HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, MYANMAR AND IRAN
The Human Rights Council today held separate interactive dialogues with the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Myanmar and Iran.
Marzuki Darusman, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said that there had been a significant deterioration in the human rights situation in the country and that more than six million people urgently required food assistance. A number of constitutional and legislative provisions had seriously endangered the impartiality and independence of the judiciary in the country, while as many as 20 executions were reported to have been carried out in 2011. No progress had been made in resolving the question of the abduction of foreign nationals, and the safety and protection of refugees and asylum-seekers was of deep concern. Mr. Darusman called on all States to adhere to their obligation of providing international protection to asylum-seekers and to adhere to the principle of non-refoulement.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speaking as the concerned country, said it did not recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the country. This mandate was a product of political plot and confrontation by the United States, Japan, the European Union and other western countries in advocacy of a hostile policy. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea rejected the report of the Special Rapporteur and said that it was a document of political ploy full of unfounded and irrational allegations fabricated and spread by hostile forces.
In the ensuing debate, speakers noted with regret and concern the deteriorating human rights and humanitarian situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the plight of refugees and asylum seekers. Countries called on the neighbouring States to deal with them in a humane manner and with respect for the principle of non-refoulement. The Government needed to resolve the question of separated families and abductees, repeal the death penalty and urgently address the flaws in the food production system that had led to the current food shortage. The new leadership might represent an opportunity to engage with the international community with a view to addressing all questions and concerns related to human rights and fundamental freedoms. The situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been on the agenda of the Human Rights Council for far too long, some speakers said, adding that the Universal Periodic Review allowed examining human rights situation in States on an equal footing and in a cooperative manner.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were the European Union, Japan, Republic of Korea, United States, China, Zimbabwe, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Venezuela, Slovakia, Cuba, Syria, Ecuador, Spain, Canada, Viet Nam, Australia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, and France. Also taking the floor were Human Rights Watch and United Nations Watch.
In the interactive dialogue on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Tomas Ojea Quintana, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human Rights in Myanmar, said that during his recent visit to Myanmar he had seen a positive impact on the human rights situation by new reforms, policies and legislation adopted by the Government of Myanmar. However, clear and serious human rights concerns remained that could not be ignored in the rush to reform. Challenges facing Myanmar included the lack of an independent and effective judiciary, legal reforms, and poverty and food insecurity. It was essential that the up-coming by-elections were truly free, fair, inclusive and transparent. The ongoing conflict with some armed ethnic groups continued to engender serious human rights violations, including attacks against civilian populations, extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, arbitrary arrest, internal displacement, land confiscations, the recruitment of child soldiers, and forced labour. Disturbing reports of landmine use by both the Government and non-State armed groups, and subsequent casualties around the country, had been received.
Myanmar, speaking as the concerned country, said that the Government was restructuring the administrative mechanism; considering universal access to health; and increasing spending on education and health with the view of removing the country from the list of the least developed countries. There was the emergence of civil society organizations in the country, and plans were underway for the emergence of mass organizations such as workers and farmers unions. Myanmar reiterated its committed to the irreversibility of its current democratization and reform process and said there would be no turning back and no questioning of the commitment of the current leadership. It was regrettable to see allegations and unsubstantiated statements throughout the report of the Special Rapporteur, which did not have any grounding in reality.
In the interactive dialogue on Myanmar, speakers welcomed the recent positive developments towards democracy, social and economic development, and respect for human rights. Reconciliation with ethnic minorities was essential for sustainable political change, and talks and ceasefire agreements with ethnic armed groups were commended. Serious issues remained to be addressed, such as the ongoing ethnic conflict, forced labour, child soldiers, the military’s role in serious human rights violations, and insufficient humanitarian relief to the civilian population in conflict areas. It was of paramount importance that the upcoming elections were free, fair, inclusive and transparent, and that accountability was addressed for serious human rights violations such as attacks against civilians, extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, and arbitrary arrests and detention. Some countries noted that the international community needed to give Myanmar the necessary policy space and wherewithal to take all necessary measures to push forward democracy and the promotion and protection of the enjoyment of human rights.
The following countries took floor in the interactive dialogue on Myanmar: Cambodia on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, China, Mexico, the European Union, Japan, Germany, Austria, Thailand, Switzerland, Slovakia, United States, Philippines, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Norway, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, France, Republic of Korea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Spain, Maldives, Australia, Cuba, Viet Nam, Canada, Nigeria, Venezuela and United Nations Children Fund. Also speaking were Human Rights Watch, Asian Legal Resource Centre, Asian Forum, International Federation of Human Rights League, and International Educational Development.
Ahmed Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, said that the apparent unwillingness of Iranian authorities to cooperate substantively only heightened concerns and seemed to fuel further attention to its human rights record. The report presented concerns about a number of vaguely defined security provisions within the Islamic Penal Code which were reportedly applied in ways that unduly limited freedom of expression, association and assembly. Witnesses reported arrests for activities protected by international law, and detention in solitary confinement in the absence of official charges. Those who attempted defending the accused were also met with severe punitive measures, while a significant increase in the rate of executions in Iran was reported. The Special Rapporteur noted that Iran had accepted some 34 per cent of the 126 recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review.
Iran, speaking as the concerned country, said that it would fully cooperate with all reporting mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, including Special Rapporteurs, to visit Iran in order to understand the issue of human rights. The Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed had not met the minimum requirements of the Council and had confined himself to repeating baseless allegations on human rights violations without paying any attention to the promotional aspects of human rights in the country. The actions Mr. Shaheed had run counter to the principles of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in observing human rights situations, and his working method contradicted the approach of the Council which should be transparent, just and impartial and lead to genuine dialogue and promotion of human rights.
