HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its high-level segment, hearing statements by dignitaries from Slovenia, Senegal, Congo, Indonesia, Iran, Philippines, Togo, Cameroon, and Venezuela, as well as the Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Speakers agreed that the right to development had to be central to the work of the new Human Rights Council. The divide between countries of the North and countries of the South – the developed and the developing countries – had to be bridged if the Human Rights Council was to function effectively. Religious and cultural differences also had to be respected.

Dimitrij Rupel, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovenia, speaking also on behalf of the Human Security Network, said that the Network was committed to further promoting the understanding of the notion of the “responsibility to protect” which the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document had affirmed.

Gabriel Entcha-Ebia, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of Congo, said that the right to development should be at the forefront and the focus of the Council’s activities.

Hassan Wirajuda, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, said the Council had achieved a breakthrough with the adoption of its universal periodic review. That concept placed all States on the same footing.

Manouchehr Mottaki, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran, said that they should not let the two elements of uniculturalism and militarism overtake their responsibility to promote and protect human rights.

Alberto G. Romulo, Foreign Minister and Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, said that, in efforts to ensure that complaints of human rights violations were given a proper airing, victims’ rights should be foremost.

Massan Loretta Acouetey, Minister for Human Rights, Democracy and Reconciliation of Togo, said respect for human rights was the best guarantee of the rule of law, democracy and peace.

Joseph Dion Ngute, Minister Delegate in charge of relations with the Commonwealth at the Ministry of External Relations of Cameroon, said Cameroon supported the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ National Action Plan for Human Rights for 2006-2007, which raised human rights to a level of equal importance with issues of peace, security and disarmament.

Maria Pilar Hernandez Dominguez, Vice Minster of External Relations for North America and Multilateral Affairs of Venezuela, said that Venezuela would be the first to condemn the Council if it was used as a tool by the developed countries against the countries of the South.

Bassine Niang, Minister and High Commissioner for Human Rights and for the Promotion of Peace of Senegal, said that Senegal had abolished capital punishment in 2004 and had actively participated in the elaboration of a number of international human rights instruments.

Anders B. Johnsson, Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), said that IPU was convinced that the legislative branch of States should be heard in the deliberations of the Council, and it was ready to lend its assistance to the challenging endeavour the Council had before it.

Javier Moctezuma Barragán of the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions said that the Committee believed that it could add value to the universal periodic review mechanism, in accordance with its mandate, and could provide specific information.

Also speaking this morning were four speakers designated by non-governmental organizations.

Speaking in right of reply were the delegations of Turkey and Cyprus.

The President of the Council, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, welcomed the entry into force today of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and said that it would definitely help to prevent instances of torture and ill-treatment in places of detention. He appealed to those States parties to the Convention that had not yet done so to accede to the Optional Protocol.

The Council observed a minute of silence for those who had died in the defence of human rights.

The next plenary of the Council will be held this afternoon at 3 p.m., when it is expected to adopt its agenda.

Statements Under High-Level Segment

DIMITRIJ RUPEL, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovenia, speaking on behalf of the Human Security Network, said that the members of the Network considered the commitment to human rights, humanitarian and refugee law to be the foundation for building a better and safer world. The Human Rights Council had a very important contribution to give in that regard. In order to contribute effectively, however, it had to deal with the transition process in an efficient and timely manner. Human rights had to be effectively addressed in their full spectrum, including civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, and the right to development. Moreover, the Network was committed to further promoting the understanding of the notion of the “responsibility to protect” which the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document had affirmed.

In his national capacity, Mr. Rupel said that Slovenia fully aligned itself with the statement made earlier by Austria on behalf of the European Union. It should be kept in mind that the implementation of international standards, commitments and obligations at the national level was the prime responsibility of States themselves; as a result, implementation activities and national initiatives would contribute essentially to turning words into deeds. Slovenia, nevertheless, saw the importance of the supplementary role of non-governmental organizations and international or regional bodies in those endeavours. Taking into account the important contribution that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was making in the area of the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Government of Slovenia had recently decided to contribute financially to the realization of the priorities outlined in the Strategic Management Plan of the High Commissioner for the work of the Office in the current biennium. The most important issue for Europe in terms of human rights was the situation in the Balkans, Mr. Rupel underscored.

