HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

This afternoon the Human Rights Council concluded its High-Level Segment, hearing addresses by dignitaries from Germany, Zimbabwe, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba and Mozambique, who underscored the importance of the Council, and highlighted the measures they had undertaken to improve the human rights situation at a national level. The Council then began its General Segment during which many speakers expressed their views on the Council’s achievements and highlighted their priorities in the context of the upcoming five year-review of the Council’s work.

Guido Westerwelle, Vice-Chancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, said the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the relevant Conventions unequivocally called upon the international community to protect and promote universal and indivisible human rights. That also meant that it should not avert its eyes, and should not remain silent about human rights violations.

Patrick Chinamasa, Minister of Justice of Zimbabwe, said the continued selective naming and shaming of some countries, reminiscent of the former Commission, ran contrary to the spirit of dialogue and cooperation as envisioned in the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. Zimbabwe firmly believed that the office holders of the Council’s monitoring mechanisms should remain professional and apolitical, and completely avoid wading into domestic politics they knew little about.

Mutula Kilonzo, Minister of Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs of Kenya, said of particular importance with regard to the Council’s work was that States were given the opportunity to share best practices in order to overcome the different challenges that they faced. The ongoing Universal Periodic Review of the entire United Nations membership was a clear testimony to that will.

Emmanuel-Janvier Luzolo Bambi Lessa, Minister of Justice of the Democratic Republic of Congo, said that, in order to draw lessons from the human tragedy that had taken place in the country, and determined to install a true rule of law, the Government was making considerable efforts to improve the situation, by firmly committing itself in the fight against impunity for human rights violations, and it had a Zero Tolerance policy in that regard.

Bruno Rodrigues Parilla, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, remarked that much progress had been made in developing the human rights concept and very little in guaranteeing its implementation. Those who took upon themselves the role of watchdogs and attempted to question others were precisely the ones who were directly responsible for the most serious violations of human rights.

Alberto Hawa Januario Nkuntumula, Vice-Minister of Justice of Mozambique, said that, while the Universal Periodic Review process was worthwhile in aiming to enable a positive and constructive exchange of views, it was necessary to strive to further improve the fruitfulness of the Review with a view to make its outcomes more practical, balanced and sustainable.

The Council then began its General Segment, during which Speakers highlighted challenges and achievements facing the Council in the context of its upcoming review. The innovative Universal Periodic Review mechanism had proved to be an inclusive and impartial process, many felt. It had promoted dialogue and cooperation among States and was one of the reasons the Council had proved to be more effective than its predecessor. While some emphasized that the Universal Periodic Review did not make it superfluous for the Council to address the human rights situations in individual countries, others stressed the need for a common approach for protecting and promoting human rights and the need to refrain from applying double standards.

The review of the Council should aim to make change on the ground a reality, Speakers said, and it should make the concrete implementation of human rights its priority. Member States also had to improve the functioning of the Council and its ability to deal with the most serious violations on the ground. Also noted were the negative impacts of the global financial crisis and the ensuing economic recession, which were testing the edifice of existing human rights achievements, as well as the commitment of the international community; protecting and promoting economic, social and cultural rights therefore needed to be further strengthened.

Speaking in the general segment were representatives of Chile, Mexico, China, Qatar, Pakistan, Egypt, Uruguay, the Russian Federation, Hungary, Ukraine, France, Indonesia, Italy, India, Sri Lanka, Australia, Finland, the United Arab Emirates, Iceland, Denmark, the Holy See, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Tunisia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Oman, Belarus, Tanzania and Malta. Also speaking were representatives from the United Nations Refugee Agency and the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions.

Speaking in a right of reply during the high-level segment were Sri Lanka, Egypt, the Democratic Republic of Korea, China, Viet Nam, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Japan.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 4 March, when it will hear an address by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on her annual report, followed by an interactive dialogue.

High-Level Segment

GUIDO WESTERWELLE, Vice-Chancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, said the United Nations was at the heart of global politics dedicated to cooperation. To secure peace and protect human rights, there was a need for a strong and efficient United Nations. It was needed for a policy that was committed to the well-being of mankind. Man had existed before there were States – man did not exist for the State, but the State for man. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the relevant Conventions unequivocally called upon the international community to protect and promote universal and indivisible human rights. That also meant that it should not avert its eyes, and should not remain silent about human rights violations. The Council would continue to criticize States that did not live up to their human rights’ obligations. Universally recognized values, such as the respect for human dignity, marked the line beyond which the principle of non-interference became one of shared responsibility. Rich and developed countries did not have a monopoly on safeguarding human rights – those societies had also to find answers to the questions that arose in a complex and globalized world.

Those who made protection of human rights the focus of their activity deserved unconditional respect. Those people often risked life and limb in the performance of their work. The extent to which human rights were respected and protected served as a yardstick for a society's stability and sustainable development. Only by fully focusing on the individual could a policy of peace be pursued. Peaceful coexistence within a society and among peoples would therefore only succeed if all recognized religious freedom and faith as an inseparable part of identity. Economic, social and cultural rights were integral parts of a comprehensive human rights policy. The Human Rights Council was key to the protection of international human rights. Germany wanted a strong, efficient, and credible Council. What had been achieved must not be belittled, or made contingent on different traditions or cultures. There was no room in the Council for ideological debates that aimed to weaken the protection of human rights. The Council had to seize the opportunity offered by next year's review. The Council could, more than in the past, become a forum for cooperation, where Members mutually supported each other through advice and through exchanging experiences.