In the interactive debate following the presentation by the Special Rapporteur on Iran, countries expressed deep concern over the deteriorating human rights situation and by the serious failings in the administration of justice, the situation of religious and ethnic minorities and women, and the alarming rise in the number of executions. Several countries joined the urgent call for the prohibition of the execution of juveniles and the establishment of a moratorium on executions. Repression took the form of arbitrary arrests of journalists, human rights defenders and students. The Iranian Government was trampling its own constitution and its international commitments. Other speakers said they opposed country mandates as a matter of principle and said that cooperative mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review provided an opportunity to examine human rights situations in countries and to discuss human rights concerns in a non-politicized manner.
Speaking in the dialogue on the situation of human rights in Iran were the European Union, Pakistan, Canada, Sweden, France, Spain, Mexico, Norway, Belgium, Austria, Ecuador, Switzerland, Australia, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, Cuba, Germany, United States, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Syria, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Belarus, Japan, China, Brazil, and the Maldives. Also taking the floor were the Baha’i International Community, Institute for Women’s Studies and Research, Sudwind, Charitable Institute for Protecting Social Victims, and Nonviolent Radical Party, Transnational and Transparty.
Speaking in a right of reply was Iran.
At the end of the meeting, Palestine informed the Council about the urgent situation that was developing in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
At 4:30 p.m., the Council started the interactive dialogue with the independent international Commission of Inquiry on Syria.
Interactive Dialogue on Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Documentation
The Council has before it the Special Rapporteur’s report on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (A/HRC/19/65)
It also has before it a note verbale dated 1 February 2012 from the Permanent Mission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the President of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/19/G/1)
Presentation of Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
MARZUKI DARUSMAN, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said that since his appointment in August 2010, he had made numerous requests to visit the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and to meet with officials of the Permanent Mission of the Government in New York and in Geneva. None of these requests had received a favourable response. There had been a significant deterioration in the human rights situation in the country. The current leadership transition could provide a window of opportunity for the country to adopt a reform process and address all questions and concerns in relation to human rights. Progress had been made on nuclear issues with an increase in the flow of food aid to the country. The number of families in the Republic of Korea who had benefitted from the family reunion programme stood at 1,800 out of a total of 128,668 registered applicants. More than six million people urgently required international food assistance. The Special Rapporteur was concerned that the current dire food shortage would lead to serious health problems especially for vulnerable groups, and urged the Government to invite the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for an official visit.
A number of constitutional and legislative provisions had seriously endangered the impartiality and independence of the judiciary in the country. There were provisions in the Criminal Code which fell below the standard required to ensure that due process of law was maintained and the rights of people were respected. In 2007, the Government had adopted an addendum to the Criminal Code for ordinary crimes which comprised 23 articles of which 16 stipulated the death penalty for a number of crimes. As many as 20 executions were reported to have been carried out in 2011. No progress had been made in resolving the question of the abduction of foreign nationals by agents of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Special Rapporteur said that the Government should stand by its commitment made to Japan to reinvestigate the 12 pending cases of abduction. There were around 23,700 asylum-seekers in the Republic of Korea, an increase of 17 per cent from 2011. Mr. Darusman reiterated his deep concern with regard to the safety and protection of asylum seekers and called on all States to adhere to their obligation of providing international protection to asylum-seekers and to adhere to the principle of non-refoulement.
Statement by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as the Concerned Country
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking as the concerned country, wished to clarify its consistent principled position that it did not recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the country. This was a product of a political plot and confrontation by the United States, Japan, the European Union and other western countries in advocacy of their hostile policy towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The report was a document of political ploy full of unfounded and irrational allegations fabricated and spread by hostile forces. The delegation rejected the useless Special Rapporteur and his report. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would further consolidate and develop the socialist system chosen by the people in face of all challenges and the pressure of the hostile forces.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
European Union remained concerned about the deterioration of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and encouraged the Government to engage with the Special Rapporteur. The European Union was particularly concerned about the lack of compliance by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Repatriation of nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea also was of great concern, as they faced forced labour camps or even the penalty of death upon return. The European Union asked the Special Rapporteur how he could play a role in facilitating dialogue.
Japan said the question of abductions of citizens from the Republic of Korea and Japan was not yet settled, amongst other matters. With regard to Japanese abductions, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should establish a commission of inquiry as was agreed to in 2008. Japan regretted that, despite the repeated requests of the Special Rapportuer, the authorities had refused any visit or to cooperate in any way.
Republic of Korea noted with serious concern the deteriorating situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and supported the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur for the neighbouring countries to protect those fleeing this country and treat them with respect and protect the right to non-refoulement. Those abducted by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were growing old, making the issue thus more pressing. The primary responsibility to feed the people in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea rested with the Government and the international community had the responsibility to assist.
United States hoped that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would work with the Special Rapporteur and recognize the benefits of cooperation with the Special Procedures. While the human rights situation in this country remained deplorable, the United States recognized the willingness of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to allow a visit to the country by the Special Envoy as a part of the food assessment mission. The issue of abductees needed to be addressed, and the dialogue with the Republic of Korea resumed. The plight of refugees and asylum seekers was a question of serious concern and the United States urged the international community to continue to highlight the human rights situation in this country by supporting this mandate.
China welcomed the cooperation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea with the United Nations agencies and underlined that food should not be used for economic pressure. The international community needed to give more attention to issues and challenges faced by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and to provide humanitarian assistance to its people. China reiterated that the nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea fleeing the country were not refugees. They had entered China for economic reasons thus violating China’s law; the handling of this issue was entirely within China’s sovereignty. China was opposed to the attempt to turn this issue into a global and political subject.
Zimbabwe said that the issue of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been on the agenda of the Council for far too long. Zimbabwe called for the discontinuation of the mandate and for an engagement in meaningful dialogue with the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
United Kingdom encouraged the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to grant full access to the Special Rapporteur and asked if there had been any signs that it was willing to engage with the United Nations? The United Kingdom said it was disturbed by reports of border control officials operating a shoot to kill policy against asylum seekers.
