. The motivation of such disappearances was usually to silence opposition, and it was non-democratic systems that had no recourse to that practice. In democratic societies, disappearances did occur but there were mechanisms for addressing them. The international community had to work to ensure that government authorities and ruling elites did not feel that they could enjoy impunity. In Pakistan, the people of the province of Balochistan had been struggling for their rights for decades.

MUDRY CAROLINE, of European Union of Public Relations, said that there were countries today with constitutions that authorized discrimination. The European Union of Public Relations stressed that there was also an ever-growing issue of terrorism and extremism around the world. Discrimination based on gender and religion persisted. The mushrooming of madarasses was of concern, and their graduates were taught to indulge in discrimination, which was of greater concern. Perpetrators of crimes against humanity should be brought to justice. Of particular concern to the European Union of Public Relations were countries in South East Asia, who justified militancy in their countries. The Union urged the Human Rights Council to support the separation between State and chruch.

PAWAN KUMAR, of Commission To Study the Organisation of Peace, said countering terrorism required that its root be eradicated, precisely and surgically. The creation of an environment that allowed the flourishing of terrorist groups and allowed terrorists around the world to feel that Pakistan was a country where they could flourish in peace was the result of a deliberate policy. Even today, despite the evidence that some countries had made themselves into a haven for terrorism, the international community continued to talk about the need for aid to these countries. Human rights and fundamental freedoms needed to be upheld while countering terrorism.

Mr. R.K. JOSHI, of the World for World Organization, said that a vibrant democracy, a vibrant civil society, a free media and an independent judiciary were necessary for human rights to flourish. Those were lacking in many countries in the world. The risks that were faced by human rights defenders also remained unaddressed by human rights bodies. The problem in some of the South Asian countries was that the democratic rights of people were being ignored, and civil and political rights were being denied.

Mr. DOUTI,of Recontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l'Homme, said that 2008 was particularly tragic for people of the world, with incidents in Gaza, Bombay, Sri Lanka, among others. Since the session began, many heard hopes on different horizons, however everyone needed to ensure cooperation and dialogue. The reports of the Special Rapporteurs were welcomed as they dealt with important topics. The African Group for the Defence of Human Rights was attached to the principles of universality and the idea that human rights were indivisible, including the right to development and a healthy environment. Terrorism was a threat around the world and was now affecting even the United Nations. They welcomed the return of the United States to the Council and the closing of the Guatanamo detention facility.

Ms. SAADANI, of Union de l’action féminine, said the human rights of millions around the world were being violated; they were being subjected to torture, in many different forms, physical and psychological. People had died under torture in the Tinduf camps - the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Algeria should accept responsibility for human rights violations on their territory, despite their having signed up to international human rights instruments. Hundreds of Saharawis had disappeared in the Tinduf camps.

BELL HILAIRE, of Cercle de recherche sur les droits et les devoirs de la personne humaine, said that, despite efforts, the ideal of protecting all human rights remained to be achieved in all the societies of the world. They had submitted a written contribution that sought to establish the close correlation between protection of all human rights and the duties of individuals in society. In that document, they had called for a draft Universal Declaration on human duties, based on the provisions of the United Nations Charter, all other United Nations documents, and those proposed by regional organizations. The document was available on the Extranet of the tenth session. The draft Declaration contained 31 articles, relating to, among others, faith, dignity, work, moderation, sincerity, altruism and civic duty.

DAVID FERNANDEZ, of Federación de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, expressed its satisfaction with the recent appointment of an Independent Expert on the access to adequate drinking water and sanitation. It was a limited resource and only 1 per cent of the world’s water was drinkable. There was a shortage of this resource, and hundreds of millions did not have access to drinking water or access to sanitation. Most of those people lived in Asia, Africa and some parts of Latin America. Water was one of the essential components to a dignified life, and for survival and should be seen together with the right to housing and health. The Federation hoped that the Independent Expert would continue to develop the content of the mandate as set of by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights among others United Nations treaty bodies.

DEKYI DOLKAR, of Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, said there were circumstances in which States refused to fully and sincerely cooperate with the United Nations human rights mandates, when reports indicated that such States were simultaneously responsible for a sustained pattern of violations. The United Nations human rights mechanisms should address situations where this occurred. Some States attempted to dismiss the very real concerns of the international community as conspiracy, ignorance, and the politicisation of human rights. The lack of progress by the Human Rights Council to address such chronic human rights situations was dismaying, including the situation of the six million Tibetans residing in the People's Republic of China.

FATIMEH DORRI, of Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, welcomed the work of the Special Rapporteur on torture. The Organization for Defending Victims of Violence joined him in expressing concern on acts of torture in prisons and places of detention. It had great concerns over incidents that had taken place during the Gaza conflict. The Special Rapporteur should pay more attention to children being born in Israeli jails, and who were being denied their most basic rights, including to water and health, and were suffering from various forms of physical and psychological torture.