PATRICK CHINAMASA, Minister of Justice of Zimbabwe, observed that misunderstandings between Member States and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights could cause injury to the promotion and protection of human rights. Zimbabwe hoped that the Office would do its work in a non-selective and non-politicized manner; otherwise the Office would deserve neither Zimbabwe’s respect nor its cooperation. The central arena for human rights discourse was Human Rights Council. Zimbabwe strongly believed that the intergovernmental consultative process in respect of the reforms to be undertaken should be open and transparent in order to promote genuine dialogue and arrive at the desired consensus. In that connection, the Zimbabwe Government was concerned about the traditional bias in favour of civil and political rights and said that issues of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance and the right to development should be given their rightful place on the table.

The continued selective naming and shaming of some countries reminiscent of the former Commission ran contrary to the spirit of dialogue and cooperation as envisioned in the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. Zimbabwe firmly believed that the office holders of the Council’s monitoring mechanisms should remain professional and apolitical, and completely avoid wading into domestic politics they knew little about. Both the Office of the High Commissioner and Special Procedures should not deliberately distort facts or misinform the public through press releases. Zimbabwe referred to a November 2009 letter from the Office of the High Commissioner that had expressed the unfounded perception that Zimbabwe had not accepted visits from mandate holders. Zimbabwe rejected that assertion and hoped that the High Commissioner’s Office would work with Zimbabwe and not against it as it continued to work to further the promotion and protection of human rights.

MUTULA KILONZO, Minister of Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs of Kenya, said that Kenya appreciated the efforts of the Council to promote and protect human rights. Of particular importance with regard to the Council’s work was that States were given the opportunity to share best practices in order to overcome the different challenges that they faced. The ongoing Universal Periodic Review of the entire United Nations membership was a clear testimony to that will, and confirmed that all States faced challenges regarding the promotion and protection of human rights. Kenya, for its part, looked forward to being reviewed during the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review in May this year. It was also committed to the follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and had legislated against ethnic or racial contempt, ethnic discrimination, victimization, negative comparison of different ethnic groups, as well as harassment, all of which was aimed at combating and eliminating ethnic and racial discrimination. Kenya had also taken seriously the causes that had led to the crisis in the country witnessed after the disputed presidential elections of 2007, and had taken measures to address them, including a comprehensive review of the Constitution in order to strengthen the institutional and legal framework for the promotion and protection of human rights, and institutional reforms aimed at the police force and at the judiciary more particularly.

Given that the most pressing challenges that Kenya faced were related to poverty, the Government had affirmed its commitment to implement the economic blueprint “Vision 2030”. That vision recognized that problems of inequality and human rights violations were interlinked with economic, social and cultural challenges. Therefore, Kenya sought to build economic growth while ensuring that the political system was issue-based, people-centred, results-oriented and accountable. That vision was anchored in three key pillars: the economic pillar aimed to achieve an average economic growth rate of 10 per cent per annum by 2012, and sustain the same until 2030 in order to generate more resources so as to meet the Millennium Development Goals; the social pillar sought to achieve a just, cohesive and equitable social development in a clean and secure environment; and the political pillar, for its part, was aimed at an issue-based, people-centred and results-oriented democratic system. Kenya remained committed to the work of the Human Rights Council, appreciating the crucial role it played in the field of human rights, and also remained committed to its international obligations, as well as the realization of full enjoyment of human rights at the national level.

EMMANUEL-JANVIER LUZOLO BAMBI LESSA, Minister of Justice of the Democratic Republic of Congo, said the presence of the Congolese ministerial delegation at this session of the Council was eloquent proof of his country's attachment to the universal values that were the fundamental rights of the human person, and of its strong will to develop an interactive and constructive dialogue with the Council. In particular, the Democratic Republic of Congo had welcomed the new mechanism that was the Universal Periodic Review, which allowed for each country to be examined by its peers, on an equal footing, and in a non-discriminatory and non-politicized manner.

The Democratic Republic of Congo, a post-conflict country, had undergone almost a decade of recurring wars, which had seen massive violations of the human rights of its citizens. The women and girls of the Democratic Republic of Congo had paid the heaviest toll in terms of rape and other sexual violence of a rare cruelty. To draw lessons from that human tragedy, and determined to install a true rule of law, the Government was making considerable efforts to improve the situation, by firmly committing itself in the fight against impunity for human rights violations, and it had a Zero Tolerance policy in that regard. The President had declared that the Democratic Republic of Congo had no interest in being a paradise for criminals, and that it did not deserve the epithet of land of impunity. Thus, several decisions had been taken to make concrete the Government's firm determination to fight impunity. It was in that context that several war criminals had been arrested and prosecuted, both on the internal and international levels, in particular before the International Criminal Court, and a series of disciplinary measures had recently been taken in the judiciary and among civil servants. The fight against impunity for sexual violence was being given particular attention through the National Strategy to Fight against Sexual and Gender-Based Violence. The Government would pursue all criminals until their last redoubt, with the aim of eradicating the scourges that affected society, namely impunity and corruption. All of the Government's initiatives were shown through its firm determination to ensure, as efficiently as possible, the protection and promotion of human rights.

BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA, Minster of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, remarked that much progress had been made in developing the human rights concept and very little in guaranteeing its implementation. Those who took upon themselves the role of watchdogs of human rights and attempted to question others were precisely the ones who were directly responsible for the most serious, systematic and flagrant violations of human rights, particularly the right to life. They had been the ones who had masterminded the colonial system and the ones who bore the responsibility for the present international economic order that silently murdered tens of millions of human beings who fell victim to starvation, poverty and preventable and curable diseases. The United States and its European allies had resorted to the manipulation of terrorism to launch the wars whose aims had been to control and conquer the energy sources in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had taken its toll on 2 million lives and served as a pretext to pass laws such as the “Patriot Act”. Who would take responsibility for the brutal acts committed in Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo and other centres of torture? Who would take responsibility in European countries for the secret renditions, the clandestine prisons in those territories and their involvement in acts of torture?

The right to life was continuously violated around the world. At the same time, the very existence of the human species was being seriously jeopardized by climate change. The ones who had historically been and still were responsible for that phenomenon were the same who had unleashed and conducted the wars of conquest. The shameful Copenhagen meeting had been an act against the right of humanity to life and survival. For half a century Cuba had been a victim of United States aggressions and terrorist actions. The United States policy against Cuba, which the Government of President Obama had kept unchanged, was taking a toll on the lives of Cubans. A new escalation of subversion, with broad media coverage, had been launched against Cuba. Since the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in 1959 there had never been in Cuba a single case of assassination, torture or extrajudicial execution; there had never been a “death squad” or an “Operation Condor”. Cuba offered assurances that it would continue its efforts and determination so that the Human Rights Council could preserve its independent course, and cooperation was further consolidated as a true way to promote and protect human rights in the world.

ALBERTO HAWA JANUARIO NKUNTUMULA, Vice-Minister of Justice of Mozambique, underscored that the promotion and protection of human rights were among the obligations that all States should strive to fulfil and promote. As proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, dignity and rights should be guaranteed to everyone worldwide. Mozambique firmly believed in the universality of human rights and considered all rights – civil, political, as well as economic, social and cultural rights – as indivisible, interdependent, interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Mozambique remained committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms on that basis. That was, among other measures, visible by its continued efforts to fulfil its obligations under various national, regional and international human rights instruments. For example, Mozambique this month had welcomed the Deputy Chair of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and its second report had been successfully reviewed by the committee working on the rights of the child. .

Turning to the achievements of the Human Rights Council, Mr. Nkuntumula said that the Universal Periodic Review represented one of the major achievements within the Council’s mechanisms and was a body aimed at enabling an objective, transparent, cooperative and global review of each country’s human rights situation. While that process was worthwhile in aiming to enable a positive and constructive exchange of views, it was necessary to strive to further improve the fruitfulness of the Universal Periodic Review with a view to make its outcomes more practical, balanced and sustainable. Accordingly, the assessment of the Universal Periodic Review mechanisms would be of utmost importance, allowing Governments to look at its achievements, challenges and to outline its future. Mozambique, for its part, was delighted that it would be reviewed next year, and was currently preparing its national report to the Council. Mozambique was confident that the positive lessons learned from the evaluation and assessment of its human rights achievements under the African Peer Review Mechanism would be of great value in that regard. Mozambique had accomplished substantive progress in recent years, including its endeavours for the consolidation of peace and democracy, and for the promotion of socio-economic development. Mozambique was confident that, in spite of numerous challenges, it would succeed in further fulfilling its human rights objectives.

Rights of Reply

MOHAN PEIRIS (Sri Lanka), in a right to reply, said it was gravely concerned by the disappointment expressed by the Netherlands on the outcome of the Council’s Special Session on Sri Lanka last May. Such countries had thought it fit to bring such a session. Obviously, Sri Lanka chose a safe and secure environment for its people to live in dignity. The Government had delivered on that undertaking to the point that over 200,000 persons had left the welfare villages within six months, and the remaining 65,000 were resettled following demining of their original areas and also when a component of them had voluntarily decided to leave. In fact, the progress in the resettlement of the internally displaced persons had been acknowledged by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It was extremely disconcerting to observe that a member of the Human Rights Council would so blatantly question the intergovernmental decision taken following due consultation and the rules of procedure. The misconceived Special Session on Sri Lanka had indeed only resulted in polarizing in the member States of the Council. They had not understood the complexity of the conflict, which had lasted over three decades. It was crucial to remember that that Council was founded on mutual trust and cooperation. There had to be finality consequent upon a determination made by the Council.

MONA ELBAHTIMY (Egypt), speaking in a right to reply, said it was regrettable that Sweden chose to mention Egypt in the context of its discussion on the value of the Internet and information and communication technology in uncovering human rights abuses. All clips on the Internet alleging abuse in police stations in Egypt had been examined by the Public Prosecutor, and where they had proved to have been real the culprits had been prosecuted and imprisoned. The Egyptian Government took very seriously any allegations, was committed to preventing impunity, and did not permit such loose allegations to be made by anybody. It was ironic that Sweden had made that allegation. It would have been more worthwhile to address the situation in Sweden, where such technology was used to promote pornography and the abuse of women and children.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said the Democratic People's Republic of Korea categorically rejected the groundless allegations that had been made by Japan. Those allegations were intended to obscure Japan’s past crimes and to make it seem as if the discussed abduction case were the only remaining issue in the relations of the two countries. That was, however, clearly not the case as the only issue remaining was the past crimes against humanity committed by Japan in Korea. Despite repeated calls by the international community, Japan had not recognized those, and also applied harsher measures and penalties against citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as compared to Japanese citizens. There should be a special mandate for Special Rapporteur to investigate that, and Japan should be urged to refrain from using this forum in order to advance its political agenda.