Switzerland said the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should launch a reform process that included radical reform of the legislative framework. Neighbouring States should deal in a humane manner with refugees from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Importation of food items should increase as well as cooperation with international organizations and donors.
Czech Republic expressed its deepest concern about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Government’s non-cooperation with the Special Procedures of the Council. The Czech Republic had expected that the new leadership would expeditiously engage with the international community with a view to addressing all questions and concerns related to human rights and fundamental freedoms and fulfilling its obligations under international law. Given the scale and gravity of human rights violations, the Czech Republic asked the Special Rapporteur about how much support the idea of establishing a Commission of Inquiry on crimes against humanity had gained.
Venezuela said the report confirmed the very grave risk of country mandates that were politically motivated. This had occurred in the Human Rights Commission and continued in the Council. The interventionist character reflected by the anachronistic mode of double standards went against the principle of sovereignty and was subject to the constant manipulation of the imperial power. Venezuela hoped that country mandates in the Human Rights Council would no longer be used.
Slovakia asked whether the Special Rapporteur had received any signals that could evoke certain optimism regarding the new leadership’s engagement with the international community, and its willingness to adopt a reform process and address concerns related to human rights. Slovakia regretted that the issue of abduction of foreign nationals remained unresolved. Slovakia asked what appropriate action the Special Rapporteur would recommend with a view to educate the public about the population’s basic, internationally-recognised human rights and freedoms.
Cuba said Cuba had always rejected imposed political mandates on countries of the South; the mandate on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was a leftover from the controversial Human Rights Commission, and risked compromising the spirit of cooperation and dialogue in the Human Rights Council. Mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review were an opportunity to examine the human rights situation in States on an equal footing and in a cooperative manner. Opposed mandates without the consent of the country concerned would fail.
Syria regretted the attempts by some countries to overlook the achievements of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and to support the unjust resolution to appoint the Special Rapporteur. It was an evidence of politicization of the Human Rights Council which had turned into a weapon of political overturning of some countries.
Ecuador condemned human rights violations wherever they occurred in the world and appealed to the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to cooperate with human rights mechanisms and to respect the rights of its population. The alarming situation of famine and malnutrition was of concern and Ecuador hoped that the Government would improve the situation beyond the visit of the Food and Agricultural Organization to the country. This mission had failed to mention the unilateral economic sanctions against this country which had contributed to food insecurity and negatively impacted the right of civilians in this country.
Spain regretted that the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continued to deteriorate. The application of the death penalty without judicial guarantees, the extreme famine, and the situation of refugees were of grave concern to Spain.
Canada was concerned by the forcible return of refugees and asylum seekers back to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Which Universal Periodic Review recommendations could be implemented in the country and how could the international community convince the regime to make reforms to improve food security for the most vulnerable groups?
Viet Nam said that there was a need to create an environment that would encourage the six party talks and make the Korean peninsula a nuclear free zone. Dialogue, cooperation and mutual respect and understanding were needed to avoid conflict. The international community should support the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to improve food security in the country.
Australia agreed with the Special Rapporteur that the recent leadership transition in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea presented an opportunity to change. Australia urged the country to follow the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, including those on reunion of separated families, the repatriation of abductees and the abolition of the death penalty. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had the primary responsibility to feed its people and should rectify existing flaws in its food production system.
Belarus said that the existence of the mandate on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea denied the principles of the Human Rights Council, which should consider establishing assistance through dialogue on an equal footing. It would be expedient to advance in the Council alternative ways of cooperation with Governments, including in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Kyrgyzstan expressed its regret at the continuing deterioration of human rights and the humanitarian situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the insecure food situation. Kyrgyzstan welcomed the beginning of the cooperation between the Government and the United Nations specialized agencies such as the World Food Programme. The solution to the situation of abductees was an urgent matter and they should be given a chance to reunite with their families.
Thailand said given the long-standing and cordial relationship between the two countries, Thailand congratulated the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for the smooth leadership succession by Mr. Kim Jong-Un, and said that the international community had high expectations of the new leadership. Thailand urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to take urgent measures to ensure food security, to positively examine its Universal Period Review recommendations, and to seek technical assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights.
Lao People’s Democratic Republic encouraged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to continue its constructive dialogue with the international community in order to shoulder its international obligations and duties, and also urged the international community to engage in positive dialogue with the concerned country.
Myanmar opposed country-specific mandates and said it firmly believed that the Universal Periodic Review process was the most dependable and uncontroversial monitoring mechanism to address human rights situations in all countries. Country specific mandates in the Human Rights Council could lead to politicization and the practice of ‘naming and shaming’. Exerting undue political pressure on the concerned country would not help the human rights situation.
France urged the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to permit a visit of the Special Rapporteur and deplored the change in criminal legislation that increased the application of the death penalty. Could informaiton be provided on the number of prisoners detained in political camps? France called for a renewal of the mandate on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
United Nations Watch said that there were eye-witnesses, such as Joo-Il Kim who escaped in 2005 and had experienced the gross and widespread violations of human rights, including witnessing the death of children from starvation. An estimated 200,000 people, including women and children, were subjected to forced labour.
Human Rights Watch said that the human rights violations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were so grave, including arbitrary arrest, lack of due process and torture, that it was time for the Council to seriously consider creating an independent and impartial Commission of Inquiry to examine whether the Government had committed crimes against humanity.
Concluding Remarks on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
MARZUKI DARUSMAN, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in his closing remarks, expressed his appreciation for the recognition of the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, especially with regard to the food situation. He also appreciated the calls for greater cooperation of the Government with the Council and with the United Nations system as a whole. There had been little resources allocated for agricultural reform in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said Mr. Darusman. The report of the visit by Valerie Amos, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for humanitarian affairs, to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea described structural flaws in the food distribution mechanism in the country, which made it chronically inadequate to meet the needs of the population. The Government was not able to meet the needs of the people and had allowed them to take care of themselves, which might lead to further development in the future of a market system, which would allow farmers, citizens and individuals to benefit from their work and their produce and not be obliged to meet the quota system.