BASSINE NIANG, Minister and High Commissioner for Human Rights and for the Promotion of Peace of Senegal, paid homage to all those States that had supported Senegal to become a member of the Council. Senegal had fully assumed the commitment it made before the international community in support of its election to the Council. Being among the first countries that ratified the Rome Statute on the establishment of the International Criminal Court, Senegal, which had abolished capital punishment in 2004, had actively participated in the elaboration of a number of international human rights instruments. Senegal, which had today ratified almost all international human rights instruments, was proud to announce that it observed today the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. Previously, in May 2005, the State had adopted a law on the prevention and repression of trafficking in human beings, which also aimed at protecting the victims of such phenomenon. The achievements and the contribution of the Commission could not be forgotten with the creation of the Council. The Commission had contributed to the establishment of standards and procedures whose objectives were to promote and protect human rights.

The Council should retain the important achievements of the Commission even though the modalities of their implementation needed some reform. The essential characteristics of the special procedures were independence, impartiality and objectivity. In searching for the appropriate means to put in place to guarantee the effective functioning of the system of special procedures, the new Council could gain support from the commitments of the States. The reinforcement of the budget of the High Commissioner could also contribute to correct the financial weakness felt by the previous special procedures. The creation of the new Council marked a new start in United Nations efforts to better promote and protect human rights.

GABRIEL ENTCHA-EBIA, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of Congo, said that the new Human Rights Council opened new horizons for human rights. The Council had to prioritize the deepening of cooperation and constructive dialogue between States, and to avoid sterile confrontation. Equally, the promotion of universal protection of all human rights – civil, political, economic and social, and cultural – should be effectively guaranteed. The rights of women, the elimination of racism, xenophobia, and racial discrimination, the right to education and to a healthy and secure environment, which were the basis for the full enjoyment of other rights, should be given a greater focus by the Council. The right to development should be at the forefront and the focus of the Council’s activities. One of the major innovations of the Council, the universal periodic review, had to be based on objective and reliable information and applied in a just and equitable manner to all States. In that connection, the peer review mechanism of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development could serve as a model.

Mr. Entcha-Ebbia said that the Congo had spared no effort to fulfil its obligations with regard to the United Nations human rights treaty bodies. The Congo had submitted its second periodic report to the Commission on Human Rights this March, and its initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child would be examined at that body’s forty-third session to be held in September 2006. The Congo was equally working in close collaboration with the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and it would submit its initial report at its next session. As it attached particular importance to questions related to women’s rights, the Congo had ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women.

HASSAN WIRAJUDA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, said the Council has achieved a breakthrough with the adoption of monitoring as the rationale of its universal public review. That concept placed all States on the same footing. All were equally subjected to review. That should address the problem of selectivity. Certain States should no longer be able to indulge in judging the human rights performance of others. No State should be issuing unilateral reports on other States. All shared responsibility on human rights matters. The Council should serve as the impartial catalyst for the promotion of human rights values. But it needed to do more in terms of technical assistance and advisory services. Since it was the basic goal of the Council to enhance the capacity of United Nations member countries to meet their human rights obligations, it was only logical that technical assistance would become a large and important aspect of the Council’s work. To carry out that work, human, financial and material resources should be strengthened. A correct view of the mandate should now be taken. On the Commission, technical assistance and advisory services were regarded as alternatives to political sanctions or naming and shaming. That was an unfortunate distortion of an essential work, which relegated it to being an instrument of politicizion and selectivity.

The work of the Council should be based on genuine dialogue and cooperation among all its members. An environment in which member countries could work comfortably together should be created. The Council should be good at unleashing the homegrown strengths of countries to develop their own capacity and to fulfil their human rights obligations. It should be effective in pre-empting human rights crises through education and assistance, by enhancing local awareness and commitment. The Council could and should be a better forum. For no matter how capable was the Council and how hard it worked, it would not operate in a vacuum. External factors had an impact on its efforts. Without an enabling environment, the operation of the Council and the outcome of its activities would suffer.

MANOUCHEHR MOTTAKI, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran, said that the international community was at a decisive juncture of its human rights history, as it confronted new challenges and threats of a different nature against the people of different cultures and religions worldwide. The supremacy of the arrogant and selfish security considerations over genuine human rights concerns, and the imposition of certain cultural values – a “uniculturalism” – were the two defining features of a new era. In the new hegemonic discipline and its value system, the legitimacy of human rights structures and values and even the worth of newly formed democracies were measured by the degree to which they could serve the purpose of the hegemonic powers and their culture. It was within that new discourse that thousands of innocent people, mostly from the South, had become victims in the course of illegitimate and unlawful wars, like what had happened in Hadisah where innocent people were kept, with or without being charged, in horrifying prisons and secret detention centres for months, if not for years, like those such as Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Within the social and cultural life of modern humanity “otherness” and being from a different culture or religion became a source of threat.

