HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HEARS FROM 11 DIGNITARIES AS IT CONTINUES HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

The Human Rights Council this afternoon continued its high-level segment, hearing from 11 dignitaries, who raised a wide range of issues, including the relationship between poverty eradication and upholding human rights, the upcoming Universal Periodic Review process, the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the respect of human rights in the fight against terrorism.

Dignitaries from Burkina Faso, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, Belgium, Turkey, Guatemala, Belarus, Viet Nam, Ukraine and Nicaragua took the floor.

Salamata Sawadogo, Minister for the Promotion of Human Rights of Burkina Faso, said that at a time where everyone was looking at the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration, humanity was still seeking a response to poverty and extreme poverty. People were still suffering from diseases, lack of access to drinking water, even though the world had reached new heights of technology. Poverty was a violation of human rights. It was not a favourable condition to promote human rights.

Marat Tazhin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, said that in recent years the world had gone through fundamental changes that often had a negative effect on international security and stability. The global threat of terrorism, various forms of discrimination and xenophobia, natural disasters, internal conflicts, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, problems of refugees and displaced persons, and trafficking in women and children all affected the protection of human rights and freedoms. The Council should therefore effectively and consistently address all these challenges.

Akmal Saidov, Director of the National Centre for Human Rights of Uzbekistan, said that Uzbekistan fully shared the concerns expressed by many States, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African Group, that during the elaboration of the Strategic Management Plan of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for 2008-2009, there had been a lack of transparency and observance of due methods of preliminary discussion of this document in bodies of the United Nations, in particular, the Human Rights Council.

Bechir Tekkari, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of Tunisia, said many challenges faced humanity today. Poverty was one of the major challenges which created an obstacle to ensuring human rights. Exclusion, marginalisation, xenophobia and terrorism were being combated in Tunisia. Also, Tunisia would be undergoing the Universal Periodic Review next month. Tunisia hoped that the review would be conducted in an objective and transparent manner and would not be politicized.

Pierre Chevalier, Special Envoy of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium, said that nobody should be arbitrarily detained; the fight against terrorism should be carried out in the full respect of international law and especially human rights. Women and children should certainly receive particular attention, but also people with different sexual orientation. It was unacceptable that these people were harassed, tortured or killed.

Rafet Akgunaz, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, said that the Council, as the main pillar of the universal human rights machinery, should respond to the present human rights challenges in an efficient manner and with the least possible involvement of political motivations. The Universal Periodic Review was one of the most prominent products of the reform process. A constructive atmosphere had to prevail from the very beginning and it must be sustained over the cycles of the reviews.

Miguel Angel Ibarra Gonzalez, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, noted that the new Government of Guatemala had only taken up its office 43 days ago and since then the new President, Alvaro Colom, had set a different tone from the past. Since the signing of the peace accord in December 1996, Guatemala had made progressive advancements in the area of human rights and justice despite its institutional weaknesses. This May, Guatemala would be subjected to the Universal Periodic Review which would be an opportunity to make known the country’s determination to improve the human rights situation.

Viktor Gaisenok, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belarus, said that Belarus was taking part in the high-level segment of the Human Rights Council for the first time since a few years. Belarus noted with delight that the Council had restored a climate of impartiality. One important move had been the cancelling of the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs on Belarus and Cuba. This decision had been a real step to end a policy of distrust and confrontation; it was a step towards respectful dialogue and was keeping in spirit with the letter of the General Assembly.

Pham Binh Minh, Standing Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam, said that over one billion people were living in extreme poverty without the most basic needs being met, women still fell victim to discrimination, and children could not go to school in some parts of the world. This all should prompt the international community to realize that it had a long way to go and it should redouble its efforts in attaining the noble cause of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Vlodymyr Handogiy, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said that the primary focus of Ukraine’s humanitarian policy was the universal promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in line with the UN Millennium Goals. Ukraine considered civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights as indivisible, interdependent, interrelated and as indispensable foundation for democracy, development and good governance.

Valdrack Jaentschke, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, noted that at the national level all was being done to promote the enjoyment of economic and social rights. The right to free access to education and health had been put in place. Illiteracy had dropped from 60 to 12 percent in the country, and this and had also been recognised by UNESCO. The whole country was scheduled to become an illiteracy-free zone.