With regard to legal reforms, the Special Rapporteur encouraged the Government to allow cooperation in the area of the rule of law and to expand the allowance to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to assist in the area of human rights education. The principle of non-refoulement was an issue of major concern, said Mr. Darusman. The border between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and China was no exception to migratory flows that were happening all over the world; any kind of repatriation must be determined by clear procedures that met international standard whether those people should be repatriated or treated as asylum-seekers. Historically, most of the people coming out of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were asylum-seekers, simply by the degree of oppression they were fleeing from. The best way to engage neighbouring countries in dialogue on this issue was still to be defined. In conclusion, the Special Rapporteur said he was sincerely looking forward to visiting the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in order to seek better understanding of what was happening there.
Interactive Dialogue on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar
Documentation
The Council has before it the Special Rapporteur’s report on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (A/HRC/19/67)
Presentation of the Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar
TOMAS OJEA QUINTANA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said that during his recent visit to Myanmar he had seen the positive impact on the human rights situation by the new reforms, policies and legislation adopted by the Government of Myanmar. However, clear ongoing and serious human rights concerns remained that could not be ignored in the rush to reform. There was a real risk of backtracking on progress achieved to date. The Special Rapporteur was concerned about the lack of an independent and effective judiciary and said the National Human Rights Commission strongly needed technical assistance. The up-coming by-elections on 1 April would be a key test. It was essential that those elections were truly free, fair, inclusive and transparent. The easing of media and internet restrictions and the recent lifting of a ban on exiled journalists were welcomed, but respect for freedom of speech and opinion should be fully ensured. Amnesties that had resulted in the release of a significant number of prisoners of conscience, including prominent figures, were welcomed but the Special Rapporteur noted with concern that some released prisoners were being monitored or followed. Among the most pressing challenges for Myanmar were poverty and food insecurity.
The ongoing conflict with some armed ethnic groups, despite the President’s orders to the military not to engage in offensive operations except in self-defence, continued to engender serious human rights violations, including attacks against civilian populations, extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, arbitrary arrest and detention, internal displacement, land confiscations, the recruitment of child soldiers, and forced labour. Disturbing reports of landmine use by both the Government and non-State armed groups, and subsequent casualties around the country, had been received. The ongoing conflict in Kachin State was of particular concern. The Special Rapporteur had carefully listened to many views regarding forgiveness and the importance of moving forward, but stressed that past events should not be ignored or whitewashed. Facing up to recent history and acknowledging the violations that people had suffered was necessary to ensure national reconciliation and provide redress for victims. The Special Rapporteur thanked the Government of Myanmar for its continued cooperation with his mandate and increased engagement with international human rights mechanisms, and strongly called on the Government to intensify efforts to implement its commitments and fulfil its international human rights obligations.
Statement by Myanmar as the Concerned Country
Myanmar, speaking as the concerned country, said that the Government of Myanmar had given a priority to the political process for national reconsolidation and lasting peace, and the implementation of macro-economic reform measures. The Government was also restructuring the administrative mechanism; considering universal access to health; and increasing spending on education and health with the view of removing the country from the list of the least developed countries. There was the emergence of civil society organizations in the country, while plans were underway for emergence of mass organizations such as workers and farmers unions, and of a national press council to ensure accountability and freedom of the press. On the observation of the Special Rapporteur that there was a risk of backtracking on the progress made in Myanmar, the Government was committed to the irreversibility of its current democratization and reform process and said there would be no turning back and no questioning of the commitment of the current leadership. It was regrettable to see allegations and unsubstantiated statements throughout the report of the Special Rapporteur, which did not have any grounding in reality. Myanmar reiterated its commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and said that citizens could use complaint mechanisms if they felt their rights were violated, including addressing complaints to the independent National Human Rights Commission. It was regrettable that the Special Rapporteur did not make any reference in the report to the economic sanctions imposed on Myanmar by several countries that were seriously affecting the livelihoods of people. Myanmar called for an early lifting of sanctions.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar
Cambodia, speaking on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, welcomed the recent positive developments towards democracy, national reconciliation, social and economic development, and respect for human rights in Myanmar. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations urged the Government to continue to engage with the international community. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations called for the lifting of economic sanctions, which would enable Myanmar to better integrate into the global economic system.
China said a new parliament and Government in Myanmar had been established in 2011 and the situation remained stable. The Government played a key part in the development of the economy and actively promoted national reconciliation. China had respected Myanmar’s choices to direct economic development according to its national situation. China called on the Council to view the human rights situation in a comprehensive manner and to recognize the efforts made in Myanmar.
Mexico welcomed the release of political prisoners and preparations for democratic elections in Myanmar. Mexico believed that Myanmar’s adoption of legislative reforms and collaboration with international mechanisms were positive steps toward national reconciliation. Mexico encouraged the authorities to release the remaining political prisoners without delay.
European Union welcomed positive developments in Burma/Myanmar over the last year. Significant challenges included the immediate and unconditional release of prisoners of conscience, the resolution of ongoing conflicts especially in Kachin State, justice and accountability issues, legal reform and prohibition of forced labour. Free and fair conduct of the 1 April elections was particularly important. The European Union was ready to support and assist the Government of Myanmar.
Japan noted the recent release of a substantial number of prisoners of conscience and the ceasefire with the Karen National Union as significant steps forward. It was vital that the 1 April by-elections were free and fair, and that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other stakeholders were free to carry out political activities. It was vital that the international community provided united support.
Germany said there was still much to do, but Germany could see steps had already been taken in Myanmar. Reconciliation with ethnic minorities was essential for sustainable political change, and talks and ceasefire agreements with ethnic armed groups were commended. It was important to focus on economic and social development in minority territories. The world was watching Myanmar with great hope that free and fair 1 April elections would be a step to a new era.