OMELEILA ENAYATI, of Iranian Elite Research Centre, welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on forced disappearances, and expressed concern over points that the Special Rapporteur failed to address in the report. The Iranian Elite Research Centre said in October 2008 the United Nations Secretary-General paid attention to the case involving disappearance of four diplomats on the afternoon of 4 June 1982, and stated the United Nations readiness to investigate this humanitarian issue. The Centre called on the Council, among other things, to apply its executive mechanisms, to set up a fact-finding and investigative group to find some answers with regard to the fate of the four Iranian captives; and to call upon the Lebanese Government to cooperate fully in this regard to eliminate the existing ambiguities in this case.

TENZIN KAYTA, of Society for Threatened Peoples, noted that the Special Rapporteur on the right to food had stated that human rights-based approaches to development cooperation recognized people as "key actors in their own development, rather than passive recipients of commodities and services", and sought to empower and combine top-down and bottom-up approaches. The question that raised alarm was when government development strategies, involving forced evictions, eliminated ancient food production systems, especially when such strategies tried to involve or sought donors to implement misguided programmes in the name of environmental protection for the people involved, requiring the people involved to slaughter their livestock and to move into newly built housing colonies or near towns, abandoning their traditional way of life. The forced evictions of thousands of Tibetan nomads since 2003 was a dangerous strategy because their traditional livelihood system would now slowly be eliminated forever.

CURTIS DOEBBLER, of North South XXI, said the report of the Secretary-General on genocide showed a healthy openness to receiving advice. Would he adopt the view of the two Ad-Hoc Criminal Tribunals, North South XXI asked? He should examine situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.

GENEVIEVE JOURDAN, of Association of World Citizens, said last year hundreds of thousands of civilians had to flee their homes due to armed conflict. Over 25,000 people had been displaced from their countries. The paradox was that although the number of refugees had declined, the number of displaced had increased. Those people who were part of the displaced populations belonged to ethnic minorities, and as such were even more vulnerable to discriminatory practices. The vulnerability of those groups had also often not been recognized by Governments and groups. The Association of World Citizens stressed that 2009 was the international year for reconciliation, which was now of concern for everyone. The world should learn from the great lessons of the past decades in this regard. Furthermore, the Association said that efforts towards reconciliation meant less if the dignity and humanity of the victims was not restored.

Ms. SAFARI, of Institute for Women's Study and Research, said one of the highlighted activities of the Institute had been the establishment of the Health and Reproductive Rights Network with the cooperation of 25 non-governmental organizations. The Network expressed its concern on the hygiene situation of women, particularly in armed conflict and natural disasters, and reiterated that women were always the most vulnerable group in armed conflict due to lack of access to hygienic facilities. No Special Rapporteur had been set for gender rights - paying a little attention to the subject of violence against women as a minor parallel issue was not enough. The Council should appoint a Special Rapporteur on gender rights and reproductive health so that this group of women's rights were protected in armed conflict and natural disasters.

Mr. CUI, of the China NGO Network for International Exchanges, appealed to the Human Rights Council to attach great importance to ethnic minorities and to reach consensus on ways of promoting their rights. Languages and cultures of ethnic minorities should be protected within the League framework and should receive adequate budgetary allocations. Governments should strive to create harmonious living situations. More emphasis should be put on developing ethnic identities and on fostering tolerance among themselves and with others.

Right of Reply

CHUN HYE RAN (Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said in response to the allegation made by a representative of a non-governmental organization regarding the National Commission on Human Rights of Korea during the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, the Government’s initiative to reform the National Human Rights Commission was being carried out within the reform of the administrative levels of all Korean public sectors and was not intended to undermine the independence which the Commission enjoyed. The reform was undertaken in order to streamline all the departments with the work of the Commission, in order to avoid duplication of work. The Republic of Korea remained committed to the independence and effectiveness of the National Commission on Human Rights.

TEIMURAZ BAKRADZE (Georgia), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the statement of Russia, the report of Mr. Kalin contained indisputable information about how the obligation of Georgia under international treaties continued to apply on the territories under control of the defacto power. There had been approximately 220,000 internally displaced persons from Abkhazia, Georgia and South Ossetia living in protracted displacement for more than a decade. After 8 August, 107,000 persons had fled the area adjacent to the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia. Under the occupation of Russia, which was under a false pretext, hundreds of thousands of Georgians had been expelled from their native land. In the circumstances, an accusation from Russia that Georgia politicised this issue and was guilty of organizing the problems of internally displaced persons was groundless and contradicted the true state of affairs.

RAJIVA WIJESINHA (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply, was grateful for those who had raised questions about the displaced in Sri Lanka, since it enabled them to provide further information on the situation. Amnesty International had at least had the courtesy to have a discussion with Sri Lanka, and he was sorry that the European Union, which had raised queries, had turned down Sri Lanka's invitation to discuss issues of concern. In a daily meeting of the Security Operations Information Centre, comprising UNDSS, OCHA, SOLIDAR and UNOPS, analysis of satellite imagery and other information was being used to try to identify the numbers and locations of internally displaced persons in the Vanni, and in particular in the no-fire/safe area. The number of civilians in the safe area was thought to be 70,000 to 100,000 individuals. The Council might well wonder why the United Nations had not shared that figure with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who claimed over two weeks later that according to United Nations estimates a total of 150,000 to 180,000 civilians remained trapped. Non-governmental organizations committed to practical work were in the camps among the displaced, alongside United Nations agencies. The allegations of sexual violence, the lack of a process to link families, and of the presence of other armed Tamil groups were nonsense, and would certainly have been brought to Sri Lanka's attention by United Nations agencies had they even been conceivable.