Speaking in right of reply were Uzbekistan, Greece, Albania, Iran, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Algeria, Macedonia, Japan and the Netherlands.

When the Council resumes its work at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 5 March, it will conclude its high-level segment.

High-Level Segment

SALAMATA SAWADOGO, Minister for the Promotion of Human Rights of Burkina Faso, underscored the importance that Burkina Faso attached to the Council. At a time where everyone was looking at the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, humanity was still seeking a response to poverty and extreme poverty. People were still suffering from diseases and lack of access to drinking water, even though the world had reached new heights of technology. Poverty was a violation of human rights. The Council should take this fact into account. Poverty was the general problem of the countries in the south. It was not a favourable condition for the promotion of human rights. Several countries of the West African Region had begun to study this question, but it needed the support of others.

Ms. Sawadogo, speaking about the Universal Periodic Review, noted that Burkina Faso was also involved in the African Peer Review system. This system helped to ensure that countries were respecting democracy and good governance. This exercise was a good test before Burkina Faso would be reviewed at the Universal Periodic Review. The strengthening of human rights Special Procedures was also welcomed. Supporting Civil Society was also important and several partnerships had been formed between the Government of Burkina Faso and non-governmental organizations. Particular importance was attached to education. An extensive programme of educational reform was taking place in Burkina Faso. Referring to the many conflicts in the world today, Ms. Sawadogo said that solutions had to be found. Burkina Faso was continuing its contribution to bring peace to the African Continent.

MARAT TAZHIN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, said this session of the Human Rights Council was being held on the year of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – one of the most important landmarks in the world’s history of civilization. Kazakhstan strongly supported the creation of the Human Rights Council with the hope that human rights mechanisms would be further reinforced and strengthened. Kazakhstan believed that a reasonable balance between political and civil rights, on the one hand, and economic, social, and cultural rights, on the other, should always be maintained. In recent years the world had gone through fundamental changes that often had a negative effect on international security and stability. Among others, global threat of terrorism, various forms of discrimination and xenophobia, natural disasters, internal conflicts, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, problems of refugees and displaced persons, and trafficking in women and children affected the protection of human rights and freedoms. The Council should therefore effectively and consistently address all these challenges.

The Council had a unique mission and was the most important institution to set global human rights standards and the focal point for international mechanisms in this sphere. There was no doubt that the establishment of the Council within the framework of reforms aimed at improving the United Nations human rights system, Mr. Tazhin said. Kazakhstan welcomed the adoption of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, which should serve as a cooperative tool based on objective and reliable information and on the interactive dialogue promoting the universality, interdependence, indivisibility and inter-relatedness of all human rights. Respect for human rights, universal values and fundamental freedoms was the key to progress and safe future for everyone. In this regard, Kazakhstan had always been open and collaborative with the international community, and it would continue to work in close cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner and with its treaty bodies and Special Procedures in a constructive and cooperative spirit. Furthermore, Kazakhstan firmly believed that human rights must be a key factor in drafting legislation and administering public policy and justice to stand guard over human rights and liberties.

AKMAL SAIDOV, Director of the National Centre for Human Rights of Uzbekistan, announced that the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had already begun in Uzbekistan and would continue throughout the year with wide participation of State bodies, educational establishments, the mass media and civil society institutions. Among the steps taken in this regard was the abolishment of the death penalty in the country as of 1 January this year; the introduction of a democratic institute of justice known as habeas corpus; an increased role of political parties in democraticization of society per constitutional law; the entry into force of the Convention of the Rights of the Child through the country’s legislation; and the declaration of 2008 as the Year of Youth in Uzbekistan. Additionally, State policies in the field of human rights were being carried out in a number of areas. In particular, a system of legislation on human rights had been established; the institutional system of protection of human rights, freedoms and legitimate interests had been created; national monitoring of observance and protection of human rights and freedom was being carried out; and a continuous system of education in the field of human rights was functioning.

In the area of criminal legislation, Mr. Saidov noted that, per recent government measures, the percentage of persons who were subjected to prison had been essentially reduced. Currently Uzbekistan had one of the best records among the Commonwealth of Independent States countries on the number of prisoners per capita. Moreover, civil society institutions constituting the non-governmental system of protection of human rights were actively developing in Uzbekistan. In the country, significant attention was devoted by the mass media to human rights issues, including explanations through periodicals, television and radio of legal issues which arose. Uzbekistan fully shared the concerns expressed by many States, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African Group, that during the elaboration of the Strategic Management Plan of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for 2008-2009, there had been a lack of transparency and observance of due methods of preliminary discussion of this document in bodies of the United Nations, in particular, the Human Rights Council. Also noted was the selective and arbitrary approach concerning the presence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in regions and countries of the world. There was an absence of a balanced level of OHCHR presence both in developing countries and in States of Europe and North America.

BECHIR TEKKARI, Minister of Justice and Human Rights of Tunisia, welcomed the work carried out by the Council to reform and develop the human rights system. Tunisia had had the honour of being elected as a Member of the first Human Rights Council and it had worked to help lay the foundations of the Council. Tunisia was deeply concerned about the latest military operations in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military which left unarmed civilian victims killed and wounded, especially women and children. This was a stark violation of the most basic of human rights. Tunisia called on the international community to move quickly to end the repeated attacks on the Palestinian people, and it warned of the consequences which could threaten peaceful efforts to revive the peace process.

Mr. Tekkari said that Tunisia supported the noble values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was reflected in Tunisia’s legislation and its actions. A comprehensive public outreach programme on human right had been launched in the country. This was in the spirit of the Council’s commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration. Tunisia had always supported the values of the Declaration. The strengthening of the human rights system would continue at the national level during this year. Many challenges faced humanity today. Poverty was one of the major challenges which created an obstacle in ensuring human rights. The Tunisian President had called for a “global solidarity fund”, which had been adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. Exclusion, marginalisation, xenophobia and terrorism were being combated in Tunisia. Also, Tunisia would be undergoing the Universal Periodic Review next month. Tunisia hoped that the review would be conducted in an objective and transparent manner and would not be politicized.

PIERRE CHEVALIER, Special Envoy of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium, said the Human Rights Council was created two years ago. Since then, everyone had invested a lot on the institutional questions. At present, it was urgent for the Council to return to questions of substance that had not been dealt with during this transitional period. The Council had a central role to play which was founded on the obligation to protect and promote human rights and liberties of individuals. Every individual on this planet had the right to be protected without distinction as to his or her origin, religion, beliefs, ethnical background. Every individual had the right to respect of his or her dignity. Consequently, States should respect the absolute prohibition of torture, inhuman punishment and ill-treatment. Nobody should not be arbitrarily detained or should be the victim of a forced disappearance; the fight against terrorism could and should be carried out in the full respect of international law and especially of human rights. Every individual should be protected against all violence, especially women. Women and children should certainly receive particular attention, but also those people with different sexual orientation. It was unacceptable that these people be harassed, tortured or killed. Differences were one of the world’s treasures and they should not be fought, but protected. Respect of human rights implied the respect of human dignity.

It was time now for the Council to examine situations that deserved its attention. It was of fundamental importance that the Human Rights Council be able to rapidly respond in certain circumstances and react at the first signs of severe violations of human rights. To evaluate the situation on the ground in such situations and to make recommendations, the Council should use all methods at its disposition. In this regard, the role of the Special Procedures was essential and had to be preserved. In this session, many mandates of Special Rapporteurs would be renewed, while other new mandates would be chosen. Belgium hoped that the criteria of expertise, integrity and independence of the experts were used in making these choices as the credibility of the Council depended on it. It was also necessary for the Council to continue to follow the situation of human rights in countries where there were serious problems. Belgium attached particular importance to the renewal of the mandate of the Independent Expert for the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

RAFET AKGUNAY, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, referring to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as one of the great inspirational documents in history, said Turkey, as a founding member of the United Nations, attached great importance to the celebration of the 60th anniversary. For much of the past 60 years, focus had been on articulating, codifying and enshrining rights. The era of declarations was now giving way to an era of implementation. The responsibility for the enhancement and the protection of human rights lay with each and every State. Striving to achieve the ultimate aim required a collective endeavor and the Human Rights Council should be able to help in that endeavor and in building a credible culture of dialogue and cooperation. A true dialogue could only be sustained when there was genuine understating of a respect for other cultures, religions and value systems. There could be no hierarchy among cultures, or their superiority in manifestations of human achievements. It was important not to let the extremists divide the mainstream along artificial, ethnic, cultural or religious lines. The Alliance of Civilizations initiative, which Turkey signed up together with Spain, was a direct response to the need for dialogue and aimed to facilitate harmony by putting emphasis on the common values of different cultures.