Austria agreed with the statement that Myanmar had reached an important point and that many encouraging signals had been seen. It was of paramount importance that the upcoming elections were free, fair, inclusive and transparent, and that accountability was addressed for serious human rights violations such as attacks against civilians, extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, and others. Austria asked how the international community could support Myanmar in addressing serious problems and shortcomings in the country, such as making the judicial system truly independent and addressing detention conditions.
Thailand said that progress was being seen in Myanmar, such as opening of the political space, establishment of the national human rights commission, elaboration of the poverty redaction plan and ceasefire agreements with the ethnic minorities. Challenges remained and more needed to be done by the Government, but it must not be forgotten that it took time and that changes thus far had been genuine. It was important now to make sure that progress made was irreversible and to provide support for the crucial socio-economic development.
Switzerland encouraged the Government to pursue the reforms and to further develop its cooperation with the international community. The mid-term elections would be a major test and Switzerland called on the authorities to guarantee a free and open process. The problem of anti-personnel mines was a major obstacle to return of the people in the conflict areas and Switzerland asked the Special Rapporteur whether he had received any indications as to intended humanitarian activities in those areas, including the removal of anti-personnel land mines.
Slovakia viewed the developments of the Myanmar human rights situation with cautious optimism. Slovakia reiterated the need to release immediately and unconditionally all remaining prisoners of conscience. The Government should speed up legislative reforms in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. Slovakia would appreciate if the Special Rapporteur would highlight the core actions to be undertaken in the months to come as well as some concrete areas where the international community’s assistance was indispensable.
United States urged the Government to allow unfettered access to conflict zones and supported Myanmar’s outreach to ethnic minority groups. The United States urged the Government to allow independent international monitors to observe the elections. The United States supported the suggestion that the Government develop a strategy for continuing legislative reform and would welcome the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations for actions that could be taken to strengthen the rule of law.
Philippines said the Association of Southeast Asian Nations had made a conscious and deliberate decision to give Myanmar the policy space to pursue its own roadmap to democracy. It was now the turn of the international community to give Myanmar the necessary policy space and wherewithal to take all necessary measures to push forward democracy and the promotion and protection of the enjoyment of human rights. It would be most appropriate for the Council to call for an end to economic sanctions and unilateral coercive measures that had proven to be ineffective.
Czech Republic welcomed reforms in Myanmar while cautioning of the risk of backtracking on progress made so far. The unhindered and active participation of civil society in political life was a precondition to a successful transfer to democracy. Could the Special Rapporteur estimate the number of remaining political prisoners?
United Kingdom said remarkable progress had been made but serious issues remained, such as the ongoing ethnic conflict, forced labour, child soldiers, the military’s role in serious human rights violations and insufficient humanitarian relief to the civilian population in conflict areas. How could the international community assess how free, fair and transparent the upcoming elections would be in the absence of international observers?
Norway said things were changing fast in Myanmar and the changes of the past year and a half had been remarkable. The release of hundreds of political prisoners, a more open and free media and public debate, lively election campaigns and cease-fires in several ethnic areas were just a few. Norway supported a strengthening of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ work in Myanmar.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea commended the Government of Myanmar’s efforts to support human rights. Western countries should refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other countries under the pretext of human rights. The Human Rights Council should eliminate country specific mandates.
France welcomed the liberation of numerous political prisoners in Myanmar but noted that restrictions remained on the right to freedom of expression. The Government should identify the number of remaining political prisoners, release them immediately and negotiate a cease fire with ethnic minorities. France called on Member States to renew the mandate on Myanmar.
Republic of Korea said that serious challenges remained in Myanmar which included the independence of the judiciary, legislative reform and the implementation of further steps toward a genuine and broader national reconciliation. The role of the Special Rapporteur remained important and he should continue a constructive engagement with the Government.
Lao People’s Democratic Republic noted with appreciation the significant efforts that the new Government of Myanmar had engaged in towards democratization and reconciliation. A country-specific human rights resolution would not help address the human rights issue. The Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review mechanism was the only appropriate forum to discuss or to review a situation of human rights in any country on an equal basis.
Spain welcomed the reforms undertaken in Myanmar, which included the release of political prisoners and political reforms. Spain urged Myanmar to continue the reform process, releasing prisoners of conscience, promoting freedom of speech and assembly, protecting minorities, and reforming the judicial system. Spain asked the Special Rapporteur which reforms could be supported by the international community. The upcoming elections were of paramount importance.
Maldives said the report of the Special Rapporteur highlighted the remarkable progress achieved in Myanmar. It was necessary to acknowledge that there were still serious violations taking place and much more work needed to be done both to secure accountability and to set a better national legislative framework for human rights protection. The Maldives hoped the Council’s resolution on Myanmar would fully reflect the progress in the country while also expressing continued concern about areas where Myanmar had fallen below international standards.
Australia welcomed the release of many prisoners of conscience in recent months but urged the Government of Myanmar to immediately release all prisoners of conscience without conditions, and encouraged Myanmar to accept international observers for the 1 April by-elections to ensure greater transparency.
Cuba opposed country-specific resolutions on principle, but noted progress made in Myanmar. The Human Rights Council could only achieve positive outcomes with the full and active involvement of the country concerned. Mandates imposed on a country without its consent were doomed to fail, and past examples proved that. The Universal Period Review was the best tool to achieve cooperation.
Viet Nam said progress in Myanmar should be encouraged by the international community, and it highly appreciated international financial institutions, especially the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, for re-engaging with Myanmar. Viet Nam called for an early lifting of economic sanctions on Myanmar, which would significantly contribute to a better promotion and protection of human rights in the country.
Canada encouraged the authorities of Myanmar to continue reforms and cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur. Canada welcomed the release of several hundred political prisoners but noted that a significant number remained in detention and called for their prompt and unconditional release. What was the latest assessment of the conditions of the remaining prisoners of conscience?
