HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN ERITREA AND IN BURUNDI

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held separate interactive dialogues with Sheila Keetharuth, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, and with Fatsah Ouguergouz, Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi.

In her oral update to the Council, Ms. Keetharuth noted that Eritrea had taken no steps towards substantial institutional and legal reform to hold perpetrators to account at the domestic level. She expressed concern that the renewed engagement of international actors might fail to address critical human rights issues in the country, in an effort to curb international migration. There had been no progress in limiting the arbitrary and open-ended duration of conscription, those unlawfully and arbitrarily detained had not been released, and the use of torture remained an integral part of Eritrea’s repression of the civilian population.

Eritrea, speaking as the concerned country, said there was selective bias in the report of the Special Rapporteur and that her “vitriolic” report was based on the testimonies of 250 or so asylum-seekers of dubious credibility. Eritrea requested an end to the charade and the termination of the mandate, and stressed the risk of politicizing the Human Rights Council by resorting to country-specific instruments which were not productive and constructive.

In the interactive discussion, speakers welcomed the moratorium on the death penalty and the renewed engagement with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and encouraged deeper engagement with the United Nations human rights system. Speakers called on the Government of Eritrea to honour its human rights obligations, end indefinite military service, address gender-based violence and forced labour, provide access to legal remedies for people being held in detention, and create sustainable and safe livelihoods. There must be accountability for human rights violations and in particular those amounting to crimes against humanity. Several speakers objected to the use of country-specific mandates, and stressed the importance of international cooperation and respectful exchanges between countries on the basis of the United Nations Charter and its principles.

Speaking on the situation in Eritrea were European Union, United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Venezuela, China, Cuba, United States, Sudan, Norway, Djibouti, Belarus, Somalia and Ireland.

Also taking the floor were International Fellowship of Reconciliation, Advocates for Human Rights, East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, Jubilee Campaign, CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and European Solidarity towards Equal Participation of People.

The Council then heard an oral update by Fatsah Ouguergouz, Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi and held an interactive dialogue on the human rights situation in Burundi.

Mr. Ouguergouz noted that the Commission was still at the preliminary stage of its work due to budgetary and administrative constraints and remarked that Burundi’s decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute would not affect the Commission’s work. The trends observed in 2015 and 2016 still existed; even though several political opposition members had been released following the presidential decree of 3 January 2017, there had been allegations of new arrests. Restrictions on basic freedoms had persisted: two new laws on civil society organizations and not-for-profit associations had been adopted and the great majority of journalists and civil society activists who had fled the country in 2015 were still in exile. Of particular concern was impunity for acts of torture: even when victims or witnesses could identify perpetrators, investigations were rare.

Burundi, speaking as the concerned country, disagreed with the report by the Commission of Inquiry and reiterated that the events of 2015 were a product of intense and orchestrated manipulations by political opponents, supported by foreign powers. Burundi stressed that until the dispute concerning the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry was resolved, it would not be possible to cooperate. The international community should judge Burundi objectively and understand that the solution to the 2015 crisis must be found by the Burundians themselves.

Comission nationale indépendante des droits de l’Homme du Burundi, the national human rights institution, noted that the lack of progress in the judicial sector was due to lack of resources, and recognized the important progress made in the political dialogue, with calmer language and rejection of violence by all parties. There should be a resumption of cooperation between Burundi and the United Nations human rights mechanisms, and Burundi and its development partners, particularly the European Union.

Speakers in the discussion expressed concern at the persistence of human rights violations in Burundi within a climate of impunity, saying that all perpetrators of human rights violations had to be accountable before the justice system. Of particular concern were regular reports of sexual violence and torture, restrictions on civil society and media organizations, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances. Burundi should put an end to the climate of impunity. The Commission of Inquiry played a crucial part in investigating human rights violations in Burundi, and only with the cooperation of the Burundian authorities could human rights violations be investigated. Renewed engagement with Burundi’s own civil society was of paramount importance. Several delegations reaffirmed their principled position of rejecting selectivity and the use of double standards in the area of human rights, which undermined the Council’s credibility and did not help to improve human rights anywhere.

