HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL NOTES WITH CONCERN SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN SITUATION IN DARFUR

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted a decision on Darfur, noting with concern the seriousness of the human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur and calling on all parties to put an immediate end to the ongoing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law there.

In the decision which was adopted after a vote of 25 in favour, 11 against and 10 abstentions, the Council also called on all parties that had not yet done so to sign the Peace Agreement, in compliance with the relevant United Nations resolutions. In calling on all parties to put an immediate end to the ongoing violations, the Council said there should be a special focus on vulnerable groups, including women and children, while not hindering the return of all internally displaced persons to their homes.
The Council first voted on proposed amendments to the decision and rejected them by a vote of 20 in favour, 22 against and four abstentions. The proposed amendments had highlighted the primary responsibility of Sudan to protect all individuals against violations and sought to mention the importance of ending impunity.

Speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Algeria for the African Group, Finland for the European Union, Canada, Jordan, Switzerland, Sudan, Finland, the United Kingdom, France, Ecuador, Republic of Korea, and Indonesia.

When the Council meets at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 November, it is scheduled to conclude its resumed second session and start its third session.

Action on Draft Decision

Decision on Darfur

In a decision on Darfur (A/HRC/2/L.44), which was adopted after a vote of 25 in favour, 11 against, and 10 abstentions, the Council calls on all parties that have not yet done so to sign the Peace Agreement, in compliance with the relevant United Nations resolutions; notes with concern the seriousness of the human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur and calls on all parties to put an immediate end to the ongoing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, with a special focus on vulnerable groups, including women and children, while not hindering the return of all internally displaced persons to their homes; calls on all parties, whether they have signed the Darfur Peace Agreement or failed to do so, to ensure full and unfettered access by monitors of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights deployed in the Sudan to all places where they have duties to discharge and to ensure the full, safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance to those in need in Darfur; welcomes the cooperation established by the Government of the Sudan with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, and calls upon the Government to continue and intensify its cooperation with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms; and calls upon the international community at large and donor countries and peace partners in particular to honour their pledges of support and to provide urgent and adequate financial and technical assistance to the Government of Sudan in the promotion and protection of Human Rights.


The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (25): Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Tunisia.

Against (11): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (10): Argentina, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, Japan, Mauritius, Peru, Republic of Korea, Uruguay and Zambia.


Earlier, the Council rejected proposed amendments A/HRC/L.48 to the decision in a vote of 20 in favour, 22 against and four abstentions.


The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (20): Argentina, Canada, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Uruguay.

Against (22): Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.

Abstentions (4): Brazil, Mauritius, Philippines and Zambia.


IDRISS JAZAÏRY, (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, introducing the draft resolution A/HRC/L.44, entitled “Darfur”, said that after Algeria had submitted the text to the Human Rights Council, it had engaged in retracted negotiations with the European Union, and thanked them for their responsiveness and endurance.

In an operative paragraph there was a diverging view on how the follow-up to the present decision would be addressed. They agreed that the Human Rights Council would review progress during the fourth session under the aegis of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Algeria wondered on whether the Human Rights Council would reintroduce the concept of country reports, which was one of the reasons why the Commission on Human Rights did not work well.

Algeria reminded that it had been decided that a priority of this Human Rights Council was to review this matter with great attention through the Working Group on the review of mandates. The discussion was not over yet, and the question was whether to preclude the work of the Working Group by bringing it up in this context.

With reference to operative paragraph 5 on impunity, it was only a question of an “s”. For most of the delegates, resolution 1593 was the most relevant one, while resolution 1706 was not directly relevant to the issue. Because of these difficulties, they would have preferred to extend the second session until tomorrow but the European Union was not prepared to do so. Algeria regretfully submitted L.44 and was prepared to look at the amendments and vote on them, and later vote on the resolution itself.

VESA HIMANEN (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, introducing the amendments to the draft decision A/HRC/L.48, said the European Union had been engaged in negotiations with regard to the Darfur situation. There had been some technical issues, which the Union had hoped could be resolved. He however regretted that despite intense consultations, the issue was not yet resolved. The human rights situation in Darfur continued to be of grave concern, and according to recent credible and reliable reports, continued to show signs of further deteriorating. The main purpose of the amendments was to reflect the seriousness of the situation prevailing on the ground, and also to seek and secure that the Council was taking at least some steps to ensure an operational outcome of the initiative. The amendments would highlight the primary responsibility of Sudan to protect all individuals against violations and would seek to mention the importance of ending impunity.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria), in a general comment as a co-sponsor, said with regards to the proposed amendments presented by Finland on behalf of the European Union, on 16 November, a meeting took place in Addis Ababa with the five permanent members of the Security Council and a number of African countries including Sudan. They gave an assessment of the situation that was much more positive than that just given by the representative of Finland on behalf of the European Union. This meeting was seen as a very positive development - there had been further positive developments in the past few days, and therefore the pessimism that had been expressed by the European Union was not shared. This had been recognised by people on the ground whose integrity should not be questioned. The process had been re-energised, and this was why the African Group would vote against any amendment as proposed under document L.48.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), in a general comment, said that the human rights crisis in Darfur had been the concern of the international community for some time. At the second session of the Council in September, they had heard urgent appeals for remedial action by the UN Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights among others. Since then, there had been further chilling reports of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law resulting in the deaths of many innocent civilians. Finally, the Council seemed poised to pronounce itself on Darfur, and Canada welcomed an official expression of concern over the human rights situation in Darfur, however tardy. Mere declarations however were not sufficient. Concrete corrective and preventive action was required. Canada believed that a dedicated session of the Council to address the substantive challenges faced by those who wished to protect and promote the human rights of the citizens of Darfur was warranted and should be arranged during the third session or shortly thereafter. The people of Darfur should not have to wait another six months before the Human Rights Council took up their plight again.

MOUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan), in a general comment, said Jordan regretted that the Council was not able to reach consensus. There was a will to achieve but given the inability to reach consensus, he wanted to invoke some facts with regard to the issue. Based on the information and facts he had received from the Government of Sudan, which was the legitimate representative, he was able to conclude that the information in the Council did not correspond to the situation on the ground. During his diplomatic mission to the Sudan, he was able to meet the representatives of the Government, organizations and spoke to the people. The picture he had of the situation on the ground was different from the one depicted in the media. He strongly believed that the Council should rely on the facts based on the situation on the ground. His conclusion was that there was a political dimension with regard to the action in the Council. The conflict should not be politicized. The origin of the conflict was one of security. However, there was an attempt in the Council to politicize the issue; and it was preferable that the Council focus on the humanitarian aspect of the Darfur issue.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) in a brief intervention, said that Switzerland was in favour of the amendments proposed by the European Union in L.48.

IBRAHIM MIRGHANI IBRAHIM (Sudan), speaking as a concerned country, assured the Human Rights Council of the commitment of the Government of Sudan to comply with international norms relating to human rights and stressed that it had cooperated to the greatest extent with the mechanisms and mandates of the Human Rights Council. Sudan had received more than 400 VIPs from all over the world, including a number of ambassadors, in the three states comprising Darfur to acquaint them with the situation on the ground. They were able to verify that the humanitarian situation had improved. Unfortunately, some bandits and unlawful groups had not respected the Abuja Accord. Sudan asked Member States to vote against the European amendments, and in favour of the draft decision tabled by the African Union.

VESA HIMANEN (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, wished to express deep disappointment that agreement was not reached with the African Group on a consensus. The European Union expressed deep concern at the appalling human rights situation in Darfur and called for an immediate end to the ongoing violence of human rights and international humanitarian law. The European Union called on all parties in the strongest terms to halt the violence, to protect civilians and to ensure full safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance to those in need in Darfur. The European Union believed that the Council should be oriented towards operational outcomes. Unfortunately, L.44 did not have an operational follow-up. The European Union would vote against L.44 presented by the African Group.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Human Rights Council’s mandate provided for it to address human rights violations, including gross and systematic violations, and this was the situation in Darfur, where the situation continued to deteriorate. The purpose of the meeting in Addis Ababa had been described as being due to deep concern as to the situation, which included the situation of civilians who were subjected to death, displacement, and rape. The latest news today was that the Government had rejected plans for a joint United Nations –African Union peace-keeping force. This was grounds for great concern. The situation in West Darfur was close to the abyss.

All were aware of the continued expressions of concern by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan. It was time to act, and this was a crucial test of the Security Council’s effectiveness. There had been a failure - the Council should consider the situation in Darfur in detail in future sessions, and should do so on the basis of clear reports. Some wondered what the Council was doing, and whether it had a sense of fair-play, as it focused on one situation and ignored others. If the Council were to focus only on the Palestinian issue, it would hear comments on its usefulness. For these reasons, the United Kingdom would vote against the resolution.

JEAN-MAURICE RIPERT, (France), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that France joined the European Union in their statement. The situation in Darfur was covered by the mandate of the Human Rights Council. Nevertheless, it was Sudan’s responsibility to end all atrocities and put an end to impunity. The Human Rights Council should continue to look at this situation as necessary, and the Special Rapporteur should be allowed to continue with his work. Silence should not be their answer to the dire situation of the people in Darfur.

GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Ecuador abstained from the vote. However Ecuador believed that the situation in Darfur needed greater attention because of the grave human rights violations and the situation of the civilians in the area.

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that the Republic of Korea regretted that the Human Rights Council had not reached a decision on a consensus. The Republic of Korea expressed great concern over the human rights situation in Darfur. Violence continued unabated. There was a need to take prompt action to end the violations of human rights in Darfur. The Republic of Korea called on all parties to comply with the peace agreements, and to allow for the return of displaced people. It also stressed that it was important for the Government of Sudan to fulfil its obligations under international law. As the resolution did not cover properly the need for a proper follow up, the Republic of Korea had abstained.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Indonesia fully supported the international community’s endeavours to improve the human rights situation in all countries, but was convinced that this should take place through a genuine dialogue and in a spirit of mutual respect. The efforts of the international community to resolve the crisis in Darfur were appreciated. The situation in Darfur was the result of a complex situation, and any steps taken in the region could run the risk of complicating the problem. The situation was better addressed by those operating in the region. All sides were called upon to support the Peace Accord, as was the international community. This was why Indonesia had voted in favour of the decision.


For use of the information media; not an official record


HRC06069E