HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES THE DEATH PENALTY, INSTITUTION BUILDING AND OTHER ISSUES

The Human Rights Council this afternoon discussed the death penalty, institution building and other issues.

Under its segment on “other issues including initiatives/decisions/resolutions”, a number of speakers raised the issue of the death penalty. Some aligned themselves with statements calling for the abolition of the death penalty, noting that capital punishment itself provided no added value in terms of deterrence as it did not work as a dissuasive technique and was irreversible in the case of error. Other countries, however, argued that the death penalty should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances for a very small category of crimes, and in accordance with applicable law and judicial process. They noted that there was no international consensus on whether capital punishment accompanied by due process and judicial safeguards was a violation of human rights.

Speaking on “other issues” were Germany (on behalf of the European Union), Netherlands, France, Finland, Mexico, Pakistan, Slovenia, Sweden, Singapore, United States, Luxembourg, Italy and Algeria.

The following non-governmental organizations also spoke on this topic:
Action contre la faim, Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples (MRAP), International Fellowship of Reconciliation, in a joint statement with Society for Threatened Peoples, Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les peuples, and Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, Human Rights Watch, Interfaith International, United Nations Watch, International Federation for the Protection of The Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities, Union de l’Action Féminine, Amnesty International, Earthjustice, in a joint statement with Human Rights Advocates, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, International Federation of Free Journalists.

In the segment entitled “institution building” there was a discussion of the progress made by the six Facilitators and Working Groups on the Universal Periodic Review, the Review of the Mandates, the Complaints Procedure, the Expert Advice Procedure, among others. It was noted that the Council should make utmost use of the forth-coming Working Group sessions in order to have a consensual package ready in time for decision-making on these issues before the 18 June deadline. The Council was urged to move from informal to formal mode and concentrate on reaching final conclusions.

Speaking on “institution building” were: India, Indonesia, Germany (on behalf of the European Union), Algeria, Cuba, Russian Federation.

The following non-governmental organizations also spoke about the topic: Indian Council of South America, Action Canada for Population and Development, and Global 2000 International.


At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its segment on “related debate”, with a discussion covering a range of issues. There were interventions from non-governmental organizations on torture, protection of basic rights in the context of terrorism, religious and racial tolerance, respect for diversity on the basis of sexual orientation, the situation of human rights defenders, specific country situations and a wide range of issues arising from reports delivered by Special Rapporteurs during the week.

Speaking on the “related debate” were representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: African Commission on Health and Human Rights Promoters, Jubilee Campaign, Baha’i International Community, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, International Humanist and Ethical Union, World Federation of Trade Unions, European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Federation, Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, World View International Foundation, and Centre for Women’s Global Leadership.

Speaking in right of reply were representatives of Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, Singapore and China.

When the Council resumes its work at 10 a.m. on Friday, 30 March, it will take action on draft resolutions and decisions before concluding its fourth session.


Statements on “Related Debate”

AMADOU THIDIANE, of African Commission of Health and Human Rights Promoters, said with regard to the report of Mr. Nowak, the entry into force of the Optional Protocol against Torture could mean the end of that incurable wound on the human conscience. The gravest tortures inflicted on people took place in police custody and in preventative detention, which was one of the gravest threats to the presumption of innocence. Grave human rights violations had also been committed in the name of combating terrorism. In addition, grave human rights violations were committed in a number of places in Africa on political opposition parties, in particular in Guinea, where there had been massacres of the population by the armed forces.

WISAM BREEGI, of the Jubilee Campaign, said that the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea continued to live in fear: thousands were in prison with no judicial process; and systematic torture, forced labour, starvation, public execution, medical and chemical experimentation on prisoners and other violations were commonplace. Thousands had fled to China, and China continued to forcibly repatriate them to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea where they faced torture and possible execution. The Jubilee Campaign urged the Human Rights Council to put pressure on the Government of Democratic People's Republic of Korea to promote transparency in the need for, and facilitate delivery of, humanitarian aid, to end human rights violations and to guarantee freedom of expression and movement. It also called on the Council to press the Government of China to stop repatriating refugees.

