HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESS BRIEFING BY HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AT PALAIS DES NATIONS ON 6 MARCH

Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, speaking to journalists during the regular briefing by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva, said she was delighted to speak to the press briefly before embarking on the next session of the Human Rights Council next week (12 March 2007). This was an occasion in which they could pause to reflect on the work and the accomplishments of the human rights systems so far in the course of this year, and since the creation of the Council, and to look at what was ahead. The first thing that had to be remembered was that the human rights system was still functioning very well as a normative body. There had been very important progress made in the course of this year, including the signature in Paris in early February of the new Convention on the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearances, which was an important landmark in human rights protection. The adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also would mean a lot of progress on this specific human rights issue. The entry into force and speed of ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture was also worth signalling. There was a setback or disappointment in that the General Assembly did not immediately adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People that had been adopted by the Human Rights Council, but the High Commissioner said she hoped that they would see in the course of this year progress in the General Assembly on that issue.

The Human Rights Council, since its creation, had been in the unusual situation of being mostly engaged in institution-building, while at the same time having to carry on “business as usual”, taking in the reports of the Special Procedures and addressing pressing, serious and unfolding human rights issues. One had to hope that as the institutional and procedural aspect of the work of the Council came to completion by the end of June, next year would probably be a better test of the performance of the Council as the inter-governmental body charged with promotion and protection of human rights as it was freed from the enormous amount of energy that had to be deployed this year in building the Universal Periodic Review system, the review of the Special Procedures system and all the various aspects that the Council was mandated to review by the end of its first year.

Ms. Arbour said that this year, she had carried out an extensive mission to Nepal where the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had an office and was presented with interesting and very challenging issues in accompanying the peace process. She had also travelled to Panama where she signed an agreement with the Government for the opening of a regional presence in Central America for OHCHR, and to Bolivia where she signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the President for the opening of a national office of OHCHR.

Insofar as thematic issues were concerned, the High Commissioner said she had a sense that there was a renewed momentum or focus or interest on the question of the abolition of the death penalty. It had possibly been fuelled by the concerns about and or the visibility of the executions in Iraq which had mobilized international public attention on the question of the death penalty. She hoped that during the course of this year, the world would see renewed efforts, debates and discussions on this issue.

Asked about the Council’s mission to Sudan, especially since one of the former employees of OHCHR, Bertrand Ramcharan, had not been given any access, and what this said for the team spirit of the Government of Khartoum, the High Commissioner said that it was regrettable that the Government of Sudan did not issue visas that would have permitted the entire mission to proceed to Darfur and to examine the situation on the ground. Ms. Arbour said she found it of particular concern if the refusal of the issuance of the visas was based on the displeasure of the Government with either the composition of the mission, or even more seriously, if it were any objection to United Nations staff servicing the work of the high-level mission. The composition of the mission had been selected by the President of the Human Rights Council after extensive consultations, and the High Commissioner said she had the entire discretion to decide which members of her staff were best suited and available and had the right background and ability to accompany and support a mission of this nature.

Ms. Arbour said she was very happy that the mission had decided to proceed, despite this limitation, to discharge its mandate to assess the human rights situation. There was a wealth of information on the situation in Darfur with very credible reports from the humanitarian sector, human rights monitors and many others. She looked forward to the presentation of the report of the high-level mission to the Council.

In response to a question on whether Sudan’s refusal and the similar fate of a mission to Gaza undermined the Council, and how the Council should respond to these refusals of access, the High Commissioner said it was very much for the Council to examine how it would respond not only to the contents of the reports but also to the cooperation or lack thereof from Governments. In human rights protection in general this was maybe the largest dilemma or paradox. The question was how to reward, rather than punish, those who cooperated, and how to call to account those who refused to cooperate. This had been the plague of the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council would have to creatively address the question of how to expose, maybe as the biggest shortcoming of any government, the refusal to open itself to scrutiny when so required by this inter-governmental human rights body.

“In contrast of course, there always appears on the part of those who do cooperate that they are exposed for their shortcomings in a very unfair manner, while those who have a tightly closed door policy manage to escape scrutiny altogether, and therefore no further action is possible,” Ms. Arbour said. “I don’t know what the answer is, but I think the Council will be well advised to try to design a mechanism that will ensure that in and of itself, non-cooperation and obstruction is an affront to the Council to be addressed appropriately.”

Asked whether the upcoming session of the Council had been cut from four to three weeks, and what the main themes during the session would be, the High Commissioner said it was difficult to say what the themes would be because the Council had not yet put in place the procedural framework. All the questions on whether they would proceed with resolutions, or by theme or by country, they were open before the Council. It was difficult to say how exactly this session would conclude. This was still the transition year, and the review of the Special Procedures was still ongoing. The draft timetable was filled with presentations from the Special Procedures. During the session, the progress of the working groups on the Universal Periodic Review and the review of the Special Procedures would become clear and she hoped that it would be agreed upon by consensus before June. On the three week or four week session, the High Commissioner said she believed that the fourth week would be used for informal meetings as all the reforms had to be completed by the middle of June.

A journalist asked what could be done in places where the human rights situation seemed to be perennially problematic, such as Gaza and Palestine, Iraq and Sudan. She also asked the High Commissioner to comment on the statement of the World Food Programme that 80 per cent of the inhabitants of Gaza depended on food aid. In response, Ms. Arbour noted that she had visited the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel last autumn and had expressed her concern about the human rights situation in Gaza and all the occupied Palestinian territory. The situation at all levels was disastrous, food, security, work, housing, education, health, all these fields were severely impaired by the security measures. Added to this was the lack of funds. There was no doubt that the situation of human rights in the occupied territories was very concerning. It was not as if the situation was being neglected by the Council, nor was the situation in Sudan, in Iraq, or in other hot spots, being neglected. But one had to be realistic about the ability of members of the Human Rights Council to do more than the Security Council, with its coercive powers. Maybe the real mission of the Council was to keep the spotlight on these problematic situations in order to spur action.