Mr. Mottaki said that they should not let the two elements of uniculturalism and militarism overtake their responsibility to promote and protect human rights. It was Iran’s firm conviction that the distinctive feature of the current debate and the key elements therein, particularly the rejection of defamation of religions, should strongly find its way in the Council’s decision making, in terms of both standard-setting and implementation at the international level, if the Human Rights Council were to succeed in discharging its historical mandate. Negligence in that regard would undoubtedly lead the Council into the same pitfalls that had paralysed the work of the Commission. Justice and spirituality were among the basic rights of mankind, and the whole concept of human rights was far from perfection if it did not include them. In that regard the Council should support the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and those living in other occupied Arab territories and promote respect by all for the election held in 25 January 2006, which resulted in forming the Palestinian Government in a democratic manner.

ALBERTO G. ROMULO, Foreign Minister and Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, said that in an increasingly complex world, burdened by old problems and saddled with new dilemmas, the Council gave them a chance for a fresh start. In choosing building blocks for the Council, members should draw on the positive aspects of the Commission on Human Rights. In their efforts to ensure that complaints of human rights violations were given a proper airing, victims’ rights should be the foremost in their minds. And they should not lose sight of the vital role of the State. An important task before the Council was its review of the complaints mechanisms and the strengthening of the special procedures mechanism. They must take care that those mechanisms were not misused – whether deliberately or not – for other than their intended purposes. The Council offered opportunities for innovative action, the most important of which was the universal periodic review, which empowered the Council to review fulfilment by all United Nations Member States of their human rights obligations and commitments.

Mr. Romulo said that the Philippines looked forward to working with members in finding the modalities for translating those provisions into actions that were effective, equitable, and acceptable to all Member States and reiterated his country’s commitment to its pre-election pledge to continue enhancing its efforts to promote and protect human rights. In a few days President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo would sign into law a bill abolishing the death penalty. The Philippines would soon accede to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Presidential Human Rights Committee was in the process of endorsing the Philippine’s accession to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture – a key instrument that entered into force today – and the Philippines were making sure that the sanctity of human rights was preserved in its efforts to fight terrorism, particularly in drafting its anti-terrorism law. The Philippines hoped that, working closely with the Council, it would be able to share with other developing States what it had been able to do in promoting human rights in the region.

MASSAN LORETTA ACOUETEY, Minister for Human Rights, Democracy and Reconciliation of Togo, said the growing interest of the international community in human rights was an undeniable fact. In fact, human rights were imposed on the international community as a universal ethic serving as a criterion of evaluation of problems of all kinds. The respect for human rights was part of the best guarantee of the rule of law, democracy and peace. It was therefore a global process that should engulf the way of thinking and human behaviour. Today, the Council had become a reality. Togo reaffirmed its commitment to work to strengthen the Council. It was true that the struggle for human respect and dignity was a daily task and was inscribed within the economic, political and socio-cultural context, which was marked by the weight of State determination. The history of Togo, before, during and after assuming its international sovereignty was shaped by fratricide struggle and violence, which had made its adventure painful. The democratic process ignited since the 1990s was marked by socio-cultural crises, which had totally parlayed the country’s economic fabric.

Human rights could really be implemented through the political will aimed at progressing the rule of law and through effective awareness of the whole population of its rights and obligations, which were ideals for citizens to exercise them. The Government had inscribed in its plan of action national reconciliation as its priority. The consultations and the contacts undertaken by the President had created conditions with the view to restoring a climate of mutual confidence leading to the realization of national reconciliation. After a social dialogue, Togo had initiated a political dialogue following the 22 pledges made with the European Union. Toga was determined to seek the path and the means to maintain its will to improve and advance the human rights situation in the country.

JOSEPH DION NGUTE, Minister Delegate in charge of relations with the Commonwealth at the Ministry of External Relations of Cameroon, said that, while the Commission on Human Rights had been accused of politicization, selectivity and double standards, it had to be recognized that it had also made many contributions in the field of human rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a large number of international treaties essential for the protection of fundamental freedoms. The Commission had realized significant progress in human rights education, and succeeded in raising awareness for the full respect for human rights. Human rights were the very soul of the United Nations. The reforms that had resulted in the new Human Rights Council, would, Cameroon was sure, reinforce the mechanisms and efforts for the promotion and protection of human rights for all countries.