Speaking in the discussion on Burundi were European Union, Liechtenstein, Canada, Slovenia, Greece, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Syria, Belgium, Australia, Venezuela, China, Netherlands, Iran, Austria, Maldives, United States, Estonia, Sudan, Norway, Luxembourg, Ireland, Portugal, Tanzania, Slovakia and Spain.

Also taking the floor were the following civil society organizations: East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation, International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, Centre Independent de Recherches et d’Initiatives pour le Dialogue, International Service for Human Rights, World Organization against Torture, Advocates for Human Rights, and Rencontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de l’Homme.

The Council will resume its work at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 14 March, to hold a high-level panel on the human rights situation in Syria, to be attended by Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, and Kevin Kennedy, United Nations Regional Humanitarian Coordinator for the Syrian Crisis.

Statement by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Eritrea

SHEILA KEETHARUTH, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, in her oral update to the Council, recalled that the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea had concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Eritrean officials had committed crimes against humanity since 1991, and said that she had held consultations on the follow-up to the call for accountability. The Commission had called on Eritrea to ensure accountability for past and persistent human rights violations and crimes through the establishment of independent, impartial and gender-sensitive mechanisms, ensuring that victims were provided with adequate redress, including the right to truth and reparations; but no steps had been taken to date by the Government towards substantial institutional and legal reform to hold perpetrators to account at the domestic level.

The Special Rapporteur welcomed the efforts by international actors to reinforce the engagement with Eritrea, but expressed concern that, in the light of no change in the human rights situation, the renewed engagement might fail to address critical human rights issues in an effort to curb migration. “It would be dramatic should Member States be prepared once again to sacrifice the respect for human rights of Eritreans for short-term gains,” said Ms. Keetharuth. Turning to the implementation by Eritrea of the conclusions by the Commission of Inquiry, the Special Rapporteur noted that to date, Eritrea had not taken any measures to limit arbitrary and open-ended duration of conscription, nor had it unconditionally released all those unlawfully and arbitrarily detained.

The Special Rapporteur continued to receive reports of new cases of arbitrary arrest and detention, including for the reasons of attempting to evade military service or trying to assist a family member to do so, trying to leave the country, practicing an unauthorised religion, or offending a high-ranking government or army official. With the exception of the release of four Djibouti prisoners of war in March 2016, there had been no reports of any release or information shared on the fate of any of the high profile cases of enforced disappearance, including former fighters of the Eritrean Liberation Front detained in 1992; Jehovah’s Witnesses detained in 1994; Muslim teachers in Keren detained in 1994; members of the Afar ethnic group, detained in 1998-1999; or those alleged to have participated in the attempted takeover of the Ministry of Information building at Forto, detained in 2013. The use of torture remained an integral part of Eritrea’s repression of the civilian population, and no steps had been taken to suggest that Eritrea was serious in putting an end to the systematic and widespread use of torture by Eritrean officials in civilian and military detention centres and thus implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that Eritrea had ratified in 2014.

Statement by the Concerned Country

Eritrea, speaking as the concerned country, said there was selective bias in the report of the Special Rapporteur and that there was a lack of professionalism in her overall approach. The “vitriolic” report was based on the testimonies of 250 or so asylum-seekers of dubious credibility. Eritrea’s request was to end the charade and terminate the mandate. There was a risk of politicizing the Human Rights Council by resorting to country-specific instruments which were not productive and constructive. The current practice of barring States under review by Special Procedures from consideration for membership in the Council entailed injury for the parties concerned. There was also no fairness when the accused party was allowed barely five minutes to respond to 500-page-long reports from the “plaintiff”. Eritrea had prolonged national service because the threats of war continued unabated. Regarding the question of cooperation with the United Nations, it was noted that cooperation in the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review recommendations and general human rights issues, and with the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights was proceeding smoothly in accordance with the projected schedule. Eritrea was committed to safeguarding human rights.