FRANCISCOS VERROS (Greece), speaking in a right of reply, said Greece had rejoiced to hear that their neighbouring country had no exclusive claim to the term “Macedonia”. It was exactly their declared policy to find a proper way to distinguish the territory and the citizens of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to Greeks of Macedonia and to Greek Macedonia. To avoid confusions and tensions and to cultivate an atmosphere of freedom, cooperation and friendship. Greece recalled that with the Interim Accord of 1995 concluded under the auspices of the United Nations, their neighbour had undertaken an explicit legal obligation not to interfere in the internal affairs of Greece in order to protect the status and rights of any persons who were not her own citizens. This provision was deliberately drafted and agreed on in order to prevent any irredentist intentions and further tensions in the region over minority claims. Was that the actual stance of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, asked Greece?

Greece fully respected the right of every citizen to self-identity, including the freedom of association. Greek courts had not prevented any forming of associations to express and promote distinctive features; they had only rejected the forming of an association under the name of “Macedonia”, without a qualifier denoting the Slav orientation of its members, which created confusion with hundreds of other associations founded by Greek Macedonians and using the same name. Greek citizens were free to manifest their traditions and culture.

VLADIMIR JEGLOV (Russian Federation), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the statement by Georgia in the debate, the Council's attention should be drawn to the fact that Georgia in the summer of 2008 unleashed an aggression against South Ossetia, aiming to drive out the South Ossetians from their lands. Implementation of this policy led to ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. It was wrong to state that Russia was an occupying power. The legal basis of bringing in Russian forces was to implement the United Nations Charter, namely the part on self-defence. This issue was whipped up by certain politicians and international organizations for short-term political gains. Structures that wished to help South Ossetia had their access to the Republic ensured. It was Georgia that had been hampering access by these organizations. The basic factor impeding the return of the internally displaced persons was the refusal by the President of Georgia to enter into negotiations. The crimes of the Georgian forces in South Ossetia had been given a legal assessment - it was the responsibility of the Georgian leadership, having unleashed aggression against the civilian population, to take this up.

BOUALEM CHEBIHI (Algeria), speaking in a right of reply, said Algeria had to respond to what had been said by the Institute for Feminine Studies this morning. The city of Tindoof was an Algerian city and the so-called Moroccans that were there were in fact Sahraouis that were waiting for their right to self-determination to be granted by the United Nations. In recent years they had noticed a multiplication of missions of all nationalities that all agreed that violations were taking place in Western Sahara, occupied by Morocco. Something had to be done about that, as occupations were fertile ground for human rights violations. A United Nations mechanism needed to be on the ground to monitor the situation, and Algeria would support any such initiatives.

HAIDAR ALUKAILI (Iraq), speaking in a right of reply, said the representative of the General Association of Iraqi Women lacked credibility in all that she said. She did not once condemn what was being perpetrated by criminal gangs that blew themselves up and killed innocent women and children in Iraq. The Government and relevant organizations in the country had been and would continue to monitor the situation of human rights in the country, and did not need to be told what to do by the speaker from the General Association of Iraqi Women.

AKMAL SAIDOV (Uzbekistan), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the statement made by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Uzbekistan was a secular country, where religion was separate from the State and from politics, and there could be no imposition of religious views. The State did not interfere in the activities of religious organizations. Freedom of conscience and of religion were set out in the law. Religious organizations needed to go through legal registration and had to be transparently accountable. Any violation of these principles led to legal liability. Uzbekistan was successfully carrying out activities with 16 different religions. Great importance was given to religious education in Uzbekistan.

ABZAL SAPARBEKULY (Kazakhstan), speaking in a right of reply, responding to the Becket Fund on Religious Liberty which had commented on amendments to the law on religion, said Kazakhstan was a multi-religious and multi-ethnic country and never had a single conflict broken out in the country on religious or ethnic grounds. This summer it would host the Third Congress of the Leaders of World Traditional Religions in Astana. Nothing preoccupied the Government more than preserving and encouraging the religious and ethnic freedom and harmony that existed in the country. Religious leaders had praised the role of the Government in ensuring their religious groups' right to freely and peacefully practice their religions. The new legislation was aimed not at restricting, but at better organizing religions in the country and would better help to protect the rights of citizens. Kazakhstan was strongly against religious oppression and freedom of religion was a cornerstone of Government policy; however, the Government was constantly enhancing the rule of law and would not tolerate any organizations that broke the law. Kazakhstan would remain open to any suggestions as to how to better its legislation.