Mr. Ngute said that Cameroon was resolutely committed to progress in the field of human rights. In that regard, Cameroon had, among others, launched programmes to sensitize judges and penitentiary personnel to international norms in human rights protection; established a Human Rights Directorate; reformed the National Committee for Human Rights and Freedoms (now a Commission); reformed the national observatory for elections, which was now an independent body; adopted a new criminal code; and developed a manual on human rights for use in primary, secondary and technical schools. Much remained to be done, including the improvement of living conditions, the situation of women, and the provision of employment for its youth. In that regard, Cameroon supported the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ National Action Plan for Human Rights for 2006-2007, which raised human rights to a level of equal importance with that of the promotion of peace, security and disarmament.

MARIA PILAR HERNANDEZ DOMINGUEZ, Vice Minster of External Relations for North America and Multilateral Affairs of Venezuela, observed that the fatal errors of the Commission that resulted in its loss of credibility and finally to its demise included its manipulation of human rights issues for political issues. The Commission had mostly emphasized issues relating to civil and political rights, leaving aside economic, social and cultural rights and issues. Venezuela would be the first to condemn if the Council was to be used as a tool by the developed countries against the countries of the South. The Council should not be used as a forum to denounce small countries by powerful ones. The Council should now give ample space to the debate on economic, social and cultural rights and less to political aspects. Dramatic human rights violations were the result of the denial of economic, social and cultural rights of poor nations. Although all human rights were important, economic, social and cultural rights should be given high consideration by the Council, unlike in the Commission. Venezuela appealed to the new Council to give much attention to economic, social and cultural rights.

The country, which pursued a policy of human rights violations against other countries, had an eight per cent illiteracy rate. Some 19 per cent of its population lacked appropriate medical treatment. It assassinated immigrants who attempted to enter the country to work as slaves. Guantanamo was a good example of the human rights violations of that country. Venezuela was struggling to promote and protect not only the political rights of its citizens but also their economic, social and cultural rights. UNESCO had declared Venezuela in 2005 a territory where illiteracy had been eliminated. Half the population had followed vocational training or attended academic institutions. Primary health care had been extended to almost all the people in the country.

ANDERS B. JOHNSSON, Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), said that there was every reason why parliaments and the IPU were natural partners for the Human Rights Council: parliaments ratified human rights treaties and converted their provisions into domestic law; recommendations issued by the treaty bodies or under the special procedures often required parliamentary debate and action; parliaments adopted national budgets and could steer funds towards areas that were crucial to the enjoyment of human rights. The IPU had worked closely with parliaments on human rights issues for many years. It ran a capacity-building programme for parliaments in the field of human rights and, in cooperation with Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, had recently produced a handbook for parliamentarians on the international human rights machinery and international human rights conventions and treaty bodies. The IPU worked on truth, reconciliation and justice issues in the aftermath of conflict. And, last but not least, the IPU had a well-established mechanism for addressing human rights violations affecting individual parliamentarians.

Mr. Johnsson said that, in September 2006, the IPU convened a Second World Conference of Speakers of Parliament at United Nations Headquarters in New York to discuss parliaments’ role in international affairs. More than 150 speakers and presidents of parliament had pledged their support for United Nations reform along the lines proposed by the Secretary-General in his report, “In Larger Freedom”, and they had voiced a number of proposals whereby parliaments, through the IPU, could provide support to the United Nations. Among others, the IPU could assist the Council in collecting information and mobilizing parliaments to assist the Council in the context of its review of State compliance with international human rights norms under the universal periodic review mechanism. It could also offer its perspective to the Council on specific human rights issues. The IPU was convinced that the legislative branch of States should be heard in the deliberations of the Council and it was ready to lend its assistance to the challenging endeavour the Council had before it.

Statement by an International Institution

JAVIER MOCTEZUMA BARRAGAN, of the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, said the objective of the national human rights institutions was to work with the Council and civil society to bring into reality a new generation of universal human rights implementation, built on dialogue and cooperation, and a shared responsibility of common fundamental values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance and respect for all human rights. National Human Rights Institutions represented a recognised means whereby States could work more effectively to guarantee human rights within their jurisdictions. In cooperation with the Council, they would apply a constructive and consultative approach to human rights promotion and protection.

There was strong merit in the continuation of the special procedures as important protection mechanisms, including as a voice for many alleged victims, and as partners in assisting the Council and countries in meeting human rights obligations. There was an anticipation of the strengthening of the cooperation and interactive dialogue in the Council on existing and new functions to be defined. The Committee believed that it could add value to the universal periodic review mechanism, in accordance with its mandate, and could provide specific information. It looked forward to exploring a relevant role for it within the context of the Council.