Interactive Dialogue on the Situation of Human Rights in Eritrea

European Union welcomed Eritrea’s moratorium on the death penalty and cooperation with the United Nations. However, it called for the ending of indefinite military service, addressing of gender-based violence and forced labour, provision of access to legal remedies for people being held in detention, and the creation of sustainable and safe livelihoods. United Kingdom called on Eritrea to honour its human rights obligations and to fully cooperate with the United Nations human rights system. It welcomed Eritrea’s renewed engagement with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. How else could the international community work with Eritrea to improve human rights? France encouraged Eritrea to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur and all United Nations mechanisms, including giving them access to the country. The human rights situation continued to require the Council’s attention as some human rights violations could constitute crimes against humanity.

Switzerland reminded that Eritreans still had to carry out the national military service for an undetermined period of time. How did the Special Rapporteur cooperate with the United Nations country team in Eritrea and the United Nations Development Programme? Belgium deplored that Eritrea had denied access to the Special Rapporteur, as well as limited progress in the human rights situation linked with the unlimited conscription policy. It was concerned about arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, lack of space for civil society and independent media, and restrictions on freedom of opinion, expression and association. Venezuela deplored attacks on sovereign countries through country-specific mandates. They violated the principles of the United Nations Charter, namely non-interference into the sovereign affairs of States. Genuine dialogue and cooperation without coercion and double standards had to govern the Council’s work.

China said that differences in human rights must be dealt with through constructive dialogue and cooperation. Human rights were a significant part of a State’s economic and social development and must be understood through the country’s conditions and the population’s needs. Cuba stressed the importance of international cooperation and respectful exchanges between countries on the basis of the principles United Nations Charter, and said that a new chance must be given to cooperation with direct involvement of regional organizations and countries in the regions. A punitive approach or sanctions would not get the world closer to achieving these shared goals. United States said that the human rights situation in Eritrea remained grave and Eritreans continued to flee their own country. The prolonged and unlimited duration of the military constriction was of grave concern - ending this practice would be one of the most effective measures to improve the lives of citizens.

Sudan was convinced that the only condition to achieving tangible progress on the ground was the consent of the country concerned, and stressed that all States must be treated on an equal footing. Norway remained deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Eritrea and the lack accountability for the committed crimes, and asked the Special Rapporteur for her assessment of development in the situation of economic and social rights in Eritrea. Djibouti was concerned about the fate of the 13 Djiboutian prisoners detained incommunicado in Eritrea since 2008 and urged Eritrea to fully engage with all stakeholders and provide information about their whereabouts.

Belarus said country-specific mandates were selective and politicized, and were incapable of promoting progress on human rights. The Council had to continue efforts to establish a true dialogue with Eritrea and give the country technical assistance. Somalia welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s presentation, and recognized that Eritrea had taken some steps toward improving the situation, including taking steps against female genital mutilation. Somalia called on Eritrea to clarify the “faith” of all political prisoners, including 13 Djiboutian prisoners of war. Ireland said it was disappointing that according to the Special Rapporteur little had changed, saying international assistance had to be met with national action. Ireland urged Eritrea to end indefinite national conscription.

International Fellowship of Reconciliation, in a joint statement with Human Rights Concern – Eritrea, said nothing had changed in Eritrea, and that there was no right to protest, no religious liberty, no political parties, no unions, no human rights organizations and no independent judiciary. The Advocates for Human Rights, a non-governmental organization providing free legal services to asylum seekers in the United States, said its clients from Eritrea had shared first-hand accounts that corroborated the ongoing serious situation in Eritrea. The Council was called on to, among other things, continue the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and keep the situation of Eritrea on its agenda. East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project said the international community had failed to act in accordance with the Commission of Inquiry’s report, and urged the Government of Eritrea to demonstrate political will to solve the migratory crisis.