QIAN BO (China), in a right of reply, said in response to comments made by Sweden, that it rejected those charges categorically. In the promotion and protection of human rights China had made widely acknowledged achievements. China was trying to protect the freedom of expression of its citizens under the law, but all those people violating the law were dealt with in accordance with the law. There were now 384 million Internet users in China. Chinese citizens could access various forms of information through various channels, including the Internet, and express their views on social and political issues.

PHAM HAI ANH (Viet Nam), speaking in a right to reply, said with regard to the statement made by Sweden, that that had presented the wrong picture of the reality of the Internet in Viet Nam. Presently, Internet services were operated in all 64 provinces, with active users accounting for some 20 per cent of the population. Viet Nam had the fastest Internet growth in the world and was among the quickest to apply new technologies. Given that reality, as recognized and witnessed by the international community, Viet Nam was surprised to hear such a biased statement. It was the policy of the Government to promote and facilitate people's access to the latest information on science and technologies, as well as the cultural values of human rights. However, while Viet Nam held that freedom of expression was an important human right, that right was not absolute. Like other countries, Viet Nam did not condone the incitement of hatred, violence among different ethnicities and religions, or the dissemination of ideas and images contrary to culture and morals. Those actions violated Vietnamese laws and international standards on human rights.

ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran), speaking in a right of reply, said Iran rejected the baseless allegations that had been made. It was not the first time that European countries had arrogantly demonstrated a selective and biased approach towards human rights situations in other countries. Serious violations of human rights occurred in those countries on a daily basis and they had also continuously been involved in the violations of the rights of people of Occupied Palestinian Territory. Holding elections at least once every 10 years and the huge turnout witnessed during the last elections were just another vibrant example of democracy and the participatory mechanisms in Iran. Nevertheless, some countries instilled tensions in Iran with all possible means, as certain foreign Governments sought to meddle in Iran’s internal affairs, in spite of the fact that one of the objectives of the Iranian revolution was to end interference of foreign countries. Iran was fully committed to its obligations in the field of human rights, and instead of pointing their fingers at Iran, the countries in question should rather take a look at their own human rights records.

KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan), speaking in a right of reply, said in response to Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s statement on the abduction issue, that the latter had said that that issue had already been settled. That was contradictory. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had formally said that and had changed its position at the bilateral consultation in June 2008. Japan urged it again to establish an investigation on the abduction issue in accordance with that agreement. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had yet to account for the remaining 12 abducted people who were still missing. It should commence the investigation without delay. The numbers mentioned were groundless. Japan had caused suffering to many Asian nations, and had expressed its deep remorse and had done all it could. Since then, it had vowed never to become a military power but an economic power.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a second right to reply, said it rejected yet again the misleading rhetorical allegations made by Japan. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women had estimated the number of Japanese military sexual slaves at 200,000. The Japanese delegation was reminded that the abduction case had been completely resolved due to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's consistent efforts. Japan should apologize for using that case as part of its political agenda. Japan did not listen to the voices of protest of the thousands of victims of its history of aggression, or to the voices of the international community that had adopted resolutions on Japanese military sexual slavery. Japan was intentionally tearing down the legitimate demands by other nations to address that situation, as shown in its stubborn refusal to address its past crimes against humanity. As a result, Japan had been referred to as the richest of the rich in terms of money, but poorest of the poor in terms of morality. Japan should address its own violations before referring to anybody else's situation.

KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan), speaking in a second right of reply, said that Japan had already explained its position on the issue under debate and would not repeat itself, but had to point out that it was regrettable that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had not responded with concrete actions to the concerns that had been expressed by Japan, as well as the international community, including States, non-governmental organizations and Special Rapporteurs. Japan expected the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to respond in a concrete and constructive manner.

General Segment

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile) said Chile would always be grateful for the solidarity shown in the aftermath to the recent catastrophe that had claimed more than 800 lives. The earthquake’s magnitude and its effects had spread to a third of the country, creating serious logistical difficulties in organizing assistance. But, with the help of the international community and the positive spirit of the Chilean people, they would overcome the major challenges of reconstruction. Chile would like to see the Council continuing its mandate. The multilateral mechanism was the most appropriate place to share experiences and good practices. It was important that they focused such solidarity first and foremost on victims of violations of human rights. The Council’s legitimacy was based on the opportunities it provided to cope with violations. The Universal Periodic Review had challenges in terms of procedure and content. It was also crucial for the Council to protect a range of rights. The Council had to defend equality before the law. There were also concerns over the rights of women. Chile had raised the need for the effective implementation of social, economic and cultural rights. For its part, Chile would continue multilateral efforts to ensure the freedom and rights of all in an equitable way.

JUAN JOSE IGNACIO GOMEZ CAMACHO (Mexico) said guaranteeing the respect of human rights required an ongoing and permanent effort. It was not just a question of resolve and conviction, but required hard and persistent work. Mexico was a country with deep-seated democratic convictions. This year it was celebrating the two-hundredth anniversary of its independence, and the centenary of its social revolution. Mexico was commemorating those historic events inasmuch as it was a society that freely elected its leaders. The success of Mexico depended on the ability to exercise without fear the fundamental freedoms and human rights. As institutions and as a society, Mexico was working with energy towards consolidating a State that exercised the greatest possible freedoms and guarantees. All States, in North and South, had benefited greatly from international humanitarian law and the system of protection that had been built. All had forged that system, and it belonged to all. The Council, through collective decisions, was the body that had been created to protect human rights and foster norms and standards protecting those. The universality of human rights was a principle which Mexico taught and, precisely, that fundamental rights did not depend on sovereignty or borders, or on political systems, but upon the character and nature of the individual.