Nigeria said the Government of Myanmar should build on the encouraging steps it had already taken by ensuring that the forthcoming by-elections in April 2012 were free, fair, inclusive, transparent and credible. Nigeria noted that the Government faced challenges in the situation of ethnic minorities and urged the Government to remain engaged with the international community, especially the United Nations.
Venezuela said the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar provided another example of the application of selectivity in the Human Rights Council brought about by the despicable meddling of Western powers. The Government of Myanmar had made huge efforts to foster national unity. Venezuela said that unconditional international assistance and cooperation were the only way to support Myanmar to eradicate poverty.
United Nations Children’s Fund was working with the Ministry of Defence of Myanmar to release underage child recruits from the army. The assistance of the Special Rapporteur in raising this issue with senior government authorities had been a useful part of the advocacy efforts against underage military recruitment.
Human Rights Watch said the Council should urge the Government of Myanmar to agree to an independent international mechanism to access prisons and publicly report on political prisoners. Human Rights Watch called on the Council to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and supported the call to establish an Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the country.
Asian Legal Resource Centre said Myanmar’s defective institutions continued to handle cases, conduct trials and operate in violation of rights just as they did under the military Government. The entire system was plagued by corruption. What steps did the Special Rapporteur think were required to address this issue systematically?
Asian Forum, in a joint statement, said despite the release of over 300 political prisoners, 836 political prisoners were still detained, of whom the whereabouts of 424 was unknown. The organizations appealed to the Council to keep abreast of all allegations of gross ongoing human rights violations, particularly in the ethnic nationality areas.
International Federation of Human Rights League, in a joint statement, said that the small positive steps made so far did not meet the key benchmarks necessary to begin national reconciliation. Attacks against civilians and serious crimes, including sexual violence against women, continued in ethnic areas. The root causes of conflict must be fully addressed by an inclusive political dialogue.
International Educational Development, in a joint statement, reminded the Council that while the upcoming elections were significant, only 48 out of 600 Parliamentary seats were in contention. Thus even if Aung San Suu Kyi’s party prevailed, they would constitute a small minority. The organizations feared the election would inadvertently provide undue legitimacy to the ruling Union Solidarity and Development Party.
Concluding Remarks on Myanmar
TOMAS OJEA QUINTANA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said that Myanmar lacked independent and objective investigations to consider systematic violations of human rights. In the border areas of Myanmar, human rights bodies were not ready to carry out investigations into abuses and the Special Rapporteur raised the concern that such human rights violations were on-going. It was critical that the Government had a mechanism in place to conduct investigations so that future violations could be avoided. The Special Rapporteur called on the international community to engage with Myanmar on this issue. The Special Rapporteur noted the laws that were still on the statue books from the militarily regime which put constraints on the freedom of association by civil society. Concerning the potential for backtracking, the judicial branch of the Government was not independent and was still catching up with reforms in contrast to the reforms that had already occurred in the executive branch and parliament. Ratification of important international bills of human rights would consolidate the normative legal structure in the country. The Human Rights Council should understand that this was an historic opportunity that would allow the people of Myanmar to integrate into the international community and flourish. The Special Rapporteur urged civil society to exercise their responsibility to speak and the international community to support the Government to build management capacity through technical assistance. The resolution of the situation in the border region and the conflict with ethnic minorities which had gone on since independence should be resolved with the support of the international community.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran
Documentation
The Council has before it the Special Rapporteur’s report on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/HRC/19/66)
Presentation of the Report by the Special Rapporteur on Iran
AHMED SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, said the Iranian authorities had not facilitated any meaningful interaction with the mandate to date. The Special Rapporteur only managed to obtain two meeting with authorities. The apparent unwillingness to cooperate substantively only heightened concerns and seemed to fuel further attention to its human rights record. The other methods used to monitor the human rights situation included collecting information from non-governmental organizations and human rights defenders, reviewing audio and video submissions and other media reports and interviewing a total of 163 individuals inside and outside the country. Approximately 34 per cent of the 126 recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review had been accepted by Iran. A majority of allegations pointed to insufficient compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the obstruction of free and fair elections.
The report presented concerns about a number of vaguely defined security provisions within the Islamic Penal Code which were reportedly applied in ways that unduly limited freedom of expression, association and assembly. Witnesses reported they were arrested for activities protected by international law, and detained in solitary confinement in the absence of official charges. A number of those interviewed stated that they were subjected to prisons conditions that were well below minimum standards. A majority maintained they were denied reasonable access to legal counsel. It was frequently reported that those who attempted to defend the accused also met with severe punitive measures. It was with great concern and regret that the Special Rapportuer reported the significant increase in the rate of executions in Iran. A majority of the cases were related to drug offenses. The Special Rapporteur welcomed the omission of stoning in the newly reformed Islamic Penal Code, although the punishment could still be issued in accordance with sharia law or fatwas.
Statement by Iran as the Concerned Country
Iran, speaking as the concerned country, said that it welcomed and would fully cooperate with all reporting mechanisms of the Council, including Special Rapporteurs, to visit Iran in order to understand the issue of human rights. The Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed had not met the minimum requirements of the Council and had confined himself to repeating baseless allegations on human rights violations without paying any attention to the promotional aspects of human rights in the country. For example, the Special Rapporteur had neglected to address the situation of the human rights of civilian victims of terrorism and noted that its scientists were being hunted down by Western powers. The actions of the Special Rapporteur had run counter to the principles of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in observing human rights situations. The working method of the Special Rapporteur contradicted the approach of the Human Rights Council which should be transparent, just and impartial and led to genuine dialogue and the promotion of human rights. The reference of the Rapporteur to factors in the legal system of Iran which lacked adherence to the rule of law was vague and unsubstantiated and based on the personal perceptions of the Rapporteur.