DIANE ALA'I, of Baha’i International Community, said that, about a year ago, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief had released a statement expressing her grave concern about a letter that had been sent by the Command Headquarters of the Armed Forces of Iran to the Ministry of Information, the Police and the Army, among others, instructing them to identify people who adhered to the Baha’ i faith and to monitor their activities. Those instructions were being implemented. During the same period, the Iranian public had been incited to hostility through a media campaign of slander and defamation against the Baha’i faith. Baha'i International Community was particularly worried about all of those actions because they seemed to be part of a larger, coordinated strategy. Indeed, the Baha’is had been persecuted throughout their history in Iran.

FAHIMEH DORRI, of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, said terrorism was among the transnational crimes that created worries for the Iranian people and Government. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, there had been numerous acts of terrorism both against people and places. Terrorism was undoubtedly a violation of fundamental human rights, and fear of terrorism sometimes led to social imbalance in favour of dictatorial forces, thus severely damaging the rule of law. There should be a plan for international action according to the obligation to defend the rule of law. The threat of terrorism should not be used by States as an excuse to disregard fundamental international laws, and those States should not use confrontation with terrorism as a pretext to illegally limit the rights of expression, religion, and others.

ROY BROWN, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, in a joint statement with World Population Foundation, said that the two separate issues of "defamation of religion" and "incitement to violence" should not become confused. All should condemn incitement to religious and racial violence, but no one was duty-bound to respect any religion, and lack of belief should not be confused with hatred of the believer. It would be dangerous if people were not allowed to condemn misogyny, homophobia or calls to kill because they were expressed in the name of religion. The Union also condemned the demonizing of European secularism by Special Rapporteur Doudou Diène. Secularism was not an expression of intolerance, but rather a guarantee of religious freedom for all.

OSIRIS OVIEDO, of World Federation of Trade Unions, said that the World Federation, representing more than 50 million members, wanted to denounce once again the unjust imprisonment of five young Cubans by the United States. The Federation also wanted to express its concern about the Government of Colombia for its high number of arbitrary or illegal detentions.

BETO DE JESUS, of European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Federation, said discrimination and violence towards the Federation’s members should be recognized, as should that towards lesbians and gay people throughout the world. The Council should consult principles and debate on those issues. It was important to recognize the diversity through which people expressed their sexuality and gender. Sexual orientation was the ability to relate between adults in a consenting relation, and equal human rights should be put in place for all citizens, so that all could enjoy their human rights.

G. JORDAN, of Worldwide Organization for Women, said health policies had to be in harmony with the societies to which they applied. Civil society should be included in institutional discussions and involved from the outset to ensure that they became stakeholders and benefited from the results. North-South dialogue on the issue of "health for all" had to be promoted. It was also important to involve the members of the health worker diaspora in mobilizing available resources. Comprehensive approaches had to be applied to health problems, without losing sight of the need to adapt them to local conditions. The World Health Organization (WHO) commissions that worked on these issues had to ensure that the right to health was made more explicit, and had to involve the members of the health worker diaspora in addressing health issues involving their home countries.

KING SU HO, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, in a joint Statement with World Peace Council, said that a statement by the Director-General of the Japanese National Policy Agency, Mr. Uruma, had clearly shown the Japanese Government's intention to oppress Korean residents in Japan. Korean residents in Japan were confronted with continuous harassment. That was a serious infringement of human rights, and a violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Japanese Government had to express their sincere regret, and had to acknowledge their responsibility historically and internationally under the present tense situation.