HE YAFEI (China) observed the Human Rights Council had been in existence for four years now and China looked forward to reviewing its effectiveness shortly. At present, the repercussions of the global financial crisis were still felt and protecting and promoting economic, social and cultural rights needed to be further strengthened. The world today also needed a tolerant approach to living together in harmony. A common approach for protecting and promoting human rights should be achieved, among others, by refraining from applying double standards. While China had made major improvements in the field of human rights, including in education, poverty reduction and access to information, as the world’s major developing country it nevertheless faced numerous remaining challenges. Therefore, all China’s Government departments were working hard to implement the outcomes of the examination of China’s human rights in the context of the last Universal Periodic Review.

ABDULLA FALAH ABDULLA AL-DOSARI (Qatar) said Qatar was firmly committed to the Council and the High Commissioner’s essential role of promoting and protecting human rights. A recent review of Qatar’s human rights situation by the Universal Periodic Review had been characterized by constructive and effective dialogue with all States that had taken part in it. Qatar had extended its good offices in conjunction with several international players to hold peace talks on Darfur between the Government and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). It dealt with all parties to the crisis with an open mind. Qatar’s efforts were focused on setting up a development bank in Darfur, and it encouraged States to contribute to that. The global economic and financial crisis still had negative impacts on the enjoyment of human rights. Qatar had created the Global Redesign Initiative to engage in dialogue on global economic and financial issues. Qatar concluded by reiterating its cooperation and support to further promote and protect human rights.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said in the past two and a half days the Council had heard encouraging and resounding commitments for the protection and promotion of universal human rights from the leadership belonging to all corners of the world, strengthening confidence in the universal respect for human rights, and lending credence to the valuable work done by the Council in that regard. Pakistan attached the highest importance to the work of the Human Rights Council, and strongly supported universal application of agreed human rights standards. Pakistan would continue with efforts to develop international human rights standards, based on the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-politicization. The Government of Pakistan had taken a number of steps to realize its constitutional and international commitments to ensuring the highest standards of human rights for its citizens, including social, economic and political justice, freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association. However, Pakistan realized that more had yet to be achieved in several critical areas. Today the world, in particular Pakistan's region, was faced with the challenges of extremism and terrorism. It was the international community's common responsibility to develop an international environment that discouraged violations and strengthened protection mechanisms.

HISHAM BADR (Egypt) said that Egypt had always been committed to strengthening the success and credibility of the Human Rights Council. As African coordinator on human rights for the past two years, Egypt had endeavoured to contribute so that the weaknesses of the defunct Commission regarding selectivity, politicization and double standards would not be repeated. Egypt had also been staunchly committed to the faithful implementation of the agreed institution-building framework, as clearly manifested in the Durban Review Conference last April. Egypt had exerted all efforts to work to build bridges in order not to let that historic opportunity pass without a strong international commitment to the faithful implementation of their global strategy to combat racism. Likewise, Egypt did not hesitate to address the resolution on freedom of expression, with its approach being founded on a desire to build common ground on the central importance of freedom of expression. The Government believed that the Human Rights Council should encourage inter-religious dialogue, and look for ways and means to protect the rights of the followers of all religions. In that context, Egypt was indeed deeply concerned about the new and emerging manifestations of Islamophobia in certain western societies.

LUCIA TRUCILLO (Uruguay) said that Uruguay gave utmost importance to the endeavours of the Human Rights Council. Uruguay reaffirmed its commitment to human rights and strove for a comprehensive focus on human rights, education, housing, safety and the fight against poverty. Uruguay also aimed at progress in the education sectors and planned to achieve universal attendance in schools. Uruguay had expanded the plan for secondary education and the “One Laptop per Child” programme, and planned to expand the number of households with Internet connection and intended to eradicate illegal squats. In addition, Uruguay had developed a national plan against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance and discrimination based on sexual orientation, with the support of the United Nations and Human Rights Council. The impact of poverty was increasingly important on the agenda, and Uruguay needed to adopt more measures to break the vicious cycle of poverty. At this session, Uruguay would have the honour to present a resolution on the rights of the child, which would be dedicated to fight against sexual violence.

MARINA KORUNOVA (Russian Federation) said that, in order to make sure the Second World War would not be repeated, they needed the formulation of a modern system for the promotion and protection of human rights. The growth of neo-Nazi and Fascist movements should receive a worthy answer from the world community. Forgetting the lessons of history would lead to new crimes being committed. Russia called on all countries to come to the review of the Council focusing on how to maintain and increase a positive approach. That would include a common approach to addressing shortcomings and seeking dialogue and compromise. There were universal, eternal values upon which human civilization was based. It was the cement that should bind together all peoples. George Orwell had called that common decency. That was the approach that would help ensure the promotion of universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

GABOR IKLODY (Hungary) said the negative impacts of the global financial crisis and the ensuing economic recession were testing the edifice of existing human rights achievements, as well as the commitment of the international community, rendering the role of the United Nations and its human rights mechanisms even more important. Global challenges needed global responses and there was no international organization with more legitimacy and higher acceptance than the United Nations. The Universal Periodic Review process, more particularly, had undoubtedly added value to the work of the Human Rights Council, and Hungary had spared no effort to ensure a smooth transition to the second cycle, as well as an efficient follow-up. Already the report development for Universal Periodic Review had shown its merits and usefulness for Hungary. The Government also strongly believed in the idea of regional cooperation and it had therefore organized a side event today, aimed at sharing best practices of the four members of the “Visgrad-4” regional cooperation, and to inform about their common endeavour to elaborate a Central European Roma Integration Strategy.

MYKOLA MAIMESKUL (Ukraine) said that violation of human rights was one of the biggest obstacles to social progress. The violation of the fundamental right to life appeared to be one of the most widespread across the world. Constitutions of many countries defined human life as the highest value. Ukraine strongly believed that the universal and unconditional recognition of the absolute value of human life could substantially improve the human rights situation around the globe. Ukraine shared the opinion that the Human Rights Council should be an effective institution and to that end cooperation during the informal preparatory process for the review of the Council’s activities was indispensable. Ukraine would continue to contribute actively to that process.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) said several elements of the Council, like the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, were positive. In June, France would present a mid-term review of its contribution in 2008. Non-governmental organizations had also witnessed an enhanced role in the Council. Member States had to improve the functioning of the Council and its ability to deal with the most serious violations on the ground. It had to be able to debate the most serious situations. Repression in Iran continued, and human rights defenders were being kept down. The Council could not remain silent in such a state of affairs. Members had to work together in a spirit of cooperation. A cooperative approach would combat impunity. In light of its upcoming review, Council members had to be vigilant about candidates will to promote human rights. It was crucial to reinforce the interdependence of Special Procedures. France would also continue to defend the rights of women. Discrimination based on sexual orientation was widespread within 80 countries. People of religious minorities were also often victims of violations. The Council had to take up all violations against human rights within existing norms. There was no need for new ones, especially where religious defamation was concerned.

DIAN TRIANSYAH DJANI (Indonesia) said this year the Council would enter its fourth year cycle and it was therefore timely to make an honest assessment of whether it had fulfilled its mandate. The innovative Universal Periodic Review mechanism had proved to be an inclusive and impartial process. It had promoted dialogue and cooperation among States and, for that reason, among others, the Council had proved to be more effective than its predecessor. Nevertheless, the Council’s achievements needed to be preserved and its shortcomings addressed, notably through greater rationalization of meetings and resolutions. Indonesia remained concerned that there remained significant gaps between resolutions and their actual implementation, as highlighted by the Palestine issue. It was therefore imperative that the Council remained committed to taking concrete steps with a view to ensure the implementation of resolutions. Indonesia also noted that more work needed to focus on economic, social and cultural rights for everyone. Indonesia hoped that the review process would serve its purpose without diverting from the substantive work and main objectives of the Council. They should also not seek to repair what was not broken.

LAURA MIRACHIAN (Italy) said Italy had greatly benefited from its first Universal Periodic Review less than three weeks ago. Italy’s participation should be considered as part of its strong commitment to multilateralism and the promotion of human rights. The priorities for Italy were dialogue among cultures and religions, religious freedom, the rights of the child, the rights of women and human rights education. The abolition of death penalty was also of crucial importance, and Italy renewed its commitment for an international moratorium on the death penalty with a view to its abolition. Because of its geography, Italy had been exposed over recent years to a massive flow of migrants. Their number had increased by almost 250 per cent and the trend kept growing at a fast pace. In that connection, Italy was committed to dealing with Roma and Sinti communities and with the most vulnerable sectors of society according to international standards and principles. Italy expressed its concern over the reports of violence, intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, including those that had recently targeted Christian communities in several Countries.

GOPINATHAN ACHAMKULANGARE (India) said it was a privilege for India to have served in the Council since its inception. The promotion of human rights could best be realized through dialogue and cooperation. The Universal Periodic Review was a mechanism that could make a difference on the ground. India welcomed informal initiatives prior to the Council’s upcoming review. Those had to be based on making the Council more effective. They must not disturb the institution-building component of the Council. Moreover, duplication and overlap had to be avoided. India assured all of its continued active participation in the review process towards enhancing the performance of the Council and securing the fundamental rights and freedoms of all.

MOHAN PEIRIS (Sri Lanka) said the successful operation, from 2006 to 2009, to finally free people from terrorism, had placed a new and daunting challenge to the Government and people of Sri Lanka. Almost 270,000 people had had to be taken care of, their basic needs seen to and then returned to their places of origin. Sri Lanka appreciated that the Human Rights Council evinced a deep and abiding interest in the welfare of those Sri Lankans; in that regard, it was ready to engage in any constructive dialogue, and it accepted fair, objective and helpful criticism. However, everybody should guard against pressures arising from domestic political exigencies that could have negative implications for other sovereign nations. It was also necessary to take care to forestall individual and parochial interests from superseding the Council’s prerogative of conclusively pronouncing on the promotion and protection of human rights. There was also a need to ensure compliance with the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council, designed to ensure the observance of procedural fairness by special procedures mandate holders.

PETER WOOLCOTT (Australia) said the creation of the first regional human rights mechanism in the Asia-Pacific region – the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights – was a positive development and also applauded Mongolia’s abolition of the death penalty. For its part, Australia continued to place a high priority on closing the gap in life outcomes between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. In 2008, Australia had launched the most extensive human rights consultation in its history, allowing Australians from all walks of life to give their views on how Australia could best promote and protect human rights. Australia welcomed international scrutiny of its human rights record as a means to improve its implementation of human rights wherever it could. Australia looked forward to its first Universal Periodic Review and to carrying out preparations over the next year in close consultation with the Australian Human Rights Commission and civil society in that regard.