Jubilee Campaign, in a joint statement, regretted the continued non-engagement by the Government of Eritrea with the Special Rapporteur and, therefore, called for the renewal of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and for renewed international efforts to identify perpetrators of the crimes committed in Eritrea and to bring those responsible before a regional or international judicial mechanism. CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation expressed disappointment that there had been no major improvement regarding the human rights violations since the publication of the report of the Commission of Inquiry. The absence of an independent judiciary meant that victims had no recourse to justice. European Solidarity towards Equal Participation of People emphasized that the ongoing crimes against humanity in Eritrea required tangible steps towards accountability, truth, justice and reparations for victims. It was important to adopt tangible follow-up mechanisms in order to give effect to the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry.

Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Eritrea

SHEILA KEETHARUTH, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, stressed that issues amounting to human rights violations and crimes against humanity committed in Eritrea must be addressed in any relationship and in any engagement. In terms of engagement with the United Nations Development Programme on the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review recommendations, the Special Rapporteur said that, despite the Human Rights Up Front Initiative, there had been a minimal if not non-existent relationship with the United Nations Development Programme country team. The conversations with the African Union on the African inquiry into the human rights situation in Eritrea were preliminary and it was just the beginning of the conversation. With regard to the rights of women, the Special Rapporteur was aware of little progress in the context for prosecution for the crime of female genital mutilation, but there was a need for baseline data on prosecutions in order to assess how far the Government had gone.

Human rights in Eritrea must remain high on the international agenda, and it must not be forgotten that there was a reason to believe that crimes against humanity had been committed in Eritrea. Justice, human rights, and peace were interconnected, and this must be taken into account. On the progress on social and economic rights, the Special Rapporteur said that the obligatory, forced and indefinite national service was the violation of the most basic right, the right to work. Impunity for human rights violations and accountability for crimes against humanity must remain the top priority for Eritrea and for the international community which must continue to raise those issues until measureable and real progress on the whole spectrum of human rights in Eritrea were recorded. In closing, the Special Rapporteur reiterated that her work was victim-centred and that the voices of victims must not be forgotten in the eagerness to re-engage with Eritrea.

Introduction by the President of the Council

JOAQUÍN ALEXANDER MAZA MARTELLI, President of the Human Rights Council, reminded that in its resolution 33/24 the Council had decided to create for a period of one year a Commission of Inquiry to, among other things, conduct a thorough investigation into human rights violations and abuses in Burundi since April 2015, including on their extent and whether they might have constituted international crimes, with a view to contributing to the fight against impunity. It was also to identify alleged perpetrators of human rights violations and abuses in Burundi with a view to ensure full accountability, and to present an oral briefing to the Council at its thirty-fourth session.

Statement by the Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi

FATSAH OUGUERGOUZ, Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, noted that Commission members were well aware of their responsibilities to conduct their inquiries independently, impartially and professionally. He presented the first oral statement of the Commission of Inquiry, which had not received a positive reply to its numerous calls for cooperation with the Government of Burundi. The Commission had held several meetings with country representations in Geneva, the President of the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and United Nations agencies. The Commission was still at the preliminary stage of its work due to budgetary and administrative constraints. On 27 October 2016 the Government of Burundi had announced its intention to withdraw from the Rome Statute, but that would not affect the work of the Commission of Inquiry, which would examine human rights violations by all parties. It would pay particular attention to the report by a mission of independent experts established by the Council resolution 24/1. It was clear that the trends observed in 2015 and 2016 still existed in Burundi. Even though several political opposition members had been released following the presidential decree of 3 January 2017, there had been allegations of new arrests. Restrictions on basic freedoms had persisted as Burundi had recently adopted two new laws on civil society organizations and not-for-profit associations. The great majority of journalists and civil society activists who had fled the country in 2015 were still in exile. There had been reports of persistent violations of the right to life and physical integrity committed in a clandestine manner, such as of enforced disappearances in non-official places of detention.