Interactive Dialogue with Special Rapporteur on Iran
European Union expressed deep concern over the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran and over numerous human rights violations described in the report. The European Union joined the urgent call for the prohibition of the execution of juveniles and the establishment of a moratorium on execution. The European Union asked the Special Rapporteur to comment on the position of lawyers in Iran and the conditions to defend human rights cases.
Pakistan said that as a mater of principle Pakistan opposed all mandates on countries as it considered them politicized. Cooperative mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review provided an opportunity to examine the human rights situation in countries and to discuss human rights concerns in a non-politicized manner. The best way to address human rights situations was by engagement and not estrangement.
Canada said that the number of executions had increased dramatically in Iran and persecution of religious minorities was condoned by the authorities. Iran must release those arrested because of their religion or because they were members of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities. The Iranian Government was silencing the voice of media and journalists and for that it must be held accountable to its people.
Sweden asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on the possible link between censorship and detention of journalists, and the violation of students’ rights to freedom of expression and information. Were the Internet and new information technology channels utilized by Iranians to seek, receive and impart information? Sweden would appreciate the Special Rapporteur’s assessment of women’s equal participation in sectors of society.
France emphasized that the Special Rapporteur was never able to access Iran itself. Iran continued to use the death penalty and held the record for the number of executions. Repression took the form of arbitrary arrests of journalists, human rights defenders and students. The Iranian Government was trampling its own constitution and international commitments. France called on the Council to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
Spain said the interactive dialogue was taking place despite the lack of cooperation by the Government of Iran. The Special Rapporteur showed how certain fundamental freedoms were curtailed without due cause. The most alarming trend was the rising number of executions. Respect for human rights was the obligation of every country. Violations could not be justified due to different religious or cultural practices. Spain urged Iran to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur.
Mexico said that the Special Rapporteur had submitted a balanced report on Iran. Mexico was concerned by the serious failings in the administration of justice in Iran, including arbitrary detention with limited or no guarantees and the situation of religious and ethnic minorities and women. The Council should continue to closely monitor the issues raised in the report and Mexico urged the Government of Iran to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur.
Norway said a steadily worsening human rights situation existed in Iran. Journalists and bloggers were arrested and access to the internet had been severely restricted. Two human rights defenders, Abdolfattah Soltani and Nargess Mohammadi were sentenced to 18 and 6 years in prison respectively. Six hundred and seventy-six persons were executed in 2011, including four individuals who were minors at the time of the crime. Norway supported the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
Belgium was concerned to learn that impunity for human rights violations continued in Iran. The continuous increase in executions, carried out in violation of minimum standards, and the execution of juveniles was worrisome. Belgium called for the immediate release of political prisoners and those that belonged to religious minorities like the Baha’i. The Council should continue to closely monitor the situation of human rights in Iran.
Austria was deeply concerned over the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran and said that the increase in executions, especially of children, was deplorable. Austria urged the Government to put in place a moratorium on the death penalty. Could the Special Rapporteur further elaborate on cases of violence against the Baha’i? Austria deplored the violence against journalists and called on the authorities in Iran to stop the attacks.
Ecuador said that Ecuador would prefer if country situations did not appear too often on the agenda of the Human Rights Council, but were examined through the Universal Periodic Review instead. Ecuador appealed to the Government in Iran to cooperate with human rights mechanisms, particularly those related to the protection of human rights. Iran should put a moratorium on the death penalty and undertake an impartial investigation of human rights violations committed in its territory.
Switzerland expressed deep concern over the human rights situation in Iran, including the application of the death penalty, the alarming rise in executions, violence against women and oppression of religious minorities. Switzerland asked the Special Rapporteur how the cooperation with the authorities could be improved and what role the international community could play in this regard.
Australia urged Iran to stay all executions, respect the human rights of all detainees and ensure all trials were conducted fairly. Australia was aware that there was continuing pressure on the arts community and was concerned about reports that many directors and actors had been arrested, detained and harassed. Australia welcomed the omission of stoning as a punishment in the newly ratified Islamic Penal Code, but noted the Special Rapporteur’s concerns.
Sri Lanka said country specific mandates applied without the consent of the country concerned could lead to the politicization of the Council and to the prospect of selective targeting of certain countries, in contravention of international law. The Universal Periodic Review was the appropriate forum to address human rights situations. Iran continued to demonstrate its commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights.
United Kingdom said it was disappointing that Iran was not using this mandate to engage with the United Nations. The United Kingdom asked the Special Rapporteur what cooperation and information had been received from Iranian authorities on the individual cases described. What was his assessment of the new Iranian Penal Code? Did the Special Rapporteur believe the use of the death penalty in Iran complied with international law? What was his assessment of the continuing detention of opposition leaders Mousavi and Karroubi?
Cuba said that this interactive dialogue was a clear example of the discriminatory practices of the Council. Cuba reiterated that it was against country specific resolutions and mandates. The United States had sought regime change in Iran by creating an environment amenable to military action against the Government. Cuba called for dialogue, noting that positive results were only feasible if the concerned country cooperated. Cuba stressed that mandates could not be imposed.
Germany strongly urged the Iranian authorities to grant the Special Rapporteur access. The report had highlighted a range of disturbing findings regarding human rights violations including the harassment and persecution of ethnic and religious minorities. Was it possible to identify particular Iranian provinces in which human rights violations were rampant? What were the effects of sanctions that targeted human rights violations in Iran as passed by the European Union?
United States said the Special Rapporteur’s report noted that Iran had detained more journalists than any other country in the world. The United States called on Iran to release Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, a Christian pastor who was convicted of apostasy in 2010, and to release over 90 Baha’is from prison. In what immediate ways could the international community, including civil society and religious leaders of international standing, help those who were unjustly persecuted in Iran?
Venezuela rejected once again anachronistic practices in the Human Rights Council of imposing country mandates by imperialistic forces. Cooperation and dialogue were the true manner to address human rights situations. Iran had readily accepted more than 120 recommendations during its Universal Periodic Review. Country mandates imposed by developed countries must be removed from the Human Rights Council, which would root out politicization and double standards.
Zimbabwe was very disappointed because the issue of the promotion and protection of human rights continued to be politicized by some countries and the Human Rights Council. All efforts of Iran to cooperate with human rights mechanisms continued to be ignored only because some wanted a regime change. Zimbabwe commended the efforts of Iran to hold bilateral talks on human rights and judicial issues over the past three years.
Syria commended measures taken by Iran to protect its citizens and said that it was now clear that some countries had bad intentions towards Iran. The decision to appoint a Special Rapporteur on Iran was the height of political blackmail and a clear example of double standards by some countries which themselves continued to violate human rights in places such as Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.
Slovakia regretted that despite the declared interest to cooperate with United Nations human rights mechanisms and a standing invitation to the Human Rights Council’s thematic Special Procedures, the Iranian authorities had not permitted any visit since 2005. The allegations contained in the report were indeed of grave concern. Slovakia asked the Special Rapporteur to share some core actions he envisaged undertaking in the months to come.
Czech Republic asked whether disproportionate sentences served as a clear deterrent to the legal profession to defend human rights related cases. Would the Special Rapporteur consider a more detailed analysis of the situation of the media in Iran in future reports? Given that the Iranian representatives maintained they were interested in cooperating with United Nations human rights mechanisms, was there any evidence to support such alleged interest?
Belarus said the mandate of the Council on Iran was set up for political motives and would not facilitate improvement of the dialogue with Iran. Belarus categorically rejected such politically-motivated country mandates, which undermined the goals of the Council. The Universal Periodic Review showed the clear focus of Iran on the promotion and protection of human rights, as reflected by the adoption of a majority of the recommendations found in the report. The recent parliamentary elections also demonstrated the broad support of the population.
Japan hoped the Government of Iran would allow the Special Rapporteur to realize a visit in a timely manner. Iran should cooperate with United Nations human rights mechanisms. There should be a visit by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the country and Japan hoped Iran would implement the recommendations it had accepted during its 2009 Universal Periodic Review.
China said that it always stood for dialogue and cooperation as the means to resolve human rights violations. China hoped that the Special Rapporteur could conduct his work within the scope of his mandate and play a constructive role for the promotion and protection of human rights in Iran.
Brazil said it was important that all Member States worked closely with United Nations’ human rights mechanisms. Cooperation with and access to Iran for the Special Rapporteur would contribute to greater objectivity in an analysis of the human rights situation. Brazil was concerned about the systematic persecution of religious minorities such as the Baha’i and asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on efforts to eliminate the death penalty in the country.
Maldives urged Iran to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur and to view this mandate as a platform upon which it could present its view and request assistance from the international community. The report presented a reliable picture of the human rights situation in the country. The Human Rights Council must show to the people of Iran that it was sensitive to their plight and that was why it was vital that the situation in this country was monitored.
Baha’i International Community said that impunity continued to prevail in Iran and some individuals were exempted from law and regulations. How could the international community protect people belonging to the most vulnerable minorities when impunity prevailed in the country?
Institute for Women’s Studies and Research said that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was not to respect shortfalls in human rights but to include all aspects. In the preparation of the report it would have been apt to communicate with all groups in Iran and not just accept the comments of the opposition as credible evidence.
Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik believed that all accounts of human rights violations in Iran had not been mentioned in the report and rejected claims made by Iran that the report was inaccurate and biased. Iranian authorities had increased their harassment and repression of human rights defenders.
Charitable Institute for Protecting Social Victims said threats to attack militarily, and imposition of all types of sanctions, embargoes, boycotts, and reprisals were flagrant violations of human rights law. The policy of withholding vital medical supplies indiscriminately targeted the most vulnerable classes. There was no mention of monitoring the negative impact of these actions in the report.
Nonviolent Radical Party, Transnational and Transparty said minority communities were excluded from taking part in the political and economic arena in Iran. The Nonviolent Radical Party requested that United Nations Special Procedures be allowed access to national groups’ regions.
Concluding Remarks on Iran
AHMED SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, in concluding remarks, said that his methodology was to focus on the Universal Periodic Review with over one third of the recommendations that Iran had accepted related to the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights. The Rapporteur had ensured that all reports on human rights violations he had put in the report were corroborated. He had focused his analysis on three areas: the right to life, the right to due process and the right to non-discrimination. Concerning Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, the Rapporteur had seen documents that showed he was convicted on apostasy charges by converting from Islam to Christianity. On the issue of access to information, more than 150 journalists had fled the country since the 2009 elections and over 40 journalists were in prison which reflected the narrowing space for journalists in Iran. The Rapporteur would study the impact of targeted sanctions as suggested by the European Union. Even in the absence of a dialogue with the Government, it was imperative for the mandate to focus and give voice to the rights of those who had been suppressed in Iran, especially individuals who brought credible evidence of human rights violations.
Right of Reply
Iran, speaking in a right of reply, said that the report presented to the Human Rights Council was a compilation of baseless allegations. In the past 15 years not one person had been executed in Iran because they changed their religion from Islam. Concerning the case of Pastor Nadarkhani, Iran said that he was accused of inviting children to his house and preaching to them without the consent of their parents; he also had converted the basement of his house to a church without permission and had insulted Islam in his preaching.
Statement by Palestine
Palestine said it wished to inform the Human Rights Council of the latest urgent developments in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the assassination of civilians by Israeli forces. What had happened was that Israeli settlers were launching attacks and they had killed 22 people. Israel had threatened that such attacks would continue and Palestine requested the Human Rights Council to raise its voice and to demand of Israel to cease its aggression and the violations of human rights of Palestinians. Palestine would have to resort to extraordinary measures during this session of the Council.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC12/030E