HANNU HIMANEN (Finland) observed that the Council was at the heart of the United Nations human rights system. The Council had to focus on the protection of the most vulnerable rights holders. The rights of women, children and the disabled were a priority for Finland. The Council also had to respond promptly to human rights violations at all times and everywhere. It could draw on the valuable work of independent experts in regional and country contexts. Its strength was in reasoned reflection, debate and cooperation for the development of human rights standards. The Universal Periodic Review represented the best part of the Council’s work. It was crucial to focus on the outcomes. Special Procedures also needed freedom to express their mandates, to ensure their freedom and integrity. Only then could they provide meaningful input to the work of the Council.

OBAID SALEM SAEED AL ZAABI (United Arab Emirates) said among the most harmful impacts of the global financial crisis were those on the economic sector, but the crisis also impinged on human rights. The United Arab Emirates hoped that the Council would not only monitor and assess that crisis, but that it would also operate as an organ involved in protecting and promoting human rights with all available means, including urging the international financial institutions to renounce their monopolistic tendencies, and encourage them to adopt measures to enhance financial transparency. The United Arab Emirates, for its part, had taken measures to protect the rights of vulnerable segments of its population and, at the international level, had taken part in measures aimed at mitigating the impact of the global financial crisis.

KRISTINN F. ARNASON (Iceland) said they had to confront inequality and discrimination under all circumstances. Combating discrimination in all its forms should be a matter of priority for the international community. Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, including Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia were problems facing all societies and countries throughout the world. They were unacceptable under any circumstances. Many countries also still systematically discriminated against women. Iceland urged all countries to take all the necessary measures to ensure gender equality. Iceland was further deeply concerned about reports of discrimination and violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms based on sexual orientation or gender identity in a number of countries. Iceland also reiterated its call for complete elimination of torture and all forms of ill treatment, including all forms of capital punishment, and called for the universal abolition of the death penalty.

ARNOLD DE FINE SKIBSTED (Denmark) reiterated that international human rights and freedoms constituted a key element for Denmark. It regretted to state that the Council’s performance left a lot to be desired. Despite the Universal Periodic Review being a valuable monitoring instrument, it did not make it superfluous for the Council to address the human rights situations in individual countries. Freedom of expression was universal and still being undermined. Denmark would actively engage in the Council’s forthcoming review process. Denmark wanted to ensure the Council of its continued support and its gratitude to civil society and others for all their efforts despite stumbling blocks in that regard.

SILVANO M. TOMASI (Holy See) said the human rights perspective provided a positive contribution to solving the current financial crisis. Although some signs of recovery were visible, the crisis continued to aggravate the conditions of millions of people in their access to the basic necessities of life. That situation called for new regulations and a sound global system of governance aimed at ensuring a sustainable and comprehensive path to development for all. The enjoyment of human rights became possible when States translated principles into law and made change on the ground a reality. In view of the interconnectedness and interdependence observed today, States had to recognize the importance of collaboration with the whole range of players in that regard, including civil society and the international community. The common goal was to promote and protect the human dignity which bound together the entire human family. In that context, the review of the Human Rights Council should aim to make change on the ground a reality, and it should make the concrete implementation of human rights its priority.

AHMET UZUMCU (Turkey) said there was a need to scrutinize human rights performance at national, regional and international levels. Developing a global culture of human rights was possible and should be one of the Council’s primary objectives. At the global level, the Human Rights Council was the most appropriate forum to address human rights challenges. It had proven its value over the past four years of its existence and had demonstrated the capacity to act swiftly in situations aggravated by conflicts, crises and humanitarian disasters. The review process should aim at upholding and consolidating the existing mechanisms, as well as addressing shortcomings in areas where there was need for improvement. The success of the Council would be judged by its ability to produce results-oriented effective documents that could affect the situation on the ground. Turkey believed it would be in their common interest to secure a higher visibility for the Council. It would help them raise awareness among their respective peoples with regard to their fundamental rights and freedoms. The responsibility of making the best use of the body would always lie with Member States. Turkey was a candidate to the Human Rights Council for the term 2013-2016, and would continue to emphasize the importance of genuine dialogue and encourage constructive engagement by all stakeholders.

AKRAM ZEYNALLI (Azerbaijan) expressed Azerbaijan’s gratitude to Navi Pillay for her dedicated efforts in advancing human rights. The Council had made progress since its inception. The Universal Periodic Review was a major innovation of the Council. It was crucial in assessing achievements and challenges in protecting and promoting human rights. Despite achievements, there was always room for improvement. The upcoming review would hopefully make the Council stronger and more effective. While stressing the importance of the review process, that should not negatively affect the regular work of the Council. In future, the Council should give more attention to cross-regional initiatives, and to building more confidence and cooperation within it. Azerbaijan supported fully the work of the Council.

ABDELWAHEB JEMAL (Tunisia) said that, as a founding member of the Human Rights Council, Tunisia had always been keen to participate in the Council and to promote and protect human rights education and training, which were key to change. Tunisia had undergone the Universal Periodic Review process in 2008, and was now more determined than ever to implement the recommendations it had received. Tunisia was committed to make human rights a cornerstone of its actions and a key part of its Constitution. It had ensured that there were measures to punish all those who had been charged with terrorism; and it had received visits by Special Rapporteurs. There was no doubt that the international community faced major challenges in the light of the global financial crisis and Tunisia would therefore encourage efforts to rely on assistance provided by the International Monetary Fund. The Tunisian Government hoped to increase representation of women in the forthcoming national plan and believed that there was a need to combat discrimination and racism, which was the reason why Tunisia was particularly committed to following up the Durban Declaration.