WIN NAING, of Worldview International Foundation, said the severe, widespread and systematic violations of human rights in Burma were not random acts. They were the outcome of a system marred by the absence of the rule of law and a culture of impunity. There was no commitment from the authorities to change the situation. Human rights defenders worked under extremely difficult conditions, including being criminalized for the peaceful exercise of their activities; and lawlessness was on the rise in Burma. The human rights situation in Burma would not improve unless the authorities restored the rule of law and ended impunity, and unless human rights defenders were able to go about their work without fear. The Council should monitor those developments carefully.

JOHN FISHER, of Center for Women's Global Leadership, in a joint statement with Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network, said women, and lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, and HIV-positive human rights defenders were particularly at risk. The Special Representative on the situation of human rights defenders had greatly helped to promote the interests of women human rights defenders. Violations against them and the other marginalized groups were often associated with political violence, fundamentalism, militarism, and attacks on sexuality. Universal application of human rights meant exactly that, and States had a duty to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all people, including those who are defenders of human rights.


Statements on "Other issues including initiatives/decisions/resolutions"

MICHAEL STEINER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, wanted to raise an issue to which the European Union attached outmost importance: the worldwide abolition of death penalty. The European Union firmly believed that the abolition of the death penalty contributed to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. The death penalty provided no added value in terms of deterrence. Any miscarriage or failure of justice was irreversible when, in a cruel and inhumane way, capital punishment deprived one of his or her right to life. The trend towards the worldwide abolition of the death penalty continued. The European Union committed itself to work towards the abolition of the death penalty and, where it still existed, called for its use to be progressively restricted.

SUZANNE DE GROOT (Netherlands) said it was important to continue the discussion on the death penalty. The Netherlands was deeply convinced that this penalty denied human dignity, and went against human rights. There was also concern for the disregard of minimum United Nations standards in that regard, in particular with respect to the execution of juveniles and the mentally ill. Abolitionist countries were to be found on all continents, and that gave a good basis for discussion.

DANIEL VOSGIEN (France) said France aligned itself with the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union on the abolition of the death penalty. Abolition of the death penalty was a priority for France. France had had to amend its Constitution in order to ratify the Optional Protocol of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which called for the complete, definitive abolition of capital punishment. As another sign of its staunch commitment to the abolition of the death penalty, France held a meeting in Paris on this subject at which non-governmental organizations, Governments and representatives from five continents had participated. The death penalty was against the principles of human dignity and could not be justified on cultural grounds or legitimized by tradition.

KIRSTI POHJANKUKKA (Finland) said that Finland supported the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union regarding the abolition of the death penalty. International human rights treaties, as well as regional treaties, prohibited people under 18 years of age from being executed. However, while a number of countries had laws excluding the death penalty for child offenders, some countries still continued to execute child offenders. Finland called upon those countries to stop that practice. Capital punishment should only be carried out after a legal process and a fair trial. Even though executions were being carried out by several different means, Finland emphasized that where capital punishment was carried out, it must be done with the minimum of suffering. Finland would continue to work reach those aims.

JOSE GUEVARA (Mexico) said Mexico was firmly committed to the protection and promotion of human rights, and in that context the abolition of the death penalty was something to which Mexico paid great attention. In the international arena, Mexico had shown its commitment to the prevention of the use of the penalty. Mexico wished to show its firm commitment to promoting international initiatives to eradicating the death penalty throughout the world, and the international community, including the Council, should take serious steps in this regard.

The European Union initiative showed the commitment of the international community in this regard, which was fundamental. That initiative was welcomed. Mexico supported the international movement to prevent the application of the penalty to those under 18, or those who had committed crimes when under that age. Countries should eliminate the death penalty, or at least not apply it to pregnant women, the mentally disabled, or those who were unable of recognizing the gravity of their crimes. Mexico also lamented the application of cruel methods which caused grave suffering in the application of the penalty.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said Islam held life sacred. Muslim penal law was characterized by a strong undercurrent of clemency and sympathy for the oppressed. The death penalty was allowed only in exceptional circumstances for a very small category of crimes. It was imposed only in accordance with applicable law and judicial process. The question of the death penalty was a matter for the criminal justice system of States, and the decision on when to use it was only taken after exhausting all legal remedies and applying due process of law.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia) said that Slovenia allied itself with the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union. Slovenia was a signatory of the Declaration Against the Death Penalty that had so far received 89 signatories. Slovenia was firmly committed to the worldwide abolition of the death penalty, and capital punishment had been banned constitutionally in Slovenia.

Where still in use, capital punishment should only be carried out in full conformity with due process requirements, should only be applicable for the most serious crimes, and should be carried out in a humane manner. The death penalty should not be imposed on minors, pregnant women and mentally disabled persons. However, taking yet a step further and imposing a moratorium on the execution of that ultimate punishment was a good measure to enable a wider societal re-thinking on the necessity of the capital punishment. Slovenia thus called upon States that still retained capital punishment to progressively restrict it, and to consider imposing a moratorium on executions, with a view to its possible final abolition. Slovenia remained committed to continue, in a respectful and constructive way, a dialogue with all States on this important issue.

CHARLOTTA SCHLYTER (Sweden) welcomed the gradual but worldwide trend towards the abolition of the death penalty. The use of that brutal and vindictive punishment was being debated in many countries with a view to limiting or abolishing its use. Meanwhile, however, thousands of people worldwide remained on what had been referred to as death row. In a small number of countries the death penalty was used extensively, and in some without regard to internationally agreed safeguards and minimum standards.

Sweden urged States that retained the death penalty to establish moratoriums and to give priority to national processes towards the abolishment of the death penalty. Sweden hoped that, as the Optional Protocol aiming at the abolition of the death penalty approached two decades of existence, many more countries would be able to commit to that aim, thereby contributing to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights.

BURHAN GAFOOR (Singapore) said it was a pity that some countries insisted on imposing their views on others over the issue of the death penalty. There was no international consensus on whether capital punishment accompanied by due process and judicial safeguards was a violation of human rights. The death penalty was permitted under international law. For many countries it was permitted under their criminal justice system and each country should decide the matter for itself. Singapore respected the rights of other countries to abolish the death penalty in their societies. But respect for human rights must include respect for difference in values and systems across the world.

STEVEN HILL (United States) said that international laws did not prohibit capital punishment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically recognized the right of countries to impose the death penalty for the most serious crimes, carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court and in accordance with appropriate safeguards and observance of due progress. In that respect, the United States urged all Governments that employed the death penalty to do so in conformity with their international human rights obligations and to ensure that it was not applied in an extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary manner.

OLIVIER BALDAUFF (Luxembourg) said the abolition of the death penalty was an issue at the heart of the international community. Justice could not be vengeance, and a crime could not be punished by another crime. Luxembourg was unreservedly committed to the abolition of the death penalty, as that would help create the humanistic society that Luxembourg believed in, and would help to promote human rights and human dignity. A growing number of countries had either abolished the penalty or had imposed a moratorium on executions.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) said abolitionism was gathering momentum: over half the Member States of the United Nations had already abolished capital punishment. There was need for a new debate on the issue of the death penalty. The call for a moratorium on the death penalty that Italy was pursuing aimed precisely to create a pause for reflection and discussion on the issue. A number of countries still had the death penalty in their legal codes for reasons rooted in legal tradition, but the death penalty did not work as a dissuasive technique and the death penalty was irreversible in the case of error.

MOHAMMED BESSEDIK (Algeria) fully endorsed the statements made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Algeria still permitted the death penalty for serious crimes, such as treason, among others. However, since 1993, the Government had decided to move away from the death penalty and had established a moratorium. Since then, no death penalty had been implemented. At a first stage, the death penalty had been eliminated as a punishment for economic crimes, and it was expected that its use would be restricted still further in future.

ANNE GRELLA, of Action contre la faim, with regard to the massacre of 17 employees of the organization in Sri Lanka last year, said there was a need to return to that issue, and for the Council to communicate its concern as to the way the inquiry into that massacre was taking place. Despite a demand by the judge of the Court that there be the presence of international observers, some parts of the investigation had taken place without them. The decision of the magistrate to continue hearings in order to follow the inquiry was welcomed, but there was deep concern at the lack of attention paid to the judge’s request by the investigating police forces. No direct testimony had been recorded, as there was no witness protection system in Sri Lanka. Concrete measures should be taken to remedy the situation, and humanitarian workers should not be murdered with impunity.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples (MRAP), said that, at its sixty-first session the Commission on Human Rights had adopted a consensus decision to remain seized of the issue of the Western Sahara at its sixty-second session, but then that session had then been cut short. The Human Rights Council should continue to be responsive to violations and allegations concerning Western Sahara. There had been expressions of concern by the Special Rapporteur Hina Jilani on difficulties of access to the region to assess the situation of human rights defenders there. There had also been a number of other statements and expressions of concern about the situation by the Council, the High Commissioner, the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and others. The Council should reintegrate the issue of the Western Sahara into its agenda.

URGEN TENZIN, of International Fellowship of Reconciliation, in a joint statement with Society for Threatened Peoples, Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les peuples, and Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, said that China’s decades-long policy of population transfer of Chinese settlers to the Tibetan plateau was now recognized by Tibetans and independent observers as the biggest threat to the very survival of the distinct national identity of the Tibetan people as race. Tibetan areas were today flooded with an ever-growing population of Chinese settlers. What Tibetans were now confronted with was a form of cultural genocide. Tibetans were fast becoming a demographic minority in their own homeland. Such a grave human rights situation required an immediate joint fact-finding mission to Tibet by relevant Special Procedures of the Council.

PEGGY HICKS, of Human Rights Watch, said Iran had executed more people than any other country in 2006. Zimbabwe was carrying out an increasingly brutal crackdown on civilians and members of the opposition. The Government had not halted nor investigated any abuses by the police forces, which latter violently broke up opposition demonstrations. There was an urgent need for food, shelter and water for thousands in Zimbabwe. The Council should address the situation in Guantanamo, Iraq, Iran and Zimbabwe, and it should be able to react quickly to human rights situations. It should not assume that regional organizations would be involved. Human rights victims across the world deserved the attention of the Council.

NAZIR KHAN, of Interfaith International, said there was a serious situation among people living in Pakistan administered Gilgit-Baltistan. The Government had shown no interest in improving the human rights situation there. Government and official discrimination, the engineering of sectarian riots, and the undermining of health, sanitation and education services meant the area was in crisis. Political self-determination was limited and activists were vicitimised. There was excessive use of force, restriction of movement and a host of other abuses. There was no effective rule of law, good governance or social justice.

JOYCE JACOBS, of United Nations Watch, said that this Council was mandated to address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations. One of the most severe human rights situations was in Darfur, as reported at this session by Professor Jody Williams, whose report found Sudan responsible for large-scale international crimes. The report made concrete recommendations, to this Council, to the warring parties, and to the international community, aimed at protecting the civilians in Darfur. Failure to fully endorse the report would cast a shadow upon the reputation of the Council, and upon the reputation of the United Nations as a whole. Adopting the report’s recommendations, in full, was essential to protect the human rights of the people of Darfur.

DAMIANOS SEREFIDIS, of International Federation for the Protection of The Rights of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic & Other Minorities, said although there were difficulties on the political agreement on what a minority was, there was a widely-accepted academic definition of minority, and especially national minority. From such a definition, it would be an exaggeration to consider that the mere existence of minorities and national minorities constituted a serious threat for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. Revisionism and/or forceful territorial rearrangements should not be related to the modern minority debate. The Council should work more towards the de-securitisation of the minority debate, should support the mandate on minorities along with an expert body, and should support the mandate’s focus on the correlation between minorities and national institution-building processes.