GEORGI AVRAMCHEV, of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in a right of reply regarding the statement made by Greece, said that on a number of occasions his Government had been open to discussing the issue of Macedonian minorities in Greece with the Greek Government. Furthermore, his Government had at no time ever claimed the exclusive right to the term “Macedonian”. Additionally, Greece was deterring the issue of minority rights in their territories by focusing on this. The Independent Expert on minorities had called on Greece to fulfil its international obligations on the right of minorities in the country. The issue of minority rights remained under the responsibility of the State. His Government was in full compliance with regard to the inter-agreement of 1995 with Greece, unlike the Greek authorities.

OMAR HILALE, (Morocco), speaking in a right of reply, said the representative of Algeria was offended by the fact that Morocco was represented by its Minister. Morocco referred to the report mentioned by the Minister, which covered Algeria's responsibilities, calling upon that country to live up to its international obligations. Algeria had not lived up to its responsibilities in the city of Tinduf, and the population of the camps would remain Moroccan. Morocco would defend their free right to return to their country of origin. Algeria had to expect questions from the international community. Morocco would never forget its people, kidnapped in the Tinduf camps. Currently in Morocco, the Maghreb delegate enjoyed full freedom to circulate throughout the country, but he had not had the right to do so yet in Algeria. Algeria should speak about what was going on in its own territory. Algeria had human rights problems, and should not point the finger at others.

TEIMURAZ BAKRADZE, (Georgia), speaking in a second right of reply, said with the aim to justify the Russian invasion of Georgia, they started to spread the myth of genocide of Ossetian population by Georgians, claiming up to 2,000 victims on the Ossetian sides. The head of the investigation had said they had evidence of deaths of 159 civilians. As a result, Russian officials announced high casualties to support its genocide claim and to support its invasion of Georgia.

FRANCISCOS VERROS (Greece), speaking in a right of reply with regard to the statement made on behalf of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, said that anyone who heard the statement made by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia would agree that they had violated the 1995 agreement, and this would also be discussed in the International Criminal Court. Greece did not recognize any Macedonian minority in its territories.

BOUALEM CHEBIHI (Algeria), speaking in a second right of reply, said that the representative of Morocco had uttered baseless allegations. Algeria did not have a bilateral problem with Morocco - this was a problem, a conflict linked to de-colonisation. The territory did not belong to Morocco. Efforts had been made recently to develop a framework for negotiations, and Algeria supported this. It was important for the Human Rights Council to avoid all politicisation, and this issue would be seriously addressed if the exercise of the right to self-determination was to be respected in order to deal with the serious human rights situation in the Western Sahara.

VLADIMIR JEGLOV (Russian Federation), speaking in a second right of reply, said Russia was obliged to recall again that on the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 the foreign trained and equipped Georgian army had attacked the sleeping town of Tskhinvali. In violation of international law, they had launched an assault on peaceful people and shot at peacekeepers. The results of that venture by President Saakashvili were well known – not least the thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons. There were also clear cases of the extermination of women and children. The victims of Saakashvili's policy were the Georgians themselves, stateless persons and those who did not want to go back home. The situation in the buffer zone was heating up again because of Georgian actions. The Russian and Georgian peoples had historically always had good relations, and Russia was convinced that in the future this would be understood as how the policy of the Saakashvili Government could impose its twisted policy on innocent people.

GEORGI AVRAMCHEV (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), speaking in a second right of reply, said that they were surprised by the wording used by Greece. The Independent Expert on minority issues had urged the Government of Greece to withdraw from the issue of whether or not there was a minority issue of Macedonians in Greece. The Government had an obligation that must be honoured. The Government of Greece should comply with the decision that gave associations in the country the right to the use of the word “Macedonian” in the wording of their associations and or organizations. The Government of Greece used the approach of deterrence as a tool for their policies on minorities.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco), speaking in a second right of reply, said that if this was not a bilateral problem, then why did Algeria not settle this in its statements. The Moroccan Sahara was Moroccan and would remain so. Algeria did not have any lessons to hand down to Morocco, particularly on the situation of human rights, as if there was a country where human rights were promoted and respected, then it was in Morocco; it was hoped that the situation of Algeria would improve and become similar to that of Morocco. Algeria preferred to accuse Morocco rather than defend its own record. Algeria quoted the idea of the Committee on De-Colonisation, but Algeria never addressed any other territory other than the Moroccan Sahara, showing that this was an obsession for Algeria. Morocco had to express its concern on the situation of human rights in Algeria, on which the international community was asking for an accounting.