The Council, as the main pillar of the universal human rights machinery, should respond to the present human rights challenges in an efficient manner and with the least possible involvement of political motivations, Mr. Akgunaz said. The Universal Periodic Review was one of the most prominent products of the reform process. A constructive atmosphere must prevail from the very beginning and it must be sustained over the cycles of the reviews. In today’s world, it was not possible to think of a democracy without human rights; nor was it possible to think of human rights without democracy. Turkey had undergone a comprehensive reform process conducted with a firm determination since the advent of the Millennium. The commitment of the Turkish people to the reform process had already been reaffirmed by the present Turkish Government formed after the general elections held last July.

MIGUEL ANGEL IBARRA GONZALEZ, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, noted that the new Government of Guatemala had only taken up its office 43 days ago and since then the new President, Alvaro Colom, had set a different tone from the past. Since day one he had committed the Government to combating poverty and malnutrition and to strengthen the State in the areas of security, justice, health and education while giving full effect to human rights. Since the signing of the peace accord in December 1996, Guatemala had made progressive advancements in the area of human rights and justice despite its institutional weaknesses. Guatemala had requested technical assistance to combat impunity and had set up the international commission against impunity which was combating impunity and illegal groups threatening democracy in the country.
Since Sept 2005, Guatemala had enjoyed the support of the OHCHR through the presence of one of its offices in the country. The Government had renewed the mandate of the office for an additional period as from this September.

Guatemala had also recently re-established a high-level commission for human rights aimed at coordinating the efforts of three government bodies dealing with human rights and implementing recommendations in order for full compliance of the State in this field, he said. Among other things, the Government of Guatemala had upheld the respect for inter-culturalism, gender balance and had taken steps to reduce social inequalities and extreme poverty in the country. Efforts had also been made to reduce child malnutrition rates and to improve access to health and education services. This May, Guatemala would be subjected to the Universal Periodic Review which would be an opportunity to make known the country’s determination to improve the human rights situation in the country. The Government attached great importance to the work of human rights defenders and had taken strides to guarantee their work and safety. With regard to the country’s indigenous population, it was noted that the Government had reaffirmed its commitment to eliminate racism and racial discrimination against these groups and to promote peaceful co-existence in the country.

VIKTOR GAISENOK, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belarus, said that Belarus was taking part in the high-level segment of the Human Rights Council for the first time since a few years. Belarus was delighted that the Council had restored a climate of impartiality. One important move had been the cancelling of the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs on Belarus and Cuba. This decision had been a real step to end a policy of distrust and confrontation; it was a step towards respectful dialogue and was keeping in spirit with the letter of the General Assembly. The Special Procedures had become hostage of their political agenda, which had nothing to do with human rights. An end had to be put to dual standards and the manipulation of human rights for the benefit of short-term interests.

Mr. Gaisenok welcomed the African Group’s initiative for a Code of Conduct on Special Procedures. Also, several dialogues were taking place between Belarus and the Working Group on arbitrary detention and other Working Groups. But the Third Committee of the General Assembly was still being used for political means. This was the same disease that had spread in the Commission. Belarus hoped that the Council would continue on the right path and help resolve the real human rights issues in the world.

On the Universal Periodic Review, Mr. Gaisenok noted that it was vital to agree on procedures. Inside the Council and the General Assembly there had been frequent discussions about extraterritorial coercive measures. These were clear violations. The main human rights bodies had frequently adopted texts that condemned these practices. At the same time, such practices were not declining but were even increasing. Immediate reaction was needed and the Council had to play an active role in this process. One of the most acute problems was the trafficking of people. All States had to coordinate and focus their activities, a global partnership against slavery was needed and the United Nations should coordinate such an international effort.

PHAM BINH MINH, Standing Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam, said since the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights 60 years ago, the international community had witnessed vital achievements in the field of human rights, in particular, the elimination of apartheid, the codification of international human rights instruments, and addressing critical human rights issues, including economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development. However, the mission of the international community was far from complete when violence, armed conflicts, natural calamity and epidemics continued to deprive people of their right to life. Over one billion people were living in extreme poverty without the most basic needs being met, women still fell victim to discrimination, and children could not go to school in some parts of the world. This all should prompt the international community to realize that it had a long way to go and it should redouble its efforts in attaining the noble cause of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The establishment of the Human Rights Council had provided a unique opportunity to learn from the achievements as well as the mistakes of the defunct Commission of Human Rights. In doing so the Council would become a universal platform for effective cooperation of that nature, full respect for all tradition, culture and independence of all countries.

The Human Rights Council was like a young tree, declared the Minister. For this young tree to grow into a strong one that could stand the test of time, it was the job of the international community to cultivate the land for it to take root, and not to poison it. In a world of increasing diversity, differences were to be anticipated. To overcome these, a touch of tolerance and mutual understanding was needed. A new mindset and new way of working together should be adopted. As man was not perfect, nor were countries in terms of human rights. If the international community worked together in a constructive manner, it could advance the cause of human rights worldwide. After more than 20 years of implementing a reform policy, Viet Nam had recorded great achievements in economic development, improvement of people’s rights and living standards, building a State underpinned by the rule of law and justice with a view of becoming a country of prosperous people, a strong nation, and equitable, democratic and advanced society. Viet Nam had also been recognized by the United Nations as one of the first countries to achieve the poverty reduction per the Millennium Development Goals ten years ahead of schedule. During 2007, Viet Nam had also made further progress in promoting and protecting human rights, in particular through the adoption by the National Assembly of seven laws aimed to better ensure both human rights and the rule of law, including a pardon and amnesty law and a law on the prevention and protection against domestic violence.

VOLODYMYR KHANDOGIY, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said this session of the Human Rights Council was of particular meaning and importance for all as institution-building of the Council had been practically completed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights still served as a fundamental pillar of the UN bodies aimed at the protection of human rights of each and every individual. Now, renewed and improved machinery of the Council was in place; the Council was well positioned and equipped to perform its job. What was needed today was resolute action to use the potential of the Council for the benefit of those who were still afflicted by poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, or suffering from discrimination, intolerance, arbitrary arrests, torture or other forms of human rights violations.

The implementation of the human rights normative framework was in many instances accompanied by a double standards approach, confrontation and politicization, Mr. Handogiy, said. To overcome this and make the work of the Council productive, there was a need to proceed from understanding that universal human values did not have boundaries. Ukraine called for earnest and genuine cooperation based on objectivity, non-selectivity, impartiality and fairness.

Consolidation of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms were in the center of Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy. Ukraine had fulfilled all of its voluntary pledges and commitments, particularly by extension of a standing and open invitation to all Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council.

The primary focus of Ukraine’s humanitarian policy was the universal promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in line with the UN Millennium Goals. Ukraine considered civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights as indivisible, interdependent, interrelated and as indispensable foundation for democracy, development and good governance. Common efforts should make the Council a credible and responsible body, able to develop culture of fruitful dialogue, constructive cooperation and concerted action needed for effective implementation of human rights standards in the world.

VALDRACK JAENTSCHKE, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, said that he had come to this assembly as the representative of a small country that symbolized the heroic struggle against more powerful countries which had sought to impoverish it through imposition of a system of unjust, unequal distribution of wealth in the world. The principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were therefore more relevant than ever today. Today, new faces were trying to enforce the old asymmetric distribution of wealth in the world. Nicaragua, as a State party to the fundament international human rights treaties, had an exemplary record in the protection of human rights. As a member of the Human Rights Council, Nicaragua had played an active role in the institution-building process and it was hoped that the upcoming work would continue in a spirit of impartiality. The Universal Periodic Review, in particular, should become an instrument of equal treatment for every country and not only an instrument imposed upon countries of the south.

Mr. Jaentschke noted that at the national level in Nicaragua all was being done to promote the enjoyment of economic and social rights. The right to free access to education and health had been put in place. Illiteracy had dropped from 60 to 12 per cent in Nicaragua, and that had also been recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The whole country was scheduled to become an illiteracy-free zone. Public investment in remote areas was also being carried out, and micro-businesses were supported. The situation in the world today demanded full respect of human rights, and Nicaragua was an ally of human rights.

Rights of Reply

AKMAL SAIDOV (Uzbekistan), speaking in a right of reply, said yesterday’s statement by the Netherlands not only did not fit in with the teachings of world civilization but was in contradiction to the aims and principles of the Human Rights Council. As had been pointed out by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Council was called upon to carry out its activities impartially, and on the basis of non-selectivity without exercising any influence or political intrigue. On 7 January 2008, legislation had entered into force in Uzbekistan guaranteeing the rights of the child – amounting to a sort of children’s constitution – which fully implemented the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The protection of the rights of the child was a priority work area for State policy in Uzbekistan. However, according to reports by Amnesty International in the Netherlands there was still an unchanged policy of putting children of migrants into detention. On the whole the international community was well aware of gross violations of fundamental rights and freedoms of peoples occurring in the Netherlands. Moreover, there was no logic or consistency in the statement made by Portugal in respect of human rights in a number of countries, including Uzbekistan.

FRANCISCO VERROS (Greece), speaking in a right of reply, referring to the statement by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and more particularly to the reference to the use of the name of that country, said that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been accepted under that name, as a member of the United Nations with Security Council resolutions 817/93 and 845/93. In addition, intensive negotiations were taking place at this moment, under the United Nations auspices, to find a mutual accepted name of this neighbouring and friendly country.

SEJDI QERIMAJ (Albania), speaking in a right of reply, answering yesterday’s statement by Serbia, said that the letter from a Serbian girl in Kosovo had been read and had been very moving, but similar stories existed on the other side. Not so far in the past, extreme racism and extermination had been elevated to a national doctrine and Serbian extremism had been very strong. Massacres, rape, discrimination and apartheid in the 1990’s had resulted in thousands of victims and mass graves, deportation of millions of persons, and thousands remained listed as "disappeared". It was sad that the Serb minister had not spoken about the suffering of the Kosovar people.

ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran), speaking in a right of reply referring to the statement of the Netherlands yesterday, recalled that Iran, inspired by Islamic teachings, and in accordance with the Constitution of the country and its international obligations, was fully committed to the promotion and protection of all human rights for all. Iran invited the Minister of the Netherlands that instead of raising issues which were not recognized or confirmed by the majority of members of the international community due to, among other things, their clear contradiction with the teachings of the Divine religions, to look for root causes of and solutions for new manifestations of intolerance and defamation of Islam and its sanctities which now prevailed so openly in that country. Insulting religions was incompatible with the right to freedom of expression and could not be justified or interpreted under such a pretext. The principle message of all Divine religions was to protect and promote the ethics of the society and to strengthen the very foundation of family and its values. It would be more appropriate not to raise issues which were clearly controversial and dealt with the sentiments and beliefs of a large number of societies all over the world.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply referring to the address of the Slovenian Minister on the behalf of European Union, said that the European Union's initiative to present a draft resolution on the mandate holder on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea represented extreme politicization, selectivity and double standards, and it was an anachronistic legacy that could neither be justified nor accepted. If there was any outstanding issue between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Japan it was none other than the Japanese crimes against humanity, including inter alia, 8.4 million cases of forcible drafting and abduction of Koreans most of whose fates were not known so far. While talking loudly about the Japanese abduction case, the Japanese authorities were aiming to justify their ambitious remilitarization of the whole country by inciting anti-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea sentiments among the population. However, they could not in any way rewrite their history, which was full of crimes. Japan was not qualified to talk about the situation of others; it had to address these crimes as a matter of utmost priority.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking in a right of reply, referring to the address of the Netherlands, and particularly to his reference to the practice of torture in his country, said that the Netherlands was right in saying that torture was unacceptable in all circumstances and in all countries; but he should also have mentioned the territories of the Netherlands of Aruba as the Committee Against Torture in its thirty-eighth session had expressed its concerns on the “ill-treatment or sexual aggressions in the prison of Aruba”. There were also concerns over racist incidents and xenophobia, particularly anti-Semitic and Islamophobic in nature, against ethnic minorities, migrant workers, and asylum-seekers in the Netherlands. The Netherlands seemed to be worried about human rights in selective way, as an international political instrument, without saying anything about the Israeli collective retaliations on the civilian population in Gaza and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