Statements by Speakers Designated by Non-Governmental Organizations

ARNOLD TSUNGA said the Council would be expected to show leadership and have a pioneering role in the greater realisation of all rights by ordinary men, women and children globally, so that this world became a better world for humanity everywhere and anywhere. A strong and effective universal periodic review mechanism was therefore important. Further the positive work of the human rights experts who dealt with regions or themes needed to be retained and strengthened. In exercising its mandate and defining its methodologies, the Council’s guiding principle should be the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights, especially with regard to the fact that violating parties usually explained violating a certain class of rights on the basis that it was an inevitable consequence of addressing another class of rights.

NATASA KANDIC said human rights defenders were delighted with the novelties in the Council’s work, mainly with the creation of the universal periodic review mechanism, which would support the members of the Council to systematically oversee the human rights situation, give recommendations, and directly observe the application of those recommendations. It was hoped that the development and implementation of the mechanism would go in the direction of strengthening cooperation with non-governmental organizations, as well as promoting the role and importance of human rights defenders in the protection of human rights and to help victims of human rights violations. There was a need for the Council to strongly support the fight against impunity, and establish justice in post-conflict and post-totalitarian societies.

SUNILA ABEYSEKERA said this was a historic moment, when, as a part of the process of United Nations reforms, all were gathered to launch the body within the United Nations that would from now on be responsible and accountable for the promotion and protection of all human rights for all. Enabling civil society voices to be heard on this occasion strengthened the commitment to the partnership of the United Nations with civil society, and encouraged the hope that the Council would continue to be sensitive to issues of participation and consultation with civil society in the arena of human rights. It was hoped that the Council would live out its promise in real and substantive ways, helping to combat discrimination and ensure the enjoyment of human rights for all.

MARIA OCAMPO DE VASQUEZ said that her family life had been overshadowed by the Argentinean military dictatorship with the abduction and enforced disappearance of her daughter together with her husband, an event which took place on that evil night 14 May 1976. They were taken away from her and never again had she seen them as was the case of many other thousands of victims. They were entered into a tunnel of darkness out of which they could never return. Impunity was the hallmark characteristic of the practice of enforced disappearances; and that was why non-governmental organizations (NGOs) required the full application of justice in every country affected. NGOs were concerned about the way international law for the protection of human rights was exercised and respected, about the creation of legal mechanisms which set out sanctions and impeded the perpetration of that crime against humanity. In order to prevent inhuman and imperial techniques of violations to civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, the international community should say a clear “NO” to impunity.

Right of Reply

A Representative of Turkey, speaking in a right of reply, said with regard to the Greek Cypriot representative who had spoken on Tuesday, he should have desisted from polluting the atmosphere of the Council at the beginning of its work. The distortion and misrepresentation of the Cypriot question continued. Turkey had a strong interest and obligation to ensure that the rule of law and respect for human rights on the island continued, but sadly this was not the case. The fundamental rights of the Turkish Cypriots were violated, and the Greek Cypriots tried to convince the world that it was in fact the opposite situation. It was paradoxical that the representative had politicised the forum by making baseless allegations, which were to be resolved under a different plan and context, established during a lengthy process. The Greek Cypriot was against the United Nations parameters, and was trying hard to erode them. The manner in which he had presented the plan in his statement was part of a strategy providing a pretext to halting the resolution of the issue.

A Representative of Cyprus, speaking in a right of reply, said the Vice-Minister had delivered a human rights-oriented speech during the first session of the Council, and had referred to the gross violation of human rights in Cyprus as a result of foreign continuing occupation, without naming Turkey, which had invaded Cyprus, and continued to occupy 37 per cent of the territory. With regards to the comment on the Greek Cypriot administration, resolutions 541 and 550 of the Security Council of the United Nations asked all Member States to denounce and not to facilitate in any way and declare null the occupied part of Cyprus presented by Turkey as a separate State.

A Representative of Turkey, speaking in a second right of reply, said Turkey was compelled to take the floor again, as the representative of Cyprus had simply continued decades-old allegations, attempting to portray the problems on the island in a certain way. The question was not a question of invasion, but a question of violation of human rights by the Greek Cypriots, aimed at extracting unilateral concessions from the Turkish side without compromise, and this would not impede the peace and stability that was required on the island.

A Representative of Cyprus, speaking in a second right of reply, said unfortunately Turkey continued to politicise the forum. The Republic of Cyprus was a victim of Turkish aggression, and Cyprus would like to contribute first to a solution of the problem. Turkey had to contribute first, to show good will and withdraw Turkish forces from the island. It was well known that in the Republic of Cyprus, the Constitution said there were two communities. More than half of the Turkish Cypriots born after the invasion bore the passports of the Republic. There was only one people in Cyprus, made of two communities: the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots.