HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL REVIEWS MANDATE OF REPRESENTATIVE OF SECRETARY-GENERAL ON HUMAN RIGHTS OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS

The Human Rights Council this morning reviewed the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Walter Kalin.

Austria, main sponsor of the draft resolution on the mandate, said the sponsors proposed to extend the mandate for three years with specific terms of reference that built on the core elements of the mandate. The need for a continuous dialogue with Governments and other relevant actors was one core element. The mainstreaming of human rights of internally displaced persons into all relevant parts of the United Nations system was envisaged, as well as the strengthening of the international response to displacement.

Mr. Kalin said his strategy in carrying out his mandate was built on the realisation that internally displaced persons could fully enjoy their human rights only if several elements were in place. First, a strong normative framework was needed, and in this regard he had focused and would continue to focus on the promotion of the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Second, without strong political will, even the best norms remained ineffective. Third, internally displaced persons would not be able to fully enjoy their human rights if States that carried the primary responsibility for protecting and assisting them lacked the capacity to do so. Finally, all should be able to respond flexibly to new challenges as they occurred. The human rights of internally displaced persons continued to be disregarded and violated in all parts of the world. As long as this reality persisted, the mandate remained a necessity.

Most of the speakers supported the extension of Mr. Kalin’s mandate, although some concerns were raised about his title which indicated that he was appointed by the Secretary-General.

Speaking on the review, rationalization and improvement of the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons were Portugal on behalf of the European Union, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, China, Canada, Russian Federation, Switzerland, India, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, Norway, Algeria, Syria, Argentina, Sudan, Colombia, Iraq and Uganda. A representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also took the floor.

The following non-governmental organizations and national human rights organizations also spoke: National Commission for Human Rights of Rwanda and the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions, Norwegian Refugee Council, Commission of Colombian Jurists, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities and Commission to Study the Organization of Peace.

Also this morning, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue on the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolpho Stavenhagen, and the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, who presented their reports on 12 December.

In concluding remarks, Mr. Stavenhagen said with regards to how to implement the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this was incumbent on the Member States of the Council, as well as on the indigenous peoples and non-governmental organizations. It was also a matter for international cooperation. It lent itself to different levels of approach - institutional change, administration of justice, and the adoption of public policies intended to promote human rights-based development for indigenous peoples. This also leant itself to the important matter of “free, prior, and informed consent”, which was a matter which required appropriate methodology. Reference was often made to consultation with indigenous peoples, but this was often ineffective, as it did not take into account the real needs of the indigenous peoples concerned. More refined methodological and detailed work was required in that regard.

Mr. Scheinin, in concluding remarks, said many delegations had addressed his report on economic, social and cultural rights, including China, Sri Lanka and others. He had specifically avoided conclusions on normative issues but believed the report served a purpose and acknowledged that there was more to do. Portugal, on behalf of the European Union, had asked about interaction with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and meetings were intended and would hopefully lead to a general comment. Comments in the report regarding Turkey went no further than in the original mission report that had been presented to the Human Rights Council previously. The Security Council had stated that any national counter-terrorism legislation should take into consideration international human rights law.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the reports on indigenous people and counter-terrorism were Argentina, Ecuador, Finland, Turkey, Thailand, Spain, Nepal, Iran and Tanzania.

The following national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations also took the floor on this issue: National Human Rights Institution of Malaysia, Colombia Commission of Jurists, Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples, Legal Commission for the Self-Determination of Indigenous Andean Peoples, South African Human Rights Commission, Heritage Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International.

The Council today is holding three back-to-back meetings from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. When the Council concluded its morning meeting, it immediately started its midday meeting during which it will hold a review, rationalization and improvement of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism.

Review, Rationalisation and Improvement of Mandate of Representative of Secretary-General on Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons

Presentation by Sponsor of Draft Resolution on Mandate of Representative of Secretary-General on Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria), introducing the resolution on the mandate as the main sponsor, said that, Walter Kalin and his predecessor had highlighted the human rights challenges that were attached to internally displaced persons. These persons faced problems which related to the enjoyment of basic human rights. Addressing the various dimensions of internally displaced persons effectively required not only the implementation of existing normative standards but also the coordination of efforts for concrete and operational steps on the national and international level as well as continuous commitment for the assistance of concerned States.

Since its initial establishment in 1992, the mandate had contributed to the strengthening of the international community’s response to internally displaced persons. It had exercised an important function in mobilizing the involved UN bodies and had enhanced the dialogue with governments and relevant non-governmental organizations. The sponsors proposed to extend the mandate for three years with specific terms of reference that built on the core elements of the mandate. The need for a continuous dialogue with Governments and other relevant actors was one core element. The mainstreaming of human rights of internally displaced persons into all relevant parts of the UN system was envisaged, as well as the strengthening of the international response to displacement. The mandate had contributed to identifying the causes of internal displacement, the needs and rights of internally displaced persons, assistance and durable solutions.

Statement by Representative of Secretary-General on Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons

WALTER KALIN, Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, said internal displacement had been at the centre of State preoccupations and of the Council and its predecessor for the past 15 years. Although progress had been made in clarifying the normative framework for the protection of internally displaced persons and in the institutional responses both by Governments and by the United Nations as a system, the number of internally displaced persons had not diminished significantly. In order to address the plight of the internally displaced, the Commission had established in 1992 the mandate of the Representative. In 2004, the title changed, with a clearer focus on the protection of the human rights of internally displaced persons.

Mr. Kalin said his strategy in carrying out his mandate was built on the realisation that internally displaced persons could fully enjoy their human rights only if several elements were in place. First, a strong normative framework was needed, and in this regard he had focused and would continue to focus on the promotion of the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Second, without strong political will, even the best norms remained ineffective. Missions and follow-up visits served to enter into dialogue with Governments, regional organizations, civil society and other relevant actors with a view to convince them to do more to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of the displaced. Third, internally displaced persons would not be able to fully enjoy their human rights if States that carried the primary responsibility for protecting and assisting them lacked the capacity to do so. Finally, all should be able to respond flexibly to new challenges as they occurred.

Today, Mr. Kalin said, he concluded that the mandate as it was currently formulated gave him sufficient flexibility to intervene at different levels and in different manners for the defence of the human rights of internally displaced persons. The mandate had proven to be particularly fruitful. However, challenges, including the fact that the large majority of internally displaced persons were women and children, with their specific needs that were often neglected, remained serious. While all could hope for a world where those who had to flee because of conflict or had been displaced by other causes were fully protected and assisted by their Governments and the international community, they should be realistic: the human rights of internally displaced persons continued to be disregarded and violated in all parts of the world. As long as this reality persisted, the mandate remained a necessity.

General Debate on Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Representative of Secretary-General on Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons

FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons for his invaluable efforts since 2004. The mandate had had a strong focus on dialogue and had served as a focal point concerning internal displacement. The magnitude of the problem persisted despite achievements, with 24 million internally displaced persons worldwide.

The Representative was asked for comments on his experience with regard to the mainstreaming of human rights; on linkages between the mandate and regional organizations in the role of the promotion and protection of human rights; on whether there should be a continued focus on the particular difficulties faced by women and children affected by internal displacement; and on efforts to promote a human rights–based approach to humanitarian action in the context of natural disasters.

IHAB GAMALELDIN (Egypt) speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that Africa was a continent with millions of internally displaced persons and thus it was a sensitive issue for them. Internally displaced persons remained by definition citizens of their countries, unlike refugees, and hence they remained subject to their national laws. The African Group was actively engaged in consultations with Austria, and this was facilitating the current review of the mandate. More than ever before the international community was called to ensure that all support provided to affected States respected international and national laws. The African Group considered the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement to be an important framework. Following events like the tsunami and abduction of children by a non-governmental organization, all actors should respect international and national law.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the concerns related to internally displaced persons were mostly of a humanitarian nature - the human rights dimension arose as a result of the vulnerability of internally displaced persons, who, without a clear strategy, could face extreme poverty and socio-economic exclusion. The most vulnerable among them required support and assistance. Currently a large number of humanitarian agencies were addressing the needs of internally displaced persons. These humanitarian agencies responded to the immediate requirements of the internally displaced on the request of concerned Governments. The primary responsibility of addressing the needs of internally displaced persons remained with the concerned Government.

In undertaking the review of the mandate, the Council should take into account the concern expressed during the institution-building exercise for the need for consistency and uniformity in the nomenclature of the mandate. This review should also firstly ensure that there was no overlap between the activities of the humanitarian agencies and the mandate. The mandate should also examine the situation of internally displaced persons because of policies in territories that were occupied. In this context, such policies of occupying powers should be examined and recommendations made to be adopted by the Council.

BO QIAN (China) said that the institution building document laid out that there should be a range of mandates and there should be clear procedures for the selection of representatives and deciding on the possible extension of a mandate. The mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General for the human rights of internally displaced persons raised the question of uniformity of titles of Special Procedures.

HEIDI LEE SMITH (Canada) said that Canada strongly supported the renewal of the mandate. More than 24 million people throughout the world were internally displaced persons. Internally displaced persons were often the most vulnerable persons. There was a need for coordinated efforts to provide support to those persons and ensure them a lasting return. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement were an important document. The Representative was playing an important advocacy role and it was important for him to receive a strong mandate.

NATALIA ZOLOTOVA (Russian Federation) said the activities of Mr. Kalin were viewed positively as a whole, and the Russian Federation supported the extension of the mandate. His efforts to raise awareness among the international community as to the plight of indigenous peoples were recognised, as were his efforts to enhance the institutional basis. The cooperation between him and the United Nations system as a whole, and with other international and regional organizations, was appreciated. The cooperation between him and other United Nations subsidiary bodies should be further strengthened in order to create a strategy to protect the rights of the internally displaced. His activities should be carried out objectively, and in the framework of the Code of Conduct.

What were Mr. Kalin’s views on the following, the Russian Federation asked: what was the way out of the situation in which the title of his mandate was actually in contradiction with the founding document of the Council.

NATHALIE KOHLI (Switzerland) said that because internally displaced persons had not crossed an international border, they were often left in a precarious position and without protection. The Guiding Principles on displaced persons gave an indispensable reference framework. Although the Principles were not binding, they did reflect the current state of protection given by human rights and humanitarian law.

The Representative of the Secretary-General was required to work across these two areas, with humanitarian actors, human rights defenders, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and with the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees as well as the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The renewal of the mandate of the Representative was unreservedly supported.

MOHINDER SINGH GROVER (India) said that the informal consultations had established a broad support within the Council for the continuation of a Special Procedure mechanism on internally displaced persons. But in the mandate currently discussed, there was a fundamental issue which needed to be addressed by the Council. The title of this mandate implied that the Secretary-General had made the appointment. A renewal in the same form would mean that the mandate holder would continue to be appointed by the Secretary-General. The institution-building package had clearly provided for a uniform procedure for the appointment of Special Procedures mandate holders. This issue had wide implications and the Council should make a considered decision. A satisfactory answer had yet not been found.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan) said despite some positive developments with finding a durable solution for internally displaced persons, the total number of these had remained worryingly high for many years. The situation of internally displaced persons was the area in which the United Nations had to strengthen its cooperation and collaborative action in identifying comprehensive approaches for the remaining caseloads. Protection of internally displaced persons had recently started to receive ever-increasing attention by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees through the establishment of a new cluster approach.

It was Azerbaijan’s strong opinion that it was only rational to extend the mandate of the Special Representative, given the magnitude and scope of the problems with internally displaced persons all over the world today, and the current efforts by the international community to target this issue. The mandate had played a crucial role in raising the level of awareness about the plight of internally displaced persons, and mainstreaming the human rights of internally displaced persons into all relevant parts of the United Nations system. While supporting the extension of the mandate for the next three years, Azerbaijan hoped that the Representative would continue, among others, efforts towards strengthening the international response to internal displacement, and engaging in coordinated international advocacy and action for improving protection of the human rights of internally displaced persons.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that this was the first mandate under the title of Representative of the Secretary-General to be considered under the review, rationalization and improvement procedures. During the institution building discussion, it was noted that all mandate holders should hold unified nomenclature. Was there any additional advantage gained for the mandate holder with the title of Special Representative rather than Special Rapporteur?

The mandate often involved issues of human rights and also humanitarian law. The scope of the Human Rights Council should be restricted to human rights. To what extent did the Special Representative focus on human rights and what overlap had he experienced? If there was overlap, how should this be dealt with?

ALAIN PORQUET (Côte d’Ivoire) said that Special Procedures were the heart of the United Nations in the field of human rights. The Government of Côte d’Ivoire had extensively worked with the mandate holders. It was important to maintain Special Procedures to detect and settle human rights issues. The extension of the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons was encouraged.

SEBASTIEN MUTOMB MUJING (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the phenomenon of internally displaced persons had grown over recent years, and Africa was the continent which was most affected by the problem. This humanitarian disaster generally made worse the situation of populations that were already living in a situation of socio-economic precariousness. Internally displaced persons were human beings that had the right to be assisted as were those who had taken refuge outside national borders. Governments found it very difficult to help them. To protect their right to life, there was a need for larger means, which these countries, often in post-conflict situations, did not have.

The socio-economic reinsertion of internally displaced persons and all support services could not take place without problems. Governments were often also confronted with the issue of the return of refugees from outside the borders - and thus international solidarity was required, and this latter was an important component of third generation human rights. The mandate on the rights of the internally displaced persons provided a means of responding to the situation. The international community, in keeping with the Millennium Declaration, should lend a constant ear to the humanitarian situation in countries, and provide them with required assistance.

LEVAN MIKELADZE (Georgia) thanked the Representative of the Secretary-General for his help with the development of the National Strategy of Georgia on Internally Displaced Persons and the Action Plan at the domestic level. With two frozen conflicts, Georgia had experienced the magnitude of the problem of internally displaced persons. Positive steps had been made in strengthening the international response to the situation in Georgia.

The mandate of the Special Representative was strongly supported as it acted as a connecting edge among United Nations institutions and bodies involved in the protection and assistance of internally displaced persons. There were 24 million internally displaced persons around the world and there was a strong need for the continuation of the mandate.

VEBJORN HEINES (Norway) said that today’s discussed mandate had become an institution that played a crucial role. The issue of internally displaced persons was complex. They had often been let down by their governments and unlike refugees they did not have an international organisation to deal with their plight. Due to their displacement, internally displaced persons had specific needs, reflected in the Guiding Principles. A lot of progress had been made thanks to this mandate.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said Algeria recognised the wisdom and commitment of Walter Kalin, the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons. The mandate holder should be the representative of the authority which defined the mandate, and appointed that person. Mr. Kalin considered the mandate as providing him with “sufficient flexibility”, but the mandate needed to meet the concerns of the Member States. The visits of the mandate-holders should take place at the request of the Member States. In view of the recognised inter-relatedness of the mandate with other areas, there was a need to spell out the way of addressing the latter. The mandate needed to cover the plight of internally displaced persons in lands under foreign occupation. The extension of the mandate should include some additions to the mandate. There was a need for a horizontal discussion of the reform, rationalisation and improvement of mandates beyond the case-by-case approach.

ABDULMONEM ANNAN (Syria) said that, with a focus on the humanitarian situation, there was a great problem with people displaced from the Golan Heights through foreign occupation and the demolition of 164 villages. Israel had prevented their return in clear breach of a Security Council resolution. An effective strategy was required to prevent a recurrence and States should comply with international law and Security Council resolutions.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) thanked the representative of the Secretary-General for internally displaced persons for his very valuable work since 2004, and appreciated the document he presented containing an evaluation of the mandate. In particular, Argentina took note of the challenges faced by internally displaced persons in the special context of natural disasters and the peace process, and the work undertaken to address those challenges. Argentina also reaffirmed the important role played by the Special Procedures mandate holders in the global system for the promotion and protection of human rights. For those reasons, Argentina supported the continuation of the mandate related to the protection of internally displaced persons and the continuation of the work of the Representative of the Secretary-General, in collaboration with the other United Nations bodies on this theme, as well as with non-governmental organizations concerned.

RAHMA SALIH ELOBIED (Sudan), said Sudan wished to thank Mr. Kalin for his report and for having followed the issue of internally displaced persons which concerned the protection of an important category of people. Regarding the Sudanese experience, the main element for the significant success achieved was linked to dealing with the displacement problem through cooperation between the Government, the relevant mechanisms such as the International Organization for Migration, and other organizations such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. There was cooperation to implement these guidelines, specific plans, and priorities. Although armed groups were trying to destabilise the situation in the three Darfur States, the Government of national unity and the local Government had provided the conditions for voluntary return. Mr. Kalin should continue his greatly-appreciated cooperation with the Sudanese authorities and ensure the necessary technical assistance for voluntary return of the displaced. Sudan welcomed his visit next February and commended his professionalism and competence in this field.

ALMA VIVIANA PEREZ GOMEZ (Colombia) said that, thanks to a sustained effort by the State, there had a reduction in the number of internally displaced persons in Colombia. An unprecedented budgetary effort of $ 400 million had been made for the care and assistance of internally displaced persons. There had been progress but there were still challenges, including economic stabilization and the protection of land rights.

The mandate of the Representative had fostered greater awareness and the sharing of conditions of people in this situation. There was a need to coordinate with and obtain consent of concerned States, but Colombia, having suffered these problems, supported extending the mandate and trusted that work would continue to assist people. The Government would work with international, national and regional bodies and civil society organizations to reduce the suffering of internally displaced persons.

OMER BERZINJI (Iraq) presented Iraq's condolences to Algeria and Lebanon and the United Nations, and to all those that had suffered from terrorist attacks. In that regard, Iraq thanked the Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights of internally displaced persons, Walter Kalin, for his extremely important report on that issue.

Iraq had suffered mass displacements, especially in the capital. Despite that, Iraq had been working to improve the situation, and had even witnessed a reversal of the flow recently, with a great number of people returning to their homes. The security situation had improved compared to the past. Indeed, only an improvement in the security situation would allow for returns, and in that context, Iraq called on the international community to assist the country. In addition to working to improve the security situation to allow for returns, Iraq was also providing financial help to those returning.

KAROLINA LINDHOLM-BILLING, of United Nations Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said UNHCR greatly valued the cooperation with the mandate holder. For UNHCR, the Special Procedures constituted an important protection tool, as they could help increase the extent to which the human rights of persons of concern to the body were respected, protected and fulfilled. Of particular importance to UNHCR were the country visits, which helped to advance issues relevant to the protection of internally displaced persons and finding solutions for them. When appropriate, UNHCR and the mandate holder also undertook joint public advocacy activities, research projects, and coordinated efforts to promote a rights-based approach to internally-displaced persons programming and activities. The collaboration was governed by the principles of complementarity, mutual support and coordination, taking into account the distinct but complementary mandates and responsibilities. UNHCR strongly supported the extension of the mandate.

JUSTINIAN M. KATEERA (Uganda) said that Africa had the highest proportion of internally displaced persons worldwide. Uganda had co-sponsored the resolution and looked forward to working closely with Mr. Kalin.

SYLVIE KAYITESI, of National Commission for Human Rights of Rwanda and the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions, said that the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions had considered the question of the role of national human rights institution in the protection of internally displaced persons during its sixth biannual conference, held in Kigali from 8 to 10 October 2007. In the resolution adopted at the end of the conference, the African National Human Rights Institutions committed themselves, among others, to helping displaced persons and setting up a legal and policy framework according to the principles outlined by the United Nations in this area; to monitor internally displaced person camps in their countries; and called on States to ratify the United Nations instruments on internally displaced persons.

CHRISTOPHE BEAU, of Norwegian Refugee Council, said internal displacement was often in itself a violation of human rights, when ordered arbitrarily, or was the direct result of the most serious threats to life, integrity and security. The mandate had been an instrumental voice advocating for the protection of internally displaced persons with national authorities and the international community. The Human Rights Council should renew the mandate devoted to the protection of internally displaced persons’ human rights, based on the current term of reference. In particular, the mandate should continue to focus on the responsibility and capacity of national authorities in the protection of internally displaced persons, in particular by engaging a dialogue with them. The mandate should also aim to ensure that the protection gaps on the ground could be bridged by the international community.

ISABELLE HEYER, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, called for the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons to be extended. The mandate had contributed to the protection of the rights of internally displaced persons. States had a responsibility to establish national standards and to implement them. The Human Rights Council was called upon to prevent violations of the rights of internally displaced persons, prosecute perpetrators of violations, and promote the adoption of means to compensate internally displaced persons.

GAGRI POYRAZ, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, thanked the Representative of the Secretary-General for internally displaced persons for his efforts in raising awareness about the plight of internally displaced persons, especially their human rights and humanitarian situation. The International Human Rights Association of American Minorities urged the Human Rights Council to provide a stronger and strengthened mandate for the Representative of the Secretary-General. The mandate should have a gender-based perspective and should focus on developing strategies for the prevention of displacement. The Association also wished to draw attention to Indian-held Kashmir, where a large number of people had been forced to leave their homes because of the occupation policies of the Indian Government.

CHAIRMANE TAYKI, of Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, in a joint statement with International Institute for Peace; and World Peace Council, said in the past decade it was the advance of terrorism and random violence, which had a direct impact on forcing people from their homes. Natural disasters resulted in uprooting huge segments of the population. The efforts made in India and Pakistan to rehabilitate those affected by the earthquake were commended. The plight of internally displaced persons should be addressed by ensuring that genuine grievances were addressed not by force but by genuine dialogue.

Concluding Remarks on Mandate of Representative of Secretary-General on Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons

WALTER KALIN, Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, responding to questions from Russia and Bangladesh about his title, said other mandates related to promoting rights, but his mandate was linked to mainstreaming rights. This process took place inside the United Nations organizations and he felt that this position was important. The title of Representative of the Secretary-General provided access to internal senior staff at a level of equality, as well as access to country teams with authority. A Representative of the Secretary-General was also an invitee at the Inter-Agency Standing Committee.

With respect to the overlapping of the human rights role with humanitarian issues, he said the aim was complementarity and there was no overlap. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs was operational whereas his role enabled him to identify gaps in the protection of the rights of internally displaced persons, which was very different.

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria), speaking as main sponsor of the draft resolution on the mandate, thanked delegations for their useful comments and questions which would guide the Council towards being able to adopt by consensus a continuation of the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General for internally displaced persons. Austria also reiterated its support for the current mandate holder, Mr. Kalin. Austria had taken careful note of the comments made, which had confirmed their belief that there needed to be a Special Procedures mandate to address the complex question of internal displacement. In doing so, the Council should build on the existing framework and on past accomplishments when deciding on the extension of the mandate.