GEORGI AVRAMCHEV (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), speaking in a right of reply, said [Security Council] resolution 817 of 1993 could not and did not prohibit the Minister of the country from using its Constitutional name in the United Nations.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in a right of reply, responding to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that Japan was ready to normalize its relationship with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea but the abduction case was still an unresolved question. In the six party talks it had been said that both countries would try to settle the issue and that both would take concrete steps. Japan looked forward to concrete actions by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It was unacceptable to link the past with the abduction issue. The issue raised by Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been groundless.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a second right of reply, said the figures of Japanese crimes committed during the war were substantiated and well documented. Japanese crimes amounted to some 8.4 million forcible draftees, 1 million genocidal killings, and 200,000 cases of military sexual slavery. That situation was ongoing and it was ironic for the Japanese authority to insist that their crimes were a thing of the past while Japanese abductions were continuing. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea would take every effort to reach a conclusion to that case. But Japan was obviously not willing to put an end to it. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea urged the Japanese Government to address crimes against humanity and said it should apologize for those crimes and compensate the victims.

ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, said that the statements delivered by the Netherlands and Portugal would not go unchallenged. That had been a Dracula-like behaviour, with a racist flavour or hatred, for selectively politicising the human rights record of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe had nothing to learn from countries that had occupied Africa for more than 400 years, and who fell in a humiliating defeat because of their racist and fascist practices. The Netherlands had urged Zimbabwe to invite the Special Rapporteur against torture to its country; for its part, Zimbabwe called on the Government of the Netherlands to lift its illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe. At any rate, the issues would not be solved here by demonizing Zimbabwe.

MARION S. KAPPEYNE VAN DE COPPELLO (Netherlands), speaking in a right of reply, referring to four previous statements, said the meaning of the Human Rights Council was to make a difference in the full implementation of universally agreed human rights on the ground in all countries. Where there was room for improvement that should be recognized everywhere, including in the Netherlands. The Netherlands commended the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Uzbekistan. With regard to the Representative of Iran, the Netherlands invited him to re-read the words of the Minister of the Netherlands calling for the respect of all religions of the world. And to the Representative of Algeria, the Netherlands recalled, as stated by the Minister of the Netherlands yesterday, that the Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, had not visited that country since 1997.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in a second right of reply, said that Japan shared the view that the lives of the people in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were important. That was the reason why the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was important to Japan and why it had supported the continued mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

AKMAL SAIDOV (Uzbekistan), speaking in a second right of reply, suggested to the Representative of the Netherlands that if they did not understand the situation in Uzbekistan it was better for them not to speak about it. The Convention on the Rights of the Child had entered into force in Uzbekistan in 1992 and on 8 January 2008 national legislation had entered into force in Uzbekistan guaranteeing the rights of the child as a means of implementing the provisions of the Convention. Uzbekistan had already submitted two national reports on the implementation of the Convention to the Committee on the Rights of the Child last year, and had adopted a national plan of action to implement the recommendations of the Committee. It was inadmissible to bring pressure to bear and use slanderous campaigns against any developing State which conducted real fundamental changes in order to create a legal basis and strengthen its national system for promoting human rights.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking in a second right of reply, said that Algeria was delighted to hear from the Netherlands that they would take into account the recommendations of the Human Rights Committee; that would be very positive for the people in Aruba. What he had wanted to say about the document referred to concerning Algeria was that the Netherlands should have also looked at Algeria's replies that had been posted on the Human Rights Committee website, as that would have provided a more objective answer. That was why Algeria had called for more objectivity, especially as there had not been one word about the 160 people – women, children and civilians – that had died as a result of the collective reprisals carried out by Israel in the Palestinian territories. As to the receiving of a mandate holder, that was a matter of sovereignty. Everyone knew that the problem that Algeria had with Mr. Novak’s proposed visit was his exaggerated terms which they could not agree on.

ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran), speaking in a second right of reply, in response to the Netherlands, called on that country to respect and not insult religions and to respect the very foundation of families and their values.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08009E