Document

The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Vitit Muntarbhorn (A/HRC/10/18), which says the broad range of egregious human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea requires urgent attention at all levels. Of particular concern are pervasive transgressions in relation to the right to food and other basic necessities, personal security, fundamental freedoms, and asylum and migration issues. Specific groups face great vulnerability. Those at the top seek to survive at the expense and to the detriment of the majority of the population, and are behind the environment leading to these transgressions, with entrenched impunity. Of special importance for the country, in the short term, is the need to ensure effective provision of and access to food and other basic necessities for those in need of assistance, and to enable people to undertake economic activities to satisfy their basic needs and supplement their livelihood without State interference; to end the punishment of those who seek asylum abroad and who are sent back to their country; to terminate public executions and abuses against the security of the person, and other violations of fundamental rights and freedoms; to cooperate effectively to resolve the issue of foreigners abducted by the country; and to respond constructively to the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. In the longer term, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should seek to modernize its national system by instituting reforms to ensure greater participation of the people in the process and compliance with international human rights standards; reallocate national budgets, including military budgets, to the social sector; take more extensive food security-related measures; and guarantee personal security and freedoms by dismantling the pervasive surveillance and intelligence system, reforming the justice and prison system, and abiding by the rule of law. The international community is invited to take more proactive measures in relation to the above and to adopt an integrated approach to impel more protection for the inhabitants, with due regard for the responsibility of State authorities and their accountability for the widespread and systematic violence and violations that have led to the interminable sufferings of millions of innocent people.


Presentation of Report by Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, regretted that the authorities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had declined to cooperate with the mandate. In recent years the authorities had opened the door slightly to engage the international community, becoming a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, among others. Yet, the overall picture of human rights implementation in the country was grim and the situation often remained dire and desperate. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was under one-party rule. At the pinnacle was an oppressive regime bent on personal survival, under which the ordinary people underwent intolerable and interminable sufferings. The authorities had bred a culture of pervasive mistrust and multi-layered "divide and rule", creating great insecurity for the general population, who were pressed to inform on each other. Matters had been made more complicated by the fact that the regime posited a military first policy and had armed itself with nuclear weapons.

The following issues deserved great attention, Mr. Muntarbhorn felt. With regard to food and basic necessities, food grants based on rations provided by the State were practised from the early days of the regime as a means of State control over its inhabitants. The system had failed drastically in the 1990s with a critical food shortages leading to rampant malnutrition and other tragedies. A joint World Food Programme/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations report in October 2008 noted that, despite better climactic conditions in 2008, there would still be severe food shortage, needing international assistance. Some 8.7 million were affected by food insecurity and needed help. The World Food Programme was targeting more extensive emergency operations for lactating women, primary school children, elderly persons and others. The Special Rapporteur had also been informed that based on the principle of "no access, no food", namely that food would not be given unless there was access to targeted recipients, the monitoring of food distribution would be improved.

Concerning personal security, Mr. Muntarbhorn acknowledged that there had been some law reforms to align national standards more with international standards. In reality, however, there was a large gap between the more salutary nature of the criminal law and aberrations in the implementation process, which resulted in grave human rights violations. Those included prolonging constraints on ordinary people, collective punishments and public executions. Although prohibited by law, torture was extensively practised and abhorrent prison conditions resulted in a myriad of abuses and deprivations, ensuring that many prisons were a death trap for the inmates. On another front, the authorities had been involved in kidnapping a number of foreign nationals, usually with the aim of either using them to train others for espionage purpose and/or to steel their identity with a view to later infiltrate into their countries of origin. A number of such cases involving Japanese nationals remained unresolved. Moreover, basic freedoms associated with human rights and democracy such as the freedom to choose one's government, freedom of association, freedom of expression or religion, and others were infringed on a daily basis. On a related front, the media were heavily controlled and censored. Other issues that deserved great attention were in the area of asylum and migration, and the Government policy of strict control over the movement of citizens. The country should, inter alia, immediately ensure effective provision of and access to food and other basic necessities for those in need of assistance and cooperate constructively with United Nations agencies and other humanitarian actors on that issue.

Statement by Concerned Country

SANG IL HUN (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking as a concerned country with regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said they did not accept the anti-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea “resolution” by which the Special Rapporteur was appointed and resolutely rejected his report running through with all sorts of fabrications and distortions. The report was a product of the hostile policy of the United States against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the politicization of human rights pursued by the European Union. As such, it was nothing more than a document of a political plot which attempted to defame the dignity and prestige of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Therefore, they did not consider the report as a subject item for any debate. The debate on the report was not helpful in any way in the effort for the promotion and protection of human rights.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea deeply regretted that so much precious time was misused to debate this report which had nothing to do with genuine human rights. Furthermore, it was a futile attempt and gross miscalculation to expect any change in the country by such political pressure as the presentation and discussion of the report of the Special Rapporteur. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea underscored that the Government had its own true human rights system which provided firm legal and institutional guarantees for the enjoyment of human rights of the people. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that it would continue to further develop this superior system.

Interactive Dialogue on Report on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

LUCIANO VERROS (Chile) said the report of the Special Rapporteur was very welcome. It was of concern that the human rights situation and that of basic freedoms in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had not changed - there were very serious violations to civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights in the country. There was particular concern for the food and nutrition situation, and the basic needs of the people, despite the efforts made by the international community to try to resolve the situation. Collective punishment, public executions, cases of torture, and abductions of foreigners were all of concern, as was the matter of judicial independence, limitation of the freedom of expression and of movement, and the lack of cooperation with the foreign mechanisms and with the Special Rapporteur. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea should cooperate with all United Nations mechanisms, and abide by the human rights instruments, and extend an invitation to the Special Procedures to visit the country. The Special Rapporteur's mandate should be understood as being an aid to the country, in helping it to establish a dialogue with the Council.

MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA (Cuba), said as a point of principle, the Human Rights Council should consider whether there was political motivation behind the mandate, or whether there was a real human rights situation. The item on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was a relic of the old Commission, a source of discredit for that body. The country had been included by the Bush Administration as part of its "Axis of Evil". This exercise had a clear political motivation and did not contribute to the true nature of the Human Rights Council, or to the cooperative spirit with which its work should be imbued. There should be genuine international cooperation on human rights. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, just like any other Member State should submit itself to the Universal Periodic Review, and in that context there should be open and frank discussion of the situation, and help extended to the country, with the intent of helping it.

SHINICHI KITAJIMA (Japan) expressed Japan’s highest appreciation to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for his sincere efforts for the improvement of the human rights situation in that country, including through his visits to Japan. The Special Rapporteur’s objective and comprehensive report was always useful in helping the Government of Japan understand the current situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Japan was extremely disturbed to learn from the report that child malnutrition and illnesses had been on the rise due to a serious decline in food availability, accessibility and consumption. Japan was also concerned about the continuation of public executions as well as the existence of a wide variety of detention facilities.

In the Japan-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea working level consultations last August, both sides agreed on the overall objectives and concrete modalities of the investigation on the abduction issue. Following the adoption of the resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea human rights situation in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly last November, a representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea made a statement to the effect that it was ready to do everything to reinvestigate the abduction issue. However, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had not begun to act on its agreement, regardless of Japan’s continuing requests to do so.

DANIEL ULMER (Canada) said the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a matter of great concern to Canada, and Canada welcomed the Special Rapporteur's efforts in providing a detailed review of the very serious problems that existed and in identifying long- and short-term actions that the Government had to take, as well as suggesting areas of engagement where the international community could make a positive contribution. Canada also thanked the Special Rapporteur for singling out areas in need of special urgent attention, including the food security situation, personal security and the rule of law, respect for basic freedoms, the plight of asylum-seekers and the risks faced by vulnerable groups.

In the effort to help meet basic human needs Canada was pleased to note the role played by a number of United Nations agencies. Canada provided support to trusted partners such as those on the basis of humanitarian principles and identified needs, and had contributed over $ 87 million in response to critical needs in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea since 1996. Canada regularly raised human rights issues with officials of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at senior levels. Canada continued to make the scope and nature of its relationship with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea contingent on concrete progress on denuclearisation under the Six-Party talks. Canada asked the Special Rapporteur if he could suggest some specific avenues for effective action which the international community might pursue where he felt they might not have taken full advantages of opportunities available.

QIAN BO (China) said in principle, China was against the practice of country resolutions, or country Rapporteurs. The experience of the Commission on Human Rights showed that this had no positive effect on the human rights situation of the country concerned - on the contrary, it poisoned the relationship. China hoped therefore that all countries would adopt a positive and constructive attitude in reviewing human rights situations in countries. There was an overall need to maintain peace and stability in the Korean peninsula, and to ensure de-nuclearisation, and this should be borne in mind.

GUY O'BRIEN (Australia) said the report presented a grim assessment of the manifest lack of observance of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Australia remained deeply concerned about the continuing serious human rights abuses in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Special Rapporteur’s indication that monitoring of food distribution would be improved was welcomed. International donors needed to be assured that aid was being directed appropriately. Australia noted their contribution of 8 million Australian dollars in humanitarian aid, including food aid, in 2007-2008. Australia also welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s visit to the Republic of Korea in October 2008 and Japan in January 2009, and his focus on the situation of refugees. Australia agreed with his recommendation that the international community should respect the rights of refugees, and avoid repatriating refugees from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who were at risk of persecution upon their return; and commended the efforts of the Republic of Korea and Japan to increase protection and support for refugees.

TOMAS HUSAK (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the Special Rapporteur for his report. While addressing reforms of the justice system, he had also highlighted its failings. The European Union attached significant importance to a well functioning and transparent justice system in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In that connection, were there any signs of the reform mentioned having a positive impact? He had also found a trend towards a people-centred approach and away from a military one. In that context, were there any signs of an emerging civil society? Finally, the report had mentioned the protest by female traders in 2008. Could that be taken as a growth of involvement by civil society?

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria) said Syria had full confidence in the fact that the Human Rights Council had an important role to play in the strengthening and reinforcement of the human rights of all peoples in all situations. However, the mandate of the Special Rapporteurs sometimes focused on certain developing countries only, and that was due to purely political considerations. Such mandates should be halted, as their continuation exhausted significant resources, and used up some of the time. It would be better for these to be devoted to matters that were much more pressing. As regarded the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, dialogue and cooperation should have primacy, as this would be the only way of obtaining results.