The Commission had received reports of discovery of mutilated corpses which still had not been identified. The frequent use of torture had been observed in previous reports by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations. The almost total impunity for those acts was particularly concerning. Even when victims or witnesses could identify perpetrators, investigations were rare. Persons suspected of being members of opposition groups continued to be arrested, often arbitrarily. Some were sentenced to severe punishments in an expeditious manner, while others remained imprisoned for long periods of time without any judicial ruling. Attacks by non-identified groups had aggravated the cycle of violence, such as the murder of the Minister of Water, Environment and Planning on 1 January 2017. According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, at least 27,000 Burundians had left the country between 1 January and 9 March 2017. The total number of those who had fled Burundi since April 2015 had risen to 391,700. A great number of them had also left the country due to the difficult economic situation. Mr. Ouguergouz deeply regretted the absence of will on the part of the Government of Burundi to cooperate with the Council. He called on Member States and regional countries, the African Union and regional organizations to cooperate with the Commission of Inquiry.

Statement by the Concerned Country

Burundi, speaking as the concerned country, disagreed with the report by the Commission of Inquiry and was staggered at its contents, especially that it had taken up all the false allegations contained in the previous United Nations investigation report. In 2015, there had been intense and orchestrated manipulations by minority parties supported by foreign powers, which had tried to seize power in a failed coup d’état. The opponents to the power had even invented the accusations of genocide in Burundi in an attempt to provoke an intervention. Burundi wished to expose to the United Nations and the world the true nature of human rights in the country and had thus set up a national commission of inquiry. Until the dispute related to the United Nations independent inquiry was resolved, it would be unable to work with Burundi. The people of Burundi were sovereign and had the right to decide which direction their fate would take. Burundi asked the international community to judge it objectively and to understand that the solution to the 2015 crisis created by the opponents must be found by the Burundians themselves. Burundi wished to cooperate with the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, but with full respect for its sovereignty.

Comission nationale indépendante des droits de l’Homme du Burundi noted progress made in the human rights situation in Burundi and said that the lack of progress in the judicial sector was due to the lack of resources. More progress had been made in the political dialogue, with calmer language and rejection of violence by all parties. The Comission followed with interest the situation of civil society organizations which had been disbarred and urged the Government to ensure they were reinstated. The Comission was also concerned about the deterioration of the relationship between the Government and certain human rights mechanisms, including the suspension of the relationship with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the non-cooperation with the Commission of Inquiry. Burundi was encouraged to resume cooperation with mutual trust. Also of concern was the suspension of cooperation with development parties, particularly the European Union, and this might have an adverse impact on the economic, social and cultural rights of the people in the country.

Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi

European Union was deeply preoccupied by many violations of human rights in Burundi, particularly those committed by security forces. Sexual violence and torture were also regularly noted. The European Union was concerned about the fate of many demonstrators who had been jailed. It was regrettable that Burundi had suspended its cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Liechtenstein said that the Commission of Inquiry played a crucial part in investigating human rights violations in Burundi, which were condemned. Renewed engagement with Burundi’s own civil society was of paramount importance. The decision of Burundi to withdraw from the Rome Statute was another worrying sign. Canada strongly encouraged Burundi to cooperate with the Commission of Inquiry. Burundi, an elected member of the Council, ought to demonstrate exemplary behaviour. The State had to protect its population. What actions could Canada take to support the capacities of the Commission of Inquiry?

Slovenia said that only with the cooperation of the Burundian authorities could human rights violations be investigated. Slovenia was worried about reported arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances and cases of sexual and gender-based violence. The authorities were called upon to ease the restrictions on civil society and media organizations. Greece was worried about the worsening situation in Burundi, and deplored the fact that the conditions for human rights defenders had considerably worsened over the last year and a half. Greece urged the Burundian authorities to revise and review their legislation on non-governmental organizations, and to put an end to the climate of impunity. United Kingdom was deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Burundi, where there had been a significant increase in the number of enforced disappearances. The courage of those who continued to report violations was praised. Cooperating with the Commission of Inquiry provided the Government with a chance to shed light on recent developments in the country.