JAZOULI ADNANE, of Union de l’Action Féminine, said the Algerian regime was responsible for the stalemate on the issue of the Western Sahara. Detention, torture extrajudicial execution, rape and forced marriage, not to mention the humanitarian situation of people in camps, were serious. These people should be supported and allowed to return to their homes. Military personnel were in vicinity of the camps, and Algeria could not deny that the people there were held in conditions of near slavery, their freedom of movement curtailed. The Union hoped there would be an opportunity for the international community to see for itself the suffering endured by people in these camps.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said that Member States had an individual and a collective responsibility to enable the Council to protect rights holders and provide relief to persons whose rights were violated. The failure of the international community to address the secret detention and ill-treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere had corroded the foundations of the international framework of human rights protection. Gross violations of human rights continued in Iraq four years after the rule of Saddam Hussein had ended. The human rights situation in Sri Lanka continued to deteriorate despite governmental efforts. Amnesty International urged the Human Rights Council to complete its institution-building process and address these and other situations of grave human rights violations without further delay.

HEOMA AJUNWA, of Earthjustice, in a joint statement with Human Rights Advocates, said the Council should examine the human rights dimension of environmental issues, as well as the need for a coherent approach between the different mandates. Developing nations were being used as dumping grounds for the toxic waste of developed countries, and corporations were largely responsible for environmental crimes which adversely impacted the human rights to health, housing, food and water. A Working Group was needed to specify the human rights standards applicable to corporations, such as those involved in toxics transfers, and to develop mechanisms to hold corporations accountable for human rights abuses.

KRISTEN HILTON, of Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions, welcomed Ms. Jilani’s report and her vigilance and commitment. There had been details on grave and urgent threats to over 30 human rights defenders in Zimbabwe and the Centre urged pressure on the Zimbabwe Government to ensure that their imprisonment and mistreatment ended immediately. There had been reports of bombing in high-density areas. This was a tactic often used by security forces to destabilize the already volatile situation. Legitimate human rights defenders needed urgent protection in Zimbabwe and the Human Rights Council should rise to its potential and provide leadership on this issue. The Council was also urged to recognise the importance and inter-dependence of economic and social and cultural rights and take action to protect them.

ALGIS TOMAS GENIUSAS, of International Federation of Free Journalists, mentioned the recent report by the Committee to protect journalists. The growing number of ethnically and racially motivated murders in Russia was mentioned. The organization called upon the Human Rights Council to focus attention on Member States that blocked journalists from reporting the truth. Close attention should also be paid to the use of disinformation as a mean of political pressure. In Siberia, there were no state supported schools where children of the former Baltic deportees might pursue their education in their mother tongue.


General Debate on Institution Building

RAJIV CHANDER (India) said the Council was addressing various aspects of its institution-building work through six parallel processes, and issues being addressed through these processes were interlinked. Therefore, at some stage, the Council would be required to take a holistic view of these issues. So far, there had been extensive discussions on improving the working methods of the Special Procedures, however the Council was yet to seriously engage in the process of rationalisation. What was required now was to commence this process at the earliest time possible, and after consolidating proposals made by delegates, the situation about the timeframe could be reassessed. Country mandates should be reviewed one by one, based on their merit.

On the Universal Periodic Review, the facilitator had identified four key areas where there was divergence of views. The Universal Periodic Review should remain a cooperative mechanism, and should be a simple and light mechanism. With regards to the Complaint Mechanism, the admissibility criteria should be applied in full before complaints were forwarded to States. On the Expert Advice Mechanism, this should be designed keeping in mind the overall requirements of the Council, which were somewhat different from those of the Commission.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said it was time to take stock of deliberations so far and draw together the threads. It was important to adhere to decisions 1/103 and 1/104 as well as resolution 3/4 on the mandate for all institution building Working Groups in order that they efficiently discharge their mandates as per the terms of OP-6 of the founding resolution 60/251. The Council should now move from informal to formal mode and concentrate on reaching final conclusions on the architecture of the institution over the next few weeks. There should be an effort now to finalise deliberations and resolutions.