SUNG-JOO LEE (Republic of Korea) commended the Special Rapporteur on his comprehensive and insightful report and presentation. They looked forward to his continuous work, and hoped that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would extend its cooperation to the Special Rapporteur by allowing him to visit the country. The Government of the Republic of Korea had been providing full support to the Special Rapporteur for the effective implementation of his mandate since 2004. The Republic of Korea was deeply concerned about the dire situation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s asylum seekers, notably in the first-asylum or transit countries. As suggested in the report, the role of relevant United Nations agencies and of countries concerned was crucial in addressing this issue. The Republic of Korea was grateful if the Special Rapporteur could recommend any specific measures those stakeholders should take, individually or collectively, to improve the human rights situation of those asylum seekers?

KHONEPHENG THAMMAVONG (Lao People's Democratic Republic) noted the Lao People's Democratic Republic’s appreciation of the achievements by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in addressing the issue of human rights and commended the great effort made by that country in enhancing democracy, promotion and protection of human rights. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic opposed a selectivity and double standard approach to the consideration of human rights. The Lao People's Democratic Republic supported every effort by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in maintaining and strengthening its economic, political and social model, freely chosen by the people and the Government, especially the full participation of the population in the public security and public affairs of the country. It was only through a cooperative and constructive approach that a consensus on human rights issues in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would be achieved.

PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom) said the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea should engage with the United Nations Special Rapporteur and permit him access to the country. It should also engage constructively with the Universal Periodic Review process. Third countries should treat emigrants from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as refugees in accordance with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees rules and refrain from returning them to their country of origin, where they faced an increased risk of their human rights being violated. Was there any specific action that the international community could take to encourage the Government to engage with the Universal Periodic Review process, the United Kingdom asked? Had the Special Rapporteur raised the issue of neighbouring countries who returned refugees to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Had he heard reports that treatment for returnees was improving fractionally, and what was his reading on the situation of food security?

VIJAVAT ISARABHAKDI (Thailand) said for Thailand, engagement, dialogue and cooperation lay at the very heart of the work in the Council. Engagement, of course, was a two-way street that should work both ways. It was in the interest of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to cooperate with the international community. It was also incumbent upon the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to address the concerns that had been expressed by the Council. At the same time, it was essential for other countries to view engagement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as part of a long-term undertaking, especially in terms of humanitarian assistance. Encouraging humanitarian dialogue with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea could be an important means of promoting human rights on the ground. Thailand was pleased that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a State Party to four core international human rights treaties, and would be presenting its national report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child later this year. Thailand also welcomed the law reforms that had taken place recently.

JAN NORDLANDER (Sweden) said Sweden was especially impressed by Mr. Muntarbhorn's work considering the fact that he had not been granted access to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Sweden continued to be appalled by the pervasive, widespread and systematic violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights in the country. Sweden supported the Special Rapporteur's opinion that the current policy of "military first" had to be replaced by a policy of "people first". Among the many things that had caused alarm in the report was the acute situation with regard to the right to food and other basic necessities. Reports that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had moved to prohibit or restrict economic activities such as small-patch farming and trading, which were necessary for the survival of large parts of the population, gave cause for serious concern and were likely to aggravate the already desperate situation. The plight of vulnerable groups, among them children under five years of age, exhibited a lack of respect for children's rights. In the Special Rapporteur's view, what were the most urgent measures that should be taken by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the international community to ensure that the Government respected the basic rights to life and to food of its citizens? In addition, what were the pertinent questions to be addressed to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the context of its upcoming reviews by the Committee on the Rights of the Child and in the Universal Periodic Review?

MARK STORELLA (United States) said the United States supported the Special Rapporteur's calls for an end to the punishment of those who sought asylum abroad, an end to public executions, an end to violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, cooperation on resolving the cases of abducted foreigners, and cooperation with the Special Rapporteur's mandate. The United States was deeply troubled by the plight of asylum seekers, as the report indicated that asylum seekers faced severe hardships in initial destination countries and severe persecution if returned to their country of origin. The United States asked the Special Rapporteur if he had views on ways that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's neighbours and the international community could further promote respect for human rights in the country.

RAJIVA WIJESINHA (Sri Lanka) said that Sri Lanka considered that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was the right forum to scrutinize human rights situations in each member country and therefore believed that any country specific resolutions during the Council general segment may not yield desired results, i.e. promotion and protection of human rights in the particular country concerned. The approach towards promotion and protection of human rights should be non-selective, non-partial and non-political. It was important that principles of objectivity, transparency and consensus should be the foundation if the Council were to face the real human rights challenges and to ensure citizens of United Nations member countries enjoyed their human rights.

Interaction between United Nations agencies and member countries would be more productive if the country concerned was persuaded and not coerced, while the issue of the promotion and protection of human rights was observed. Sri Lanka was of the view that except in situations that were sui generis, no Special Rapporteur should be appointed, in general, without the consent of the member country concerned, as it therefore would be counter-productive.