France expressed concern about the persistence of human rights violations in Burundi within a climate of impunity, saying all perpetrators of human rights violations had to be accountable before the justice system, and Burundi needed to engage in procedures to do that. The authorities were further called on to reconsider their withdrawal from the Rome Statute. Germany called on the Government of Burundi to cooperate with the Commission of Inquiry and urged it to prevent future human rights violations. Germany welcomed the efforts of the East African Community and the African Union, and asked the Commission of Inquiry what they saw as the most promising measures to improve the human rights situation in Burundi. Denmark noted that the space for political opposition in Burundi had shrunk, and it was alarming that members of the ruling party’s youth league had committed acts of violence. Denmark called on the Government of Burundi to respect the human rights of all citizens, and was deeply concerned about the country’s lack of cooperation with international actors.

Switzerland shared the concern of experts as regards the human rights situation in Burundi, and the serious restrictions on civil society. The authorities were called on to cooperate with the Commission of Inquiry as well as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Syria reaffirmed its principled position of rejecting selectivity and the use of double standards in the area of human rights, which undermined the credibility of the Human Rights Council. The Government of Burundi’s intention to foster a culture of dialogue was commended. Belgium welcomed the appointment of the members of the Commission of Inquiry, and said it was essential that the dialogue underway between Burundi and the United Nations would lead to a resumption of cooperation.

Australia urged regional leaders to engage personally in a serious dialogue with all the actors in Burundi. Australia encouraged the Government of Burundi to ensure that its national dialogue was transparent, and called upon all parties to refrain from inflammatory statements and violence. It was regrettable that Burundi had decided to withdraw from the International Criminal Court. Venezuela recognized the political will by the Government of Burundi to improve the situation of human rights in the country. Venezuela believed that country-specific mandates did not help improve human rights anywhere. Venezuela would continue to ask for the ending of such politicized mandates. China noted that Burundi had made positive efforts to foster stability, and supported the efforts of the Government and opposition parties to reach consensus through dialogue. China was prepared to work with the international community to maintain the momentum in peacebuilding in Africa.

Netherlands remained deeply concerned by the deteriorating human rights situation in Burundi. Of notable concern was the weakness and the partiality of the justice sector. The illegal integration of youth militias into the police was another worrying matter. It was almost impossible for the independent media and civil sector to operate freely. Iran opined that the peculiarities of each country needed to be taken into concern. The Council should engage with the country concerned in a constructive manner with the view of improving the situation on the ground, stressed Iran. Austria urged the Government of Burundi to immediately end violence and abuses by State and non-State actors. Restrictions on journalists and human rights defenders ought to be lifted. Burundi had to tackle impunity by ensuring impartial judicial investigations.

Maldives was very concerned about the suspension of five civil society organizations, including the country’s leading human rights organization. Burundi should extend its maximum cooperation to the United Nations human rights mechanisms and ensure accountability for all human rights violations. More than 380,000 nationals had fled Burundi in 2015, said the United States and called upon Burundi to independently investigate all allegations of torture, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances, and provide remedies to victims. The support to the peace process by the East African Community provided useful avenues. Estonia remained deeply concerned by the human rights violations by the Government and its associated forces, and the continued use of repressive measures against human rights defenders and civil society organizations. Sudan stressed the need to consider the situation in Burundi in a comprehensive manner and said that the way out of the crisis was to urge all parties to cooperate with mechanisms and resolutions to establish peace and security. Sudan encouraged Burundi to comply with the decisions and resolutions by the African Union.

Norway drew attention to widespread human rights violations in Burundi and called on the Government to ensure that all citizens enjoyed all human rights in an unrestricted manner. The Imbonerakure militia had assumed the role of an unofficial police force and even tax collector. The current food insecurity added to the gravity of the situation. Luxembourg was deeply concerned by the human rights violations in Burundi, which had forced hundreds of thousands of citizens to leave the country. Luxembourg condemned acts of torture, arbitrary detention and mass arrests. The climate of impunity was at the heart of the crisis. Ireland condemned enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention and arrests in Burundi, as well as restrictions on civil society and human rights defenders. It reiterated that a negotiated solution to the situation in the country and accountability were essential.