The Council also had an opportunity to further redefine and thus clarify the mandate. An important issue that had been raised in the course of the interactive dialogue was the status of Secretary-General's Representative. The same reasons that had led to the association of the mandate holder with the Secretary-General still existed today, in Austria's view. It particularly applied to the mandate's unique mainstreaming function, as his participation in the Interagency Standing Committee testified. It was clear that the mandate was a Special Procedure, the mandate had always been accountable to the Commission, and would be accountable to the Council as well. The six-year term limit for mandate holders would also apply to internally displaced persons. As Mr. Kalin had yet to serve three years in his mandate, the extension of his mandate by three years would allow him to serve out his full term. In light of the discussions of the draft resolutions this week, a revised text had been prepared, which had been shared with delegations and open-ended consultations would continue. Austria was confident agreement would be reached on the mandate by the end of the week.

Interactive Dialogue on Reports on Human Rights of Indigenous People and Protection of Human Rights when Countering Terrorism

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said Argentina had traditionally supported the work of both Special Rapporteurs, and would like to see their mandates maintained. The information provided on the protection and promotion of human rights of indigenous peoples and on economic, social and cultural rights in the fight against terrorism was gratefully received. What were the Special Rapporteur’s views on how to follow up the issue of indigenous peoples in the Council, and what was the relationship between his role and other bodies promoting the rights of indigenous peoples? What were the views of the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the fight against terrorism, and how would this continue in the context of the Council?

LUIS VAYAS (Ecuador) said that the issue of indigenous people was of essential importance. Indigenous people made up a large part of the population of Ecuador and the Constitution guaranteed their rights. Human rights and development were essential and were an essential part of the work of the United Nations and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Ecuador was proud of the fact that indigenous people were becoming more involved in local and national decision-making. The United Nations Population Fund was thanked for funding the Jambi Huasi health centre in the Ecuadorean Andes, which aimed to maintain, manage and protect traditional medicine and the 3,600 plants involved.

PEKKA AIKIO (Finland) said that one of the most important ways of improving the rights of indigenous peoples was indeed by involving them in the decision making process. He was himself a representative of the Sammi Parliament in Finland, a body through which the determination of Saami people was expressed. Could the Special Rapporteur elaborate further on the need to place particular attention to vulnerable and marginalized groups within indigenous communities? Also, what was the Special Rapporteur’s view on the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals in relation to the indigenous people?

AHMET UZUMCU (Turkey) said Turkey fully cooperated with all mandate holders on issues that fell within the scope of their mandates, and strongly believed that all States should fully respect and protect human rights, the rule of law and democratic principles in the fight against terrorism. For an effective cooperation with the Special Procedures, it was important that the countries concerned should be the first recipients of any conclusion or recommendation that was directed to them in either thematic or country-specific reports. The report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism touched on issues such as adequate housing, the right to education, internally displaced persons and indigenous peoples, all of which fell within the scope of other mandates.

The report also referred to the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, in the context of prevention of terrorism. However, this section did not include strategies to prevent terrorism or to eliminate the conditions conducive to terrorism, which were addressed elsewhere in the document. There was a wide range of factors which created fertile grounds for terrorism. It was wishful thinking to assume that the world would be free of terrorism once social and economic rights were realised for all. There should be a multi-disciplinary approach in order to analyse the conditions that created suitable grounds for terrorism - such an analysis could not be entrusted to a single mechanism. It was highly desirable that all mandate holders observe the rules and principles agreed upon while fulfilling their tasks.

LADA PHUMAS (Thailand) expressed concern that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples did not contain a universally applied definition of “indigenous peoples”. It should be recognized that every country had different historical and cultural backgrounds and the experiences of many Asian countries, including Thailand, were distinct from those of other regions. There was scope for flexibility of interpretation, but also for the possibility of misunderstanding and confusion when the term was used interchangeably with “ethnically diverse groups”.

The importance of interpreting the Declaration in accordance with the principles of territorial integrity or political unity was reiterated. It was important that the Declaration should be interpreted in accordance with the Constitution and domestic laws of the country concerned and the human rights instruments to which the country was a party.

SILVIA ESCOBAR (Spain) said that Spain attached great importance to the issue of indigenous people. Spain had implemented a strategy to promote cooperation with indigenous people. Protection of indigenous peoples was one of the priorities of the Government. On terrorism, the Government of Spain had always worked with the Special Rapporteurs and the current one would get as much cooperation as possible. Spain was unfortunately suffering from terrorism. Fundamental freedoms and human rights were of fundamental value. The rule of law and procedural guarantees had always been principles that were ensured. It was hoped that the Special Rapporteur would be able to make use of the best existing practices.