JOHN UKEC LUETH UKEC (Sudan) began by noting that Sudan did not agree with the idea of country Rapporteurs, because they came with a hint of colonialism and directed States to do things against their sovereignty. It had been the unanimous will and resolve of the Human Rights Council to deliver on its mandate on the strict basis of cooperation. Having said that, it remained the responsibility of the Council to explore all means that would ensure cooperation of the concerned State or States. Aas the promotion and protection of human rights was the primary responsibility of the concerned State, it had become impossible to envision meaningful results without the concerned State on board. Regrettably, that was not the case with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. However, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had repeatedly expressed readiness to be involved in the process if it was based on cooperation. They had to seize this excellent opportunity to foster healthy relations for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. They had to respect the diverse social systems in the world. A monolithic approach was in direct contradiction with the spirit of multilateralism.

MICHAEL MCBRYDE (New Zealand) said New Zealand remained deeply concerned about the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. As the latest reports showed, the ordinary people of the country continued to suffer from a broad range of systematic egregious human rights violations. On a daily basis, the basic freedoms associated with human rights and democracy such as the freedom of movement, the freedom of association, the freedom of information and the freedom of expression were infringed on by the Government. There also continued to be a critical shortage of food and basic necessities. The Government should continue to cooperate constructively with United Nations agencies and other humanitarian organizations to ensure the effective provision of and access to food and other basic necessities. The Special Rapporteur recommended that the international community should take an integrated approach to the human rights situation in the country, including advocating the need for a "people first" policy. The Special Rapporteur should elaborate on this recommendation and how the international community could maximise dialogue with the Government while it continued to refuse to cooperate with Council mechanisms.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said that the Government of Switzerland took note with great interest of the presentation of the report by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Among the many violations, Switzerland noted that a cause of great concern was the food security in the country, which merited special attention. Switzerland agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s first recommendation to immediately grant access to basic goods of necessity, and also for the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to cooperate with humanitarian organizations and United Nations agencies to provide assistance. Switzerland noted that women were particularly affected by the prohibition to carry out small scale trading, and as such Switzerland asked the Special Rapporteur if he was given any signal as to whether or not the authorities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would return to the pre 2005 situation in the country which allowed for small scale trading?


VLADIMIR YAKOVLEV (Russian Federation) said today's discussion showed that political pressure did not help to reunify States or to solve existing problems. The human rights approach should be responsible. While no party was free to violate human rights, a selective approach in that regard was counterproductive and did not help to promote stability. Given the Universal Periodic Review process, that was a way to proceed on a constructive note, without singling out specific countries. There was a need for countries to supply technical assistance in the field to encourage human rights.

JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea there was no organised political opposition, no independent labour unions, no free media, and no civil society. Periodically, the Government publicly executed individuals for "anti-Socialist" crimes. There was no freedom of religion, and independent human rights monitors were not given access to the country. There were serious violations of the right to food. Only a small minority of the population still received regular rations. The Special Rapporteur should explain how discrimination in the country, particularly discrimination based on perceived political loyalties, affected the enjoyment of all human rights in the country, including the right to food. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should immediately respond to the Special Rapporteur's request to visit the country and to his communications.

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, thanked all the delegations and the civil society members for their comments. He stressed that in fulfilling the work of his mandate, his approach was a constructive and principled one, and that he was honoured to be the voice of the people who were affected. On the comments raised on the objectivity and non-selectivity of his appointment, Mr. Muntarbhorn stressed his appointment was done without any lobbying on his behalf to be appointed. Furthermore, he wrote and typed his own reports to ensure an objective and balanced report was produced. He said that the helping hand was there for the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

On Canada’s comments and questions, in particular with respect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Mr. Muntarbhorn said his report was written before the convening of the Committee this year. However in past reports, he noted the Committee’s comments on the fact that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s report to the Committee was quite thin when it came to child rights. One easy gesture, Mr. Muntarbhorn suggested that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea could undertake in this context was to become party to the two Optional Protocols of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This would be a positive political capital for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Survival, development, protection and participation needed to be fostered in implementing rights for children, underscored Mr. Muntarbhorn. In particular, protection was stressed as one of the most important rights granted to the child. In additional measures to be taken, he welcomed a further consideration on behalf of the Committee on the Rights of the Child to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Mr. Muntarbhorn suggested and underlined that an integrated approach, protection, provision of care, among other things, should be taken with respect to the right of refugees in all situations, including non punishment of those sent back to their country of origin. To address the impunity factor in particular, he said a United Nations integrated approach to protect people from discrimination was also helpful in this regard. He also said it was important to shift the military budget to the social sector. On the Universal Periodic Review, he welcomed this. He said that there were various lynch pins there for dialogue, through technical cooperation through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other actors. This process could also be opened to more engagement with treaty bodies and engagement with Special Procedures. On the food situation, it was no longer a question of food aid, but food security, said Mr. Muntarbhorn. The State was not willing to provide the conditions necessary. He urged an approach that looked at and advocated survival, development, protection and participation as a constructive way forward, which was more accountable to people at large.