Portugal reiterated its full support for the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry, and was concerned about gross human rights abuses in Burundi, which were compounded by the absence of an independent judiciary. Tanzania reminded that Tanzania alone had received well over 230,000 refugees from Burundi since April 2015. It called on all parties to refrain from any acts which could escalate the crisis. Slovakia voiced concern over torture, ill-treatment, unlawful killings and enforced disappearances in Burundi, as well as shrinking space for civil society and human rights defenders. It called on Burundi to engage with the Commission of Inquiry constructively without any delay. Spain was deeply concerned not only about the worsening human rights situation, but also about the lack of cooperation of Burundi with the Council. There was data on enforced disappearances which had to be looked into as soon as possible. It was deeply regrettable that there was a crackdown on political and civil freedoms in Burundi.

East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project stated that deadly silence prevailed in Burundi because the Government had simply shut down the country, while the perpetrators continued to enjoy impunity. Most human rights defenders had now been forced into exile, and regular people were living in fear. CIVICUS was seriously concerned that the human rights situation in Burundi had not improved since September 2016. Crimes against humanity continued and the Burundian authorities and security forces threatened human rights defenders and civil society indiscriminately. International Federation for Human Rights said it had documented, since January 2017, 52 assassinations, 21 cases of enforced disappearances and 446 cases of arbitrary detention. The Government was called upon to guarantee access to the Commission of Inquiry experts to the territory of Burundi. The danger of the crime of genocide was grave. Centre indépendent de recherches et d’initiatives pour le dialogue stressed the need to go back to dialogue, as the only way forward. It was very important to go back to international cooperation and support the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, created some years earlier.

International Service for Human Rights said Burundian authorities had shown no desire to cooperate with United Nations mechanisms and the Human Rights Council needed to respond to that. The Human Rights Council should recommend to the General Assembly that Burundi should be suspended. World Organization against Torture welcomed the creation of the Commission of Inquiry and said the situation in Burundi was extremely concerning, noting that in 2016 many cases of torture had been documented, as well as cases of inhuman and degrading treatment. The Burundian Government continued to deny the seriousness of the situation. Advocates for Human Rights called on the Human Rights Council to keep the situation of Burundi on its agenda under item 4, and request the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions targeted against individuals responsible for human rights violations. Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme said there was an increase in isolated cases of oppression and deplored the climate of terror and insecurity prevailing among the Burundian people. A silent genocide was being witnessed in Burundi.

Concluding Remarks by the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi

FATSAH OUGUERGOUZ, Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, regretted that the Mission of Burundi had apparently not received the report of the Commission until very recently. The Commission was undertaking its work in a fully independent and impartial way, and it was independent from other Experts. The Commission would continue its effort to try to engage the Government of Burundi. The Commission had already contacted representatives of the African Union. All countries from the international community, including Canada, could provide good offices with the Burundian Government so that the Commission could be given access to the territory of Burundi. African Union observers had already been sent and deployed on the Burundian territory, informed Mr. Ouguergouz. The Commission had written to the authorities in Burundi three times, but had received no response. A number of African States had also been asked to provide their good offices. The information collected by the Commission would be cross-checked to ensure its veracity. Refugees in neighbouring countries, particularly Tanzania, would be interviewed. To date, no formal investigation had been launched by the International Criminal Court, and the Commission had not developed a formal cooperation agreement with the Court. The Commission had already met with witnesses and victims outside of the country, confirmed Mr. Ouguergouz.

REINE ALAPINI GANSU, Member of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, added that the main principle guiding the work of the Commission was that of independence. Until all violations of human rights had been addressed, it could not be said that the work of the Commission had been done.



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC17/036E