DINESH BHATTARAI (Nepal) said with regards to the report on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, the report appeared to have ignored the views of States and the work done to remedy the situation of indigenous peoples. Nepal was a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-lingual country, passing through a transition to peace and democracy, and had taken a range of measures to ensure the enjoyment of all human rights for all in the country, without discrimination, and involving all sections of society, and ensuring their participation in decision-making at all levels. Nepal had set up institutional mechanisms which protected and promoted human rights, ensuring their effective enforcement. The Government also had a policy to protect indigenous languages and culture.

ESHRAGI JAHROMI (Iran) joined the Special Rapporteur in expressing grave concern about the situation of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay and other locations by the United States. The Government of the United States was called upon to respect its obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law in Iraq and Afghanistan and to close Guantanamo Bay detention centre as promised as soon as possible.

Iran shared with the Special Rapporteur the view that the barrier constructed by Israel was illegal and created an apartheid and impacted severely on the economic, social and cultural rights and the civil and political rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Torture, the use of human shields, demolition of houses and the killing of civilians by the Israeli regime forces were regrettable actions which needed to be condemned by the international community.

BARAKA LUVANDA (Tanzania) said that Tanzania was striving to heed to all the fundamental principles in dealing with the Hadzabe community. The Constitution guaranteed equality for all Tanzanians in the enjoyment of their rights. It was difficult to apply the “indigenous” term to the Hadzabe, as it was felt that they deserved equal treatment. The Government of Tanzania hoped that it was doing everything possible, on this matter, that a government could do.

JAYASOORIA, of National Human Rights Institution of Malaysia, said with regards to the report of Mr. Stavenhagen, he had rightly linked violations of indigenous peoples to dispossession from the land, which was not only their roots, but also the source of their livelihood. Future reports should also provide an in-depth analysis of indigenous peoples, especially communities in interior forest sections and their access to public-funded services such as education, health care, agricultural development and their inclusion into national poverty programmes. While Millennium Development Goals had often been used as a methodology to assess minimal national development, a disaggregated approach could provide a useful comparison between indigenous communities and mainstream-dominant communities, providing an accurate picture of their denial or lack of access or inclusion into national economic, social and cultural development programmes.

ISABELLE HEYER, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, highlighted the lack of implementation of consultative mechanisms provided for in Colombian legislation. The Government of Colombia’s Ministry of Mines and Energy had announced that it intended to commence construction of a dam that would inundate an area of 60,000 hectares, jeopardizing the lives and livelihoods of local indigenous people. The Government was called upon to fulfil the rulings of the Constitutional Court where the Government had undertaken not to construct the dam.

ADELFO REGINO, of Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples, said that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was a framework in assessing the fundamental rights of indigenous people. Development had been used as an excuse to strip them of their land and indigenous people and their land were seen as objects. Their land had a high value and they needed to be able enjoy their cultural rights. It was essential to feel that the legal instruments gave them the opportunity to enjoy their rights.

TOMAS ALARCON, of Juridical Commission for Auto-Development of First Andean Peoples (CAPAJ), said in the report by the Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples great value was attached to the human rights approach, and he identified indigenous peoples as possessing human rights by themselves, as well as forming a collective among the nations. The report stated that indigenous peoples as such were subject to human rights, this concept was based on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Special Rapporteur should include other international agreements and conventions in his report. There should be self-management and self-control of indigenous peoples over their territories to generate their own economies, overcoming their poverty by themselves and not through paternalism. Indigenous communities should take part in Governments as such.

KHATARINA ROSE, of South African Human Rights Commission, hoped that the South African National Prosecuting Authority would refrain from relying on in camera criminal proceedings for terrorism suspects unless absolutely necessary. The potential for abuse of non-nationals in detention was high due to delays in processing of applications. There was currently no monitoring process in place for persons deprived of their liberty, and police detention facilities were of particular concern.

STEVEN GROVES, of Heritage Foundation, said that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights required the United States to guarantee the rights of all individuals within its territory and subjected to its jurisdiction. However, the Special Rapporteur’s report saw the Covenant as having no territorial limitation. The interpretation of the Covenant was no mere legal technicality. It was regrettable that the report ignored both the plain language and the negotiation history of Article Two of the Covenant. In General Comment number 31, the Committee had chosen to ignore the original intent of the Covenant’s author, by lifting the territorial restriction. It was not relevant to rely upon the Covenant to address United States detention policy in Cuba or United States counterterrorism practices in other parts of the world. The Special Rapporteur should focus his efforts on the activities going on within United States territory, in accordance with Article 2 of the Covenant.