JONAS RUDALEVICIUS (Lithuania) said that the important goals the Council had achieved had to be taken into account during the review – the Universal Periodic Review process, the special procedures system, and the independence and expertise of mandate holders. Lithuania saw a need to maintain and expand the capacities of the Council and welcomed the informal consultation process that had already started. Lithuania particularly thanked the organizers of the annual full-day meeting on the rights of the child that would take place during this session. Lithuania was confident that the Strategic Management Plan of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would be a useful tool in furthering the activities of the Office.

HASHIM OTHMAN (Malaysia) observed that numerous global crises had cast a shadow on development. The international community had to be mindful of the vulnerability of developing countries to the consequences of those numerous interconnected crises, which impacted human rights negatively. Malaysia had always been aware of the importance of balancing between economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights. It had submitted its candidacy to the Council for 2010 to 2013. If elected, it could add further value through its experience to the work of the Council. The upcoming review process should be seen as an opportunity to address gaps in the work and functioning of the Council.

YAHYA SALIM AL-WAHAIBI (Oman) said the Human Rights Council had been created in order to strengthen and uphold human rights. Since its establishment, the Council had been a source of inspiration for all principles that needed to be adopted to protect human rights. The Universal Periodic Review in particular was an opportunity for Member States to build on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other instruments. The seventh Working Group had recently concluded its work after reviewing over 100 cases. Oman reiterated its commitment promote and protect human rights of all areas and highlighted that it had undertaken relentless efforts to ensure that its citizens, as well as foreigners in Oman, would benefit from those instruments. Among other measures, Oman’s efforts had targeted trafficking in persons. Human rights were a key issue for Oman and the Government thus underscored, among others, the need to bring to an end the suffering of the Palestinian people.

ANDREI TARANDA (Belarus) said that Belarus shared the view that the Human Rights Council was the effective mechanism of the United Nations for promotion and protection of human rights. The spirit of cooperation and dialogue would help the Council to be more effective in solving the problems put before it. Belarus condemned isolated attempts at confrontation that occurred in this body. It was only the Universal Periodic Review that would be able to break obsolete barriers between States and to improve the human rights climate. In the upcoming review there would be no doubt about the need to maintain the Universal Periodic Review. Belarus believed it would be premature to make any conclusions now about the need for substantive changes in the review process. Belarus also noted with satisfaction the positive changes that occurred in the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

MATERN Y. C. LUMBANGA (Tanzania) reiterated its commitment to the United Nations human rights instruments. Tanzania’s fourth periodic report on economic, social and cultural rights had taken place in July 2009. To further bolster human rights, the Government had recently embarked on a national human rights plan of action to improve adherence and observance of human rights. That would be a landmark in Tanzania’s commitment to human rights. Tanzania was particularly committed to combating gender-based violence. Tanzania would undergo its Universal Periodic Review in 2011. Tanzania reaffirmed its commitment to promoting and protecting human rights; however, it acknowledged that it was only through cooperation with numerous governments, development and civil society sectors that it could reach its established human rights goals.

SIMONE SCHWARTZ-DELGADO, of the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), said that there was a close relationship between the international protection of human rights and the protection activities that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had been undertaking. The Council and the Agency in fact shared the same fundamental objective: to promote and protect the safety and dignity of the individual. This year marked UNHCR’s sixtieth anniversary, which was both a cause for celebration, as well one for deeper reflection: that event highlighted the failure of the international community to prevent prejudice, persecution and other causes of conflict and displacement. Clearly, greater respect for the human rights of all individuals was, among others, one of the best ways of preventing forced displacement. UNHCR therefore aimed at integrating human rights into all aspects of its work, as well as promoting the protection of persons of concern through the respective human rights mechanisms. In that context, the Council played a crucial role by highlighting the applicability of human rights standards to all, and UNHCR was confident that the Council would continue to include consideration of the situation of refugees and internally displaced persons in its activities.

MARIE-THERESE PICTET-ALTHANN (Malta) commended the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for having identified six priority areas, each of which required immediate and sustained action. Combating inequalities and poverty was at the heart of the Order of Malta’s mission. As the least privileged members of their societies suffered most from human rights violations, their focus had to be on the eradication of poverty, through development, education and the basic provision of health care. The report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Mr. Kälin, had received Malta’s full attention and Malta entirely agreed with the report’s conclusions and recommendations. As the Council would shortly be called upon to decide on the future of its mandate, Malta hoped that Member States would recognize the significant contribution the Representative had made towards the promotion and protection of the human rights of internally displaced persons. The upcoming review of the Council would have to examine its present weaknesses, in particular the lack of impact of the Council’s work on the ground. There was a definite need to strengthen the Council’s effectiveness and credibility by concrete responses that had measurable impact on the lives of ordinary people by ensuring their enjoyment of individual rights and freedoms.

KATHARINA ROSE (International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions), noted that during the High Level Segment dignitaries had reaffirmed their commitment to building a culture of human rights. Realizing that goal would require commitment, vigilance and collaborative action from all segments of society. National human rights institutions had a vital role to play in promoting and protecting human rights. To be fully effective, it was crucial for them to be independent from Governments and to comply with the Paris Principles. Their mandates had to be broad, including all human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. States that had no such institutions had to show their commitment to protecting and promoting human rights by setting up national institutions. Others were encouraged to bolster those institutions and to prevent the dilution of their powers. The International Coordinating Committee welcomed the growing number of Paris Principles-compliant national human rights institutions, together with the wider human rights community.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC10/013E