On the Complaints Procedure, concerns over the absence of reference to confidentiality in the Facilitator’s non-paper were expressed. The importance of inclusive participation of the country in question could not be stressed enough. Concerning the Review of Mandates, it was crucial to look at all mandates as a matter of priority so as to move forward in accordance with the duties entrusted following the assumption of all the mandates. On Working Methods and the Agenda, concrete operationalisation of clear and solid rules of the game as well as a structured agenda were needed, with the principles of transparency, predictability and inclusiveness as foundation blocks for all endeavours. Expert Advice served as a think-tank for the Council, but it was also important to have highly qualified, independent and impartial experts involved. On the Universal Periodic Review, the whole process should be aimed at improving the human rights situation in countries under review.

ANDREAS BERG (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union would like to thank all the Facilitators for their dedication and efforts to bring forward the discussion on the different institution-building components during this fourth session of the Human Rights Council. There had been fruitful discussions and an intensive exchange of ideas as to the future architecture of the Human Rights Council. As a result, there was a clearer picture on the points of convergence. But there was also evidence of divergences that still needed to be addressed. During discussions, interrelated topics had been dealt with in the different Working Groups.

This should be kept in mind as the Council progressed in its work, leaving time and space to check and double check that the different components did harmonize and match each other. The European Union stood ready to continue the discussions in a constructive mood and towards a broad consensus on all outstanding issues. All should make utmost use of the forth-coming Working Group sessions in order to have a consensual package in time for decision making in June.

MOHAMMED BESSEDIK (Algeria) said facts that came out of the consultations showed that some delegations believed that the approach taken by the Council during its deliberations should end in clear and transparent decisions. There should be greater transparency with regards to working methods. That work took place in informal settings was against the trends initially adopted. It was also regretted that a number of delegations could not participate in the discussions, due to the lack of translation. With regards to the outcome of discussions, this should not serve as a formal benchmark - it was up to the Facilitators to draw upon these, but nothing more.

With regards to the reports and documents provided, it was regretted that they were not translated. No progress had been made in some areas - there had even been a retreat with regards to the procedural approach. There was a clear need for a transparent process, allowing all to take part, and in which interpretation services should be provided if progress were to be made. The future of the Council was at stake, and it was therefore important to begin this work properly.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said Cuba would not restate its position on each Working Group but instead wanted to say that the process of institution building was to be concluded on 18 June and there was no reason to delay further beyond that date. Progress in all Working Groups was not even, and documents were not all evenly formatted or translated. The Review of Mandates was the most difficult group. Positions were rooted among those who had benefited from the selectivity and politicisation of the former Commission. There was no room in this Council for the politicized, selective rapporteurs of old. There was a need for greater political will and a greater spirit of cooperation. It was not discussion that was needed but real negotiation on the reports. Six Facilitators had been appointed for the conclusions. It was hoped that this process could be channeled along the lines set out in 60/251. It was important to conclude, ideally with consensus. The fifth session was a concern. It had been said that it would be six days. But there was a danger of overburdening the session. It did not seem that the session could realistically be focused on “conclusion”.

SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation was taking an active part in the consultations on institution building and wanted to make some comments on the outcome of the work. First, concerning the Expert Advice mechanism, the time had come to go straight on compromise formally, enabling to bring together two opposing positions and set up the expert advice mechanism. In that procedure, one should seek to highlight situations bearing gross violations of human rights but not individual cases of such violations. On the working methods, Russia wanted to mention the significant process that had been achieved in the informals.