JAMIL DAKWAR, of American Civil Liberties Union, said the work of the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of human rights while countering terrorism and his report and findings on his recent visit to the United States did not, unfortunately, come as a surprise. Over the last six years, the United States’ Government had abandoned the bedrock principle of the rule of law. It was quite clear that senior United States officials had been directly and indirectly involved in the widespread and systematic abuse and torture of prisoners, yet not a single high-ranking military or civilian leader had been criminally investigated and charged for this crime. Retroactive legislation protecting perpetrators of torture was not enough for the United States’ Government - there was a deliberate cover-up of potential criminal activity. Memos authorised the Central Intelligence Agency to engage in torture, with the promise of immunity for interrogators. The United States’ Government should end this shameful chapter of its history and restore full respect for the rule of law.

PATRIZIA SCANELLA, of Amnesty International, said that, since 2001, the United States’ Government had applied its unilateral interpretation of the law to justify the indefinite detention of persons without charge or trial. It had asserted that the international human rights law was generally not applicable to this detention regime. Their detention had been removed from judicial scrutiny. The United States continued to maintain that it acted lawfully, but the Special Rapporteur’s report showed that it did not. Unfortunately, many other States have also enthusiastically decided to conduct the war on terror at the expense of human rights, as was the case in Pakistan since last month. It was hoped that the United States’ authorities would correct these incompatibilities.

Concluding Remarks by Special Rapporteurs on Indigenous Peoples and Counter-Terrorism

RUDOLPHO STAVENHAGEN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights of indigenous peoples, in concluding remarks on the dialogue, said he thanked the Member States of the Council and the non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions for their comments on his report. A number of specific questions were put by a number of countries in the European Union, referring to the rights of indigenous peoples, the question of economic, social and cultural indicators, and the relationship between indigenous peoples and the environment, which latter was an outstanding matter requiring specific methodological treatment so that it was possible to have development programmes and projects vis-à-vis indigenous peoples with appropriate knowledge of these indicators.

In his reports to the countries he had visited and in general terms he had recommended that work be done on the appropriate indicators. It was particularly important when a community had been rendered almost invisible, such as indigenous communities in urban areas - the problem of these communities had not been addressed, and called for particular consideration. On his views concerning implementation of the Declaration, Mr. Stavenhagen said he had recommended to the Council that special attention be paid to problems confronting or affecting implementation of the Declaration in various contexts in its submission to the General Assembly. This was a long-term undertaking, and he hoped the Council would favourably view the adoption of the mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples.

With regards to how to implement the Declaration, this was incumbent on the Member States of the Council, as well as on the indigenous peoples and non-governmental organizations. It was also a matter for international cooperation. It lent itself to different levels of approach - institutional change, administration of justice, and the adoption of public policies intended to promote human rights-based development for indigenous peoples. This also leant itself to the important matter of “free, prior, and informed consent”, which was a matter which required appropriate methodology. Reference was often made to consultation with indigenous peoples, but this was often ineffective, as it did not take into account the real needs of the indigenous peoples concerned. More refined methodological and detailed work was required in that regard.

With regards to the comment of the Asian Group and the annex concerning the human rights of indigenous peoples in Asia, that study had been entrusted to the Special Rapporteur by the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The Special Rapporteur accepted the definition of those groups that defined themselves as indigenous.

MARTIN SCHEININ, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, said there had been many useful and constructive responses to the report. All comments had been noted and would be responded to in due course. However, in response the United States’ question regarding his recent visit, the Guantanamo Bay command had offered a 50 per cent solution, referred to as a tour by the United States delegate here. The Special Rapporteurs had fought for years to establish their mandate and there was a documented terms of reference that included unhindered access to detainees and the right to unmonitored interviews with them. Some colleagues undertaking similar monitoring visits would not even accept an invitation unless full access to detainees had been granted. He was happy to meet with representatives of the United States and could perhaps accept a further visit to the United States without access to talk freely to the detainees.

Many other delegations had addressed his report on economic, social and cultural rights, including China, Sri Lanka and others. He had specifically avoided conclusions on normative issues but believed the report served a purpose and acknowledged that there was more to do. Portugal, on behalf of the European Union, had asked about interaction with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and meetings were intended and would hopefully lead to a general comment. Comments in the report regarding Turkey went no further than in the original mission report that had been presented to the Human Rights Council previously. The Security Council had stated that any national counter-terrorism legislation should take into consideration international human rights law.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07086E