HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES INTERACTIVE DEBATE WITH HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ON REPORT OF HER OFFICE

The Human Rights Council today concluded its interactive debate with High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour on the report of her Office.

Responding to the comments and questions on her report, Ms. Arbour said it seemed that there was some confusion among some delegations. There were different documents. One was the Strategic Framework, which was the official bi-annual programme plan of the United Nations Secretariat as a whole, of which the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) was a part. One regulation of the Strategic Framework said that relevant intergovernmental bodies should review it. The Human Rights Council was not considered one such intergovernmental body. A second document was the Strategic Management Plan, which was her own management tool. It operationalised the vision presented in the May 2005 Plan of Action. The Strategic Management Plan was a managerial initiative the High Commissioner had taken so as to enhance coordination inside her Office in Geneva and in the field for maximum utilization of resources given to the Office. The Joint Inspection Unit’s report suggestions that the Human Rights Council had any oversight over the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights were wrong.

On the issue of the geographic distribution of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ staff, Ms. Arbour said that she believed they had made some efforts going in the right direction. On the field presences, she noted that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was not pursuing a disproportionate representation in regional presence. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was present where there were peace missions. Peace keeping missions were decided on by the Security Council. A majority of field missions were taking place in Africa. On technical assistance and capacity building, Ms. Arbour said that they continued to strengthen their programme through various initiatives. They would in the future also be integrated inside peace keeping missions.

At the end of the statement, Ms. Arbour expressed her gratitude for the comments made by the delegates about her decision not to seek a second term in office.

All speakers praised the work of the High Commissioner and expressed regret at her announcement this morning that she would not be seeking a second term in Office at the end of her mandate in June 2008. Some speakers said it was crucial that the independence and integrity of the Office of the High Commissioner was maintained. Others said that a better picture of the Office’s budgetary requirements would enable the Council to seek adequate financial support to the Office.

Representatives of Liechtenstein, Norway, Bangladesh, Switzerland, Nepal, Austria, Chile, Morocco, Romania, Czech Republic, Italy, Malaysia, Japan, Syria, Luxembourg, Thailand, Sudan, Belgium, Turkey, Maldives, New Zealand, Nigeria, Tunisia, United States and Haiti took the floor today as did the African Union.

The following non-governmental organizations also provided statements : Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, speaking on behalf of Pax Romana and Asian Legal Resource Centre, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples, Amnesty International, United Nations Watch, International Commission of Jurists, Human Rights Watch, North-South XXI and Lawyers Rights Watch Canada.

The Council is holding three back-to-back meetings today from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. After the Council heard the response of the High Commissioner at 3 o’clock after a 30 minute break, it started its discussion at 4 p.m. on a number of reports presented by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and by the Secretary-General, as well as the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants.

Response of the High Commissioner

LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding to the comments and questions on her report, said that, on the role the Council had vis-a-vis the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights’ management, firstly it seemed that there was some confusion among some delegations. There were different documents. One was the Strategic Framework, which was the official bi-annual programme plan of the United Nations Secretariat as a whole, of which the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) was a part. The Strategic Framework and its budget had been approved by the General Assembly. The Strategic Framework for 2008-2009 was approved by the General Assembly in 2006, based on which the budget for OHCHR for 2008-2009 was approved at the end of last year. This document contained indicators that were called performance monitors for programme commitments. These monitors were then put before the General Assembly. This was part of the United Nations machinery. One regulation of the Strategic Framework said that relevant intergovernmental bodies should review it. The Human Rights Council was not considered one such intergovernmental body. As a result, there were neither legal obligations nor foundations for the Council’s input. She had submitted the document to the Council on a volunteer basis and this would not bind her successor to doing the same thing. If the Council wanted to bring its input, it could do so during the June session. This was how the United Nations intergovernmental oversight system was working and all was done under the authority of the Secretary-General.

A second document was the Strategic Management Plan, this was her own management tool, said Ms. Arbour. It operationalised the vision presented in the May 2005 Plan of Action. The Plan of Action was a document which the then Secretary-General had asked of her. The Secretary-General had requested the High Commissioner to produce this document to bring the human rights sector in line with its United Nations reform programme. The Strategic Management Plan was a managerial initiative the High Commissioner had taken so as to enhance coordination inside her Office in Geneva and in the field for maximum utilization of resources given to the Office. It did not originate in any rule or any mandate of any legislative organ. It was formulated for the first time for the biennium 2006-2007.

Ms. Arbour noted that in the Joint Inspection Unit report, there had been assumptions that were not in accordance with what the Secretary-General had stressed. Programme planning and budgeting fell only under the authority of Secretary-General and the General Assembly. The General Assembly lately had reaffirmed that the Fifth Committee was the one assessing the programming, planning and budgeting. Thus, the Joint Inspection Unit’s report suggestions that the Human Rights Council had any oversight over the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights were wrong.

On the issue of the geographic distribution of the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights’ staff, Ms. Arbour said that she believed they had made some efforts going in the right direction. Internal procedures had been improved in order to improve the diversity of the staff. She underlined that they were operating under United Nations Human Resources guidelines that particularly slowed down the whole process. Also, no one had predetermined what the target of the geographic distribution should be, thus they had aligned themselves with the targets of the Secretariat.

On the field presences, Ms. Arbour noted that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was not pursuing a disproportionate representation in regional presence. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was present where there were peace missions. Peace keeping missions were decided on by the Security Council. A majority of field missions were taking place in Africa.

On technical assistance and capacity building, Ms. Arbour said that they continued to strengthen their programme through various initiatives. They would in the future also be integrated inside peace keeping missions. On the relationship between the Office Trust Fund and the Universal Periodic Review trust fund, it would be very important to ensure that the Universal Periodic Review and the follow-up of its decision would be appropriately funded. In the short term it should fund Least Developed Countries and, on longer term, there should be funds provided for various activities in which the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could engage in.

On the Durban Conference, Ms. Arbour urged Member States to engage in the process of regional consultations. Only one region had contacted the Office so far. On the allegation of neglecting the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ work, she noted that it was the highest resource taking presence in the region. On Kenya, they had been grateful to conduct a fact finding mission, colleagues had just returned from their mission and were in the process of preparing their report. On the efforts to engage with national judiciaries, she said that human rights protection was most achieved when engaged on the national level. But to collaborate with the judiciary was a more complex and challenging exercise but they were seeking to start working with judiciaries.

At the end of her statement, Ms. Arbour expressed her gratitude for the comments made by the delegations about her decision not to seek a second term in office. She was looking forward to her continuous interaction with the Council.

Interactive Debate

PATRICK RITTER (Liechtenstein) welcomed this opportunity to engage with the High Commissioner in an interactive dialogue on the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights during the past year. At the same time Liechtenstein was of the view that greater interaction and consultations with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights also had to provide the possibility of reviewing all interested States on an equal footing. For this reason, Liechtenstein commended the High Commissioner for organizing the informal briefing on the Strategic Management Plan last January. Liechtenstein encouraged the High Commissioner to hold similar meetings in the future on issues that were of particular interest to the United Nations membership at large. Liechtenstein joined pervious delegations in expressing support and admiration for the leadership and vision by Louise Arbour in the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide. Liechtenstein particularly commended the High Commissioner for furthering the country engagement of OHCHR in its different forms as well as the enhanced cooperation with regional organizations, such as the Council of Europe. As regards capacity building, Liechtenstein asked the High Commissioner how her office intended to facilitate an efficient use of resources from the Voluntary Trust Fund for Technical Cooperation, on the one hand, and from the new trust fund for capacity building under the Universal Periodic Review process, on the other hand.

BEATE STIRO (Norway) paid tribute to the leading role that the High Commissioner and her Office were playing in the realization of human rights for all, and the independent and effective manner in which she ran her Office. Victims of human rights violations around the world depended on her assistance. It was crucial that the independence and integrity of her office was maintained. In her mandate, it was emphasized that she was the principle human rights official of the United Nations. She had a unique mandate from the General Assembly to promote and protect human rights around the world. Her Office had commendably reached out and engaged in dialogue with the Human Rights Council and the wider United Nations membership in Geneva. Norway considered that the Strategic Management Plan contributed significantly to increased transparency and openness about the objectives and activities of her Office. It was of the utmost importance that the formal oversight of the Secretariat, including the Office of the High Commissioner, was handled by the parent body of the Council, namely, the General Assembly. It was also the parent body that adopted the strategic framework and the budget for the Office through an open and transparent process for all members of the United Nations.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said the High Commissioner’s briefing on the Strategic Management Plan was well appreciated. The Plan had a global implication and had a bearing on all as it concerned human rights across the globe. Bangladesh encouraged the openness of the High Commissioner on the issue and the initiative undertaken by the President. Unfortunately, the attempt did not see any light except the opinion of a legal expert. A better picture of the Office’s budgetary requirements would enable the Council to seek adequate financial support to the body. Bangladesh had high hopes that the Universal Periodic Review would make a positive contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would play a crucial role in providing organizational support and logistics to this. Bangladesh appreciated the High Commissioner for sharing her views on human rights situations in countries that she recently visited and, while recognizing that the situation may not be fully satisfactory in some cases, Bangladesh would suggest that solutions were sought from within the country, through strengthening national mechanisms, not by imposition from the outside.

BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) condemned the terrorist attack in Jerusalem yesterday. As already said yesterday during their statement before the vote on the resolution on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, any human rights violations had to be condemned, wherever they took place. Switzerland welcomed the High Commissioner’s support for the Council. The work of the Council would largely be assessed on its capacity to implement the Universal Periodic Review in the best possible manner. It was important to establish facts in a peace process and the work and the instruments elaborated by the High Commissioner in this view were very much welcomed. Field activities and the increased presence in different countries were also welcomed. The institutional situation was very clear. For Switzerland, all United Nations Member States had the right to speak on the priorities and activities of the Office. The Strategic Management Plan however was an internal document. This document did not require formal acceptation because it was based on the strategic framework adopted by States in New York. Switzerland expressed its deep regret over the High Commissioner’s decision not to seek a second term in office.

BAHRAT RAJ PAUDYAL (Nepal) thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her annual report on the activities of her Office, and welcomed her openness and dedication to the cause of promotion and protection of human rights. Nepal also commended the assistance of her Office to the Human Rights Council; in particular, support to developing countries would be needed in the context of the Universal Periodic Review process. While thanking the High Commissioner for the many national efforts carried out by her Office to provide advice and technological assistance, such as the creation of manuals and guidelines, there could be no substitute for strengthening capacity-building. While technological assistance and advice were good, substantive efforts to engage with national institutions and mechanisms with a view to building their domestic capacities would only have a positive impact on their sustainable capabilities.

In Nepal's view, it was economic, social and cultural rights that were a priority; coherent and specific programmes were required, along with the allocation of substantial resources to promote and protect those rights. Finally, Nepal thanked the High Commissioner for her efforts to help Nepal to prevent statelessness. It had a programme in place to issue citizenship cards. There was no problem of statelessness as such in Nepal.

CHRISTINA KOKKINAKIS (Austria) congratulated the High Commissioner and her staff for the invaluable support to the Human Rights Council and many counties in their efforts to live up to their human rights obligations. The interaction between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council was of great importance. However, it was not the task of the Council to micro-manage the work of the High Commissioner in terms of the Office’s field activities. The Strategic Management Plan was a valuable contribution in the spirit of transparency and cooperation which was appreciated. The High Commissioner was asked to elaborate her views of what would be necessary to further mainstream human rights in order to have an effective impact on the ground. As to the Universal Declaration on Human Right, the High Commissioner was asked how governments could make best use of their efforts being carried out this year in that connection towards the advancement of human rights.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) condemned the terrorist attack in Jerusalem yesterday. The upcoming start-up of the Universal Periodic Review would be a credibility test for the Council. But States also had to respect the letter of what they had agreed to. The work of the Office and the High Commissioner was acknowledged, under which was their contribution in the follow up of the Durban Conference. Chile appreciated the work carried out by the High Commissioner during her term. Her strategic plan for 2008-2009 was leaving the Office on the right path. The honesty, institutionalism, and commitments of the High Commissioner were appreciated. She had been deeply committed to the defence and the promotion of human rights. This came straight from her heart, and she would be missed.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) paid tribute to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, among other things, for raising the visibility of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) from a political, human resources and financial standpoint. Morocco took note with satisfaction of the efforts undertaken by the High Commissioner for Human Rights to enlarge and diversify the interaction of her Office with the Human Rights Council, as well as the process that had been launched to ensure a solid basis for the interaction between the High Commissioner and the Council, while respecting the mandates of each side. It went without saying that the independence and neutrality of the High Commissioner's Office was one of the principles that had to remain intact to guarantee the full and effective functioning of that Office.

Morocco expressed its support for the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, and reiterated that it was indispensable that, both in the reports themselves and during the review, the parameters set out in the Council's resolution 5/1 be fully respected. Morocco attached special importance to the Special Procedures, which were a pillar of the United Nations human rights system. The process of review, rationalization and improvement of those mandates was going well, and ensured that the mandate holders were fully fulfilling their obligations. Finally, while acknowledging progress in achieving equitable geographic representation in OHCHR, Morocco urged efforts to be redoubled in that direction, as the presence at its heart of representatives of different cultures and civilizations would have a positive impact.

FLORENTINA VOICU (Romania) expressed the Romanian Government’s deep sympathy to the families of the Israeli victims of the terrorist attack last night at the seminary school in Jerusalem and firmly condemned those attacks. The High Commissioner and her Office were congratulated for their consistent and dedicated efforts made to the cause of protecting and promoting all human rights, for all, throughout the world. Romania strongly believed that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) was instrumental for the efficient management of the United Nations programme in the field of human rights, in providing international technical assistance and support for Members States for the same goal, to protect the weak and more vulnerable members of the international community’s societies, and its impartiality would benefit all. Moreover, Romania supported the Office’s strategic priorities in the field of human rights. Romania commended the increased involvement of the High Commissioner’s Office in United Nations activities, including through human rights components of the United Nations peace missions, its presence in post-conflict situations and the role of human rights advisers in the United Nations country teams. The Romanian Government supported the independence of OHCHR and reaffirmed its commitment to further contribute to the consolidation of the position of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

VERONIKA STROMSIKOVA (Czech Republic) said the Czech Republic associated itself fully with the words of warm appreciation for the work of the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed in the statement by the European Union, and also voiced its full respect for the independence of her Office. In particular, the Czech Republic supported the Office's efforts to intensify its field presence and to step up technical assistance and expertise to States; that was the right direction for the Office to go in the future. Among the issues tackled by the field offices and experts, it was the training of judges and lawyers and generally work devoted to building up independent and functioning judiciaries that the Czech Republic considered to be of crucial importance to the improvement of human rights situations around the world. In that connection, the High Commissioner was asked what she considered to be the biggest challenges to her Office's engagement in the field of the judiciary and transitional justice?

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) said Italy fully subscribed to the statement delivered by Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, including the strong condemnation of the brutal terrorist attack yesterday in Jerusalem. Since its establishment 15 years ago, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had gone through a sustained process of growth and expansion of its activities, increasing its staff, both in its headquarters and on the ground, and expanding its field presence, thus becoming a reference for the whole human rights machinery of the United Nations system. Bilaterally, Italy had had the opportunity to maintain a very productive dialogue with OHCHR, and had structured a process of annual consultation that represented a main reference for all Italy's human rights activities. With specific reference to the Universal Periodic Review, Italy had decided to support the Trust Fund established by the General Assembly.

Italy asked the High Commissioner, in the context of the activities and events to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, what role did she think human rights education and training could play in order to foster a culture of human rights in different national contexts?

AMRAN MOHAMED ZIN (Malaysia) stated that the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was indeed indispensable for the proper functioning of the Human Rights Council, given in particular the Council’s enhanced status and broader mandate. Effective implementation of the Council’s institutional architecture, as well as other aspects of its mandate, certainly necessitated consistent concrete support from the Office. Malaysia believed the interrelationship between the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) should be further streamlined and strengthened, based on their respective institutional foundations. Malaysia would like to acknowledge the technical support of the OHCHR Regional Office in South East Asia that was extended to the Association of South East Asia Nations in the process of establishing its human rights mechanism. Malaysia was of the view that the importance of the right to development could not be overemphasized and economic development was essentially a prerequisite to the enjoyment of all human rights.

MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan) said the Government of Japan welcomed efforts by the Government of Nepal to consolidate its democracy and to restore a lasting peace and welcomed the announcement of the upcoming Constitutional Assembly on 10 April. As to the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, it was essential for the Government of Sri Lanka to address the situation itself and Japan hoped that the Commission of Inquiry would yield positive results. Japan believed that poverty reduction was essential to enjoy all rights, including the right to development. In that regard, Japan would be hosting a conference in May this year and hoped that meeting would yield fruitful discussions towards the Millennium Development Goals, among other things. Last year, Japan enforced its laws on violence against women and attached great importance to the protection of women from trafficking. Japan had also been making efforts to have a broader and stronger approach to protect and empower persons with disabilities and the Government had signed the Convention on Persons with Disabilities last September. Japan was grateful for the intention of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue and enhance a dialogue with the Council taking into consideration the need for greater interaction between the two bodies.

RANIA AL RIFAIY (Syria) said Syria supported the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Syria thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her statement and her work to enhance and promote human rights. Syria was willing to work with her Office in those endeavours. Syria, for its part, had read the High Commissioner's Strategic Management Plan, which contained chapters on human rights in the Arab region, including Syria. The report had contained some wrong information and poorly portrayed efforts deployed to further human rights in the region. With reference to the plan containing orientations deemed appropriate for the Arab region, had the High Commissioner for Human Rights consulted with the States of the region, or informed herself about the situations there? Syria would have appreciated having been consulted. Syria also had questions about the fact that the plan referred to grave human rights situation in the Arab States, without referring to the worst situation in the region – the daily human rights violations that the Palestinians suffered in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Moreover, having asked the High Commissioner about the situation of detainees, they had only received one answer, very unclear, on the health situation of those detainees. The High Commissioner should not allow any impartiality to effect the functioning of her Office.

JEAN FEYDER (Luxembourg) fully supported the statement of Slovenia on behalf of the European Union. As the Vice-Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jean Asselborn underlined in his intervention last Monday, the guardianship of the High Commissioner by the Human Rights Council would be unacceptable for Luxembourg. The respect for the autonomy and independence of the High Commissioner remained a guarantee of its efficiency and to her credibility.

VIJAVAT ISARABHAKDI (Thailand) recognized that the work done by the High Commissioner had not been an easy one, and admired the courage that she and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had shown in discharging her responsibilities in the midst of daunting challenges. With regard to the OHCHR Head Office, Thailand welcomed the establishment of a Women’s Human Rights and Gender Unit and the transfer to OHCHR of the responsibility for supporting the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women since last January. Thailand hoped that the existing Division for the Advancement of Women of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in New York would work in tandem and close cooperation with the OHCHR to complement on another’s work and enhance mainstreaming of a gender perspective in the work of the human rights. In pursuing this task, however, one should fully understand and take into consideration the specificities of the situation in each country. The work of the Special Representatives should be closely coordinated with the authorities of the countries concerned to yield the most fruitful and accurate results.

IBRAHIM MARGANI IBRAHIM MOHAMED KHEIR (Sudan), referring to the reports of the High Commissioner, said Sudan agreed that impunity was something that one found in all regions of the world and thanked the High Commissioner for her assistance in combating impunity. Regarding the achievement of the economic, social and cultural rights, a particular project concerning a dam in Sudan was noted and it was now possible for people in that region to benefit from it. However, there was a lack of interest in economic, social and cultural rights in the Office of the High Commissioner that made it difficult for others to fully enjoy these rights.

BART OUVRY (Belgium) thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her activities and the important work she had accomplished over the past four years. The progress achieved in the better management of the Office of the High Commissioner, in particular, had been spectacular. The field presence of the Office had become a major aspect of the Office's work. Belgium said that two characteristics were crucial for the Office's role in the field to be effective: good cooperation with the authorities of the country concerned, as well as a comprehensive mandate that allowed for independent monitoring of the situation of human rights which would allow for the better protection of human rights.

Belgium asked the High Commissioner for more information on follow-up to the fact-finding mission in Kenya. Regarding the Strategic Management Plan of the High Commissioner's Office, Belgium felt that that document was a major exercise in transparency that allowed Member States and the public to better understand the functioning of her Office. It was also pointed out that that Plan did not in any way replace the strategic framework that was discussed more formally and in greater detail by the appropriate bodies in New York. On impunity and transitional justice, what was the High Commissioner's view of the steps to be taken in that area in the future?

ASLIGUL UGDUL (Turkey) said the report of the High Commissioner reaffirmed that the Office had multiple functions in the promotion and protection of human rights, the support of the Council being one of them. With the adoption of the institution building package the Office was entrusted with additional tasks particularly with respect to the Universal Periodic Review. Timely adaptation of the Office structure was a welcome development. This new role of the Office in assisting the conduct of the Universal Periodic Review would be carefully observed by States and civil society. The relationship between the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights must be transparent. Micromanagement of the Office was not the business of the intergovernmental bodies. This, however, should not prevent the countries to provide their input for identification of the Office’s priorities and policies. More efforts should be made to give geographical balance among staff members in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

ABDUL GHAFOOR MOHAMED (Maldives) said Louise Arbour’s tenure as High Commissioner had coincided with strong positive evolution in relations between the Maldives Government and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It had also coincided with profound and systematic improvements in human rights protection and promotion in the Maldives. Concerning the importance of treaty bodies as vehicles for the protection of human rights at the country level, the Maldives concurred with the High Commissioner’s emphasis. To enhance the effectiveness of interaction with treaty bodies, the Maldives was currently in the process of preparing a common core document to streamline and strengthen treaty reporting. The Maldives hoped to finish the document over the coming months.

AMY LAURENSON (New Zealand) thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for having once again submitted a comprehensive annual report, as well as her Office, for efforts to support the Human Rights Council and in the field. New Zealand appreciated a number of areas treated in the report, including the High Commissioner's efforts to strengthen country engagement in the Asia-Pacific area, and the potential role of the Universal Periodic Review, to name a few. The report had also noted that some questions had been raised, and urgent appeals made, by United Nations human rights mandate holders, including Special Rapporteurs, as to Fiji's human rights situation. As a close neighbour that was a matter of concern for New Zealand. Much of Fiji's Government machinery remained under military control, including bodies dealing with human rights matters. In that connection, how did OHCHR's attempts to engage with the Government of Fiji and the Pacific Islands Forum impact on its efforts to ensure human rights in Fiji?

New Zealand also thanked the High Commissioner for the efforts to improve the management of her Office, and to improve gender and geographic balance, as well as to ensuring that the rights of persons with disabilities were mainstreamed in its work. Finally, what briefings and outreach activities were planned by OHCHR in 2008 to increase information exchange among States?

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria) commended the efforts of the High Commissioner to mobilize support and contributions to the Universal Periodic Review trust funds to meet the target of its objective. Nigeria called for urgent action to be taken to clear the bottleneck that was hindering the establishment of the trust funds. Nigeria commended the High Commissioner for her contributions to the service of humanity during her tenure. Nigeria firmly believed that the time was ripe to clarifying and indeed servicing the institutional framework in the relationship between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the newly established Human Rights Council. Nigeria strongly supported the independence and autonomy of the Office in all matters of advocacy. Nigeria would not hesitate to state unreservedly that the Council as the supreme intergovernmental process of human rights must take all decisions on policy making and that the implementation of such decisions should be within the framework of the decisions of the Council. Nigeria was of the view that the continued and commendable initiatives of the High Commissioner to brief the Council on a broad range of issues should be encouraged and this should be open and transparent.

SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia) paid tribute to Louise Arbour and her leadership during the crucial period of institutional building of the Council. Tunisia reiterated its commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights through the presentation of its report under the Universal Periodic Review. Concerning the institutional building process, the Council had reached a new phase of its work. It was now the time to ensure the promotion and protection of all human rights, far from politicization and selectivity. The celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provided a renewed opportunity to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of achievements in the field of protection and promotion of human rights.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) reiterated President Bush's statement of yesterday on the violence in Jerusalem, in which he had condemned in the strongest possible terms the terrorist attack that had targeted innocent students. That barbaric and vicious attack on innocent civilians deserved the condemnation of every nation. At the same time, the United States renewed its call for an end to the violence and expressed concern about the loss of innocent life in Gaza – and in Israel – while urging a return to the peace negotiations, which was the path to peace in the Holy Land.

Although no country, including the United States, had agreed with all of the views of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on each and every issue during her tenure, it had always respected her for her integrity and independence. Such characteristics were crucial to the ability of anyone in such a demanding position to promote and protect human rights – in the face of fierce scrutiny and sometimes staunch opposition from United Nations Member States. The United States viewed with concern attempts to weaken the independence of the Office. It was vital that it remained strong for the promotion and protection of human rights around the world. The United States fully agreed with the assessment of the High Commissioner that the Council's credibility was on the line with the launching of its new Universal Periodic Review mechanism. The Universal Periodic Review's success would depend, to a large degree, on the willingness of States to engage in the process in a meaningful and constructive manner. The United States intended to do so, in a fully transparent manner, and hoped its colleagues would approach the process with the same degree of cooperative dialogue and transparency.

KHADIJA RACHIDA MASRI, of the African Union, said that the African Union thanked the High Commissioner for her support in this crucial institution building phase of the Human Rights Council. The progress made in the finalisation of activities in the building process was noted. The upcoming Universal Periodic Review process was an important process and the African Union was providing support to its members to permit them to meet their obligations. The commitment of the High Commissioner in the fight against terrorism and its role in the Durban conference were welcomed. Racism was a global disease affecting millions of people throughout the world. The African Union welcomed the link that the High Commissioner had made between the fight of poverty and human rights. The fight against poverty was an important action also under the Millennium Development Goals.

JUDE BAPTISTE (Haiti) thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her efforts and regretted the announcement that she would not be seeking a renewal of her mandate. She had contributed to the work of the Council in many ways. Consensus on the Universal Periodic Review, which yesterday seemed insurmountable challenge, was now in place. The High Commissioner's annual report provided a snapshot of the activities of the Office to promote and protect human rights. During 2007, work with countries had been at the core of the High Commissioner's work, not just building up a country presence, but also through engaging with actors at the national level and by providing technological and other assistance.

SULINA ABEYSEKERA, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, speaking on behalf of Pax Romana and Asian Legal Resource Centre, said Forum-Asia was concerned that the Bali Action Points adopted by Member States on 12 July 2007 and the theme chosen for the 14th annual Workshop, which was extreme poverty, allowed for the neglect of what they considered to be the most pressing human rights issues in the region. Forum-Asia were gravely concerned about the inability of the High Commissioner’s Office to establish a field-based presence in Sri Lanka, given growing evidence of the failure of national mechanisms to monitor ongoing violations of human rights in the country.

SIMIA AHMADI, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), thanked the High Commissioner for her actions throughout the world in the frame of her mandate. These specific interventions were essential. The deployment of a special unit in Kenya was applauded. The importance of her public interventions and condemnations of the human rights situation in Pakistan were underlined. Pakistan had one of the worst records of cooperation with Special Procedures. The work of the High Commissioner in Guatemala and Colombia was welcomed.

ROMUALD PIAL MEZALA, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said that, in her report, the High Commissioner had indicated that action and engagement at the country level was a central element of the strategy of her office. That action had been carried out through the increased presence of her Office in the field, and stepped up cooperation with countries. Like the High Commissioner, the League was very concerned by the resurgence of acts of violence in Sri Lanka, which continued to cause numerous civilian victims, including women and children. The population could not wait for a political solution. The League therefore supported the efforts of the High Commissioner to monitor human rights situation in Sri Lanka and to protect the human rights of the people there. What would be the High Commissioner's upcoming steps in Sri Lanka?

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said in light of the announcement that the High Commissioner for Human Rights intended to step down at the end of her mandate in June, Amnesty International paid tribute to Louise Arbour's role as a forceful and formidable advocate for human rights protection. She had unflaggingly striven to protect all human rights – whether civil, cultural, economic, political or social – throughout the world. Ms. Arbour had taken office when the "war on terror" was being used, almost without reserve, as a justification for challenging fundamental principles of human rights protection. She had risen to that challenge and demanded that States, however powerful, acted in conformity with their human rights obligations.

HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said UN Watch had been a pillar of the anti-racism movement. Louise Arbour’s report described the outcome of the 2001 Durban Conference as a far reaching and historic document with an action-oriented framework, and looked forward to the opportunities for the 2009 conference follow-up. There was no mention in the High Commissioner’s report of the 2001 preparatory meeting in Tehran, which adopted a text singling out only one country, Israel, for ethnic cleansing, apartheid and crime against humanity. Nor was there mention of Durban’s non-governmental organization part, where anti-Semitism had been rampant. The genocidal anti-Semitism espoused in Durban and by Hamas in its sermons was translated into deed last night in the massacre by a Palestinian terrorist of innocent students while studying holy books. This happened moments after a majority of the Council gave a moral victory to Hamas by adopting yet another one-sided resolution.

LUKAS MACHON, of International Commission of Jurists, said the organization particularly valued the High Commissioner’s initiatives for the protection of human rights through strengthening the rule of law. National protection systems required the full incorporation and implementation of human rights standards and a clear separation of States’ powers. It was hoped that the Universal Periodic Review would increase a level of scrutiny and accountability of all States. Human Rights and democracy could be supportive if effective judicial, parliamentary and executive institutions and a vibrant civil society supported their implementation. The Council had yet to deal with the consequences of violence in Kenya. The serious rule of law crisis in Pakistan had also yet to be addressed. The Office of the High Commissioner’s rapid responses and fact finding initiatives were commendable as well as its support of United Nations peace missions.


JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said that one of the most significant achievements of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had been the development of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The effect of her leadership had impacted on all aspects of OHCHR's work from the servicing of the Special Procedures and the Council through to the development of a rapid response capacity. The development of OHCHR's field presences had been a particular strength of the High Commissioner's tenure, providing direct protection and building capacity where it was most needed. OHCHR had played a crucial role in quelling violence in Nepal and had played an important preventive function in Colombia, where for the past 10 years OHCHR had been engaged with a particularly complex and serious human rights situation of protracted internal armed conflict. OHCHR had played a critical role in drawing attention to serious problems such as widespread impunity, extrajudicial executions by the military, and the serious flaws in Colombia's paramilitary demobilizations process.

CURTIS DOEBBLER, of North South XXI, said North South XXI appreciated the work the High Commissioner was doing for human rights. She had given guidance to States in regards of human rights protection. When the major world States were not respecting basic human rights, other States would not follow. The Office’s broad participation in the designing of the Universal Periodic Review process was noted. The efforts to seek help from wealthy countries were welcomed. What was shocking was the failure to address the human rights situation in Iraq. Unfortunately the High Commissioner’s reports on this topic were not being discussed in this body. The Office should take a leading role in addressing the human rights situation in Iraq.

GAIL DAVIDSON ,of Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, acknowledged the importance of Louise Arbour’s work as High Commissioner of Human Rights to strengthen and support independent judiciaries around the world. Lawyers Rights Canada called on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council to recommend and monitor the restoration of the independent judiciary and the Constitution in Pakistan, to publicly advocate for the rule of law and secure access, through an independent judiciary, and to allow peacefully legal means of resolving disputes, protecting rights and restricting state power, in that country.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08015E