It was time to concentrate the efforts on the existing practice to proceed with the achievements. On the review and rationalization of mandates, Russia believed that some results concerning general overview of the mandates had been achieved. The rationalization of mandates was achieved one by one. The matrix of the High Commissioner would be of great use. Russia supported the initiative on the code of conduct of the African Group to improve the system of working with Special Procedures. Finally, Russia wanted to appeal to all delegations to respect the deadline provided by the General Assembly.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, said the General Assembly resolution 60/251 reaffirmed the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, including developing friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. The resolution requested the Council to continue to give special attention to the violation of human rights, especially the right to self-determination, resulting from foreign military intervention, aggression or occupation, and the Council should therefore maintain the issue of self-determination on the agenda without developing any qualification to diminish the ability to address the issue, or create a systematic process that denied the ability to address the issue.

SANDEEP PRASAD, of Action Canada for Population and Development, said it was important to close protection gaps in the system of Special Procedures. It would enhance the integration of gender into the Special Procedures system as a whole, as many gaps concerned issues that affected women directly. One option would be to establish a Special Procedure dedicated to closing these gaps, comprising five human rights experts appointed in the usual manner with an emphasis on gender and geographical balance.

KARIN RYAN, of Global 2000 International, said since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations had played an increasingly important role in monitoring Governments’ compliance with human rights treaties and agreements to which leaders had committed their nations; the high standards of conduct codified in such documents had stood as unfulfilled promises to too many for too long. The time was right to introduce important new elements, including the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, while strengthening the most positive aspects of the Commission, such as the system of Special Procedures. However, there was disappointment about the early record of the body on some issues of grave importance. The singular focus on the violations committed by Israel, while failing to address with the same vigour serious human rights abuses in many other parts of the world had been counterproductive.


Right of Reply

ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe), speaking in right of reply, said that it was taking the floor to respond to matters raised concerning the human rights situation in Zimbabwe and the situation of human rights defenders there. Zimbabwe affirmed that genuine human rights defenders were not in danger in the country. A riot could not be construed for a prayer gathering. It was regrettable that a riot took place on 11 March, as security agents tried to restore order in the capital Harare. According to verifiable information, Ambassadors from United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Czech Republic, and Australia were directly linked. With regard to the hypocritical countries talking today against Zimbabwe, none of them had raised the situation in Iraq and Palestine, among others. For the Germans, the hangover of the Nazi past was still outstanding. As for the United Kingdom, a demonic force, Zimbabwe affirmed that Zimbabwe’s land belonged to Zimbabwe.

AKMAL SAIDOV (Uzbekistan), speaking in right of reply, said contrary to claims of the United States representative, Uzbekistan’s cooperation with Hina Jilani had been continuous. Uzbekistan disagreed with the claim that it exerted pressure on human rights defenders in the country. Non-governmental organizations, the Committee of Human Rights Defenders, Human Rights Watch and others were working in Uzbekistan at the present time. Uzbekistan was astonished by the United States Ambassador’s statement, an unfounded and politically motivated provocation. Uzbekistan attached importance to the serious problem of human rights in the United States itself, and urged investigation of reports highlighted by Ms. Zerrougui on arbitrary disappearance, torture and inhumane treatment by the United States.

WEI JIANG HO (Singapore), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the remarks made by the Special Rapporteur on summary executions, he had claimed that the Government of Singapore had noted that there were no standards relating to the death penalty because there was no customary international law. This was a gross misrepresentation of Singapore’s views: it’s point was that there was no international consensus nor customary international law on what constituted the most serious crimes for which the death penalty could be imposed. Singapore was strongly of the view that the death penalty should be imposed only in accordance with the due process of the law and judicial safeguards, as was permitted under international law.

LA YIFAN (China), speaking in right of reply, said that the delegation of China wanted to reply to a statement made by Liberal International this morning. When it came to Taiwan, according to the establishment of the United Nations practice, Taiwan minority problems were problems of China. The Human Rights Council was not the right place to talk about participation of membership of the World Health Organization. China always supported the participation and contribution by civil society into the work of the Human Rights Council. But China could not accept the tiny amount of non-governmental organizations trying to abuse their right to participate in the work of the council. China insisted that the above statement should be taken back.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07030E