HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS GENERAL DEBATE ON FOLLOW UP AND IMPLEMENTATION OF VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a general debate on the follow up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action after concluding a general debate on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.

During the debate, delegates affirmed the importance of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action which enshrined the universality and interdependence of all human rights. A variety of issues were raised by speakers from aboriginal rights to the rights of migrant workers and issues related to sexual orientation. Many interventions dealt with the rights of women and the importance of economic, social and cultural rights. Speakers said that much had been accomplished in the 15 years since the Vienna Declaration was adopted, but there was still work to be done.

Speaking during the debate were the representatives of Pakistan, Chile, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Canada, Russia, the Netherlands, Peru, Bolivia, Thailand and Morocco. Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l'Amitié entre les Peuples, Women’s World Summit Foundation, Indian Council of South America, Action Canada for Population and Development and the Association for World Education.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council completed the general debate on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.

During the debate, most speakers strongly emphasized the need for an end to the conflict. Some 3.76 million people lived in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and their rights to health, education and work were being violated by the Israeli occupation. Many delegates called on the Human Rights Council and other United Nations bodies to accept their role and responsibility in finding a sustainable solution. The collective punishment against the Palestinian people would not help to provide security for either side. Israel had to protect itself against acts of terror, but it should not do so in a way that penalized innocent people.

Speaking during the debate were the representatives of Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, New Zealand, Iraq and Libya. Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: UN Watch, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, Association for World Education, and the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.

Speaking in a right of reply was Israel.

The Human Rights Council will meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 17 June to conclude the general debate on the follow up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and to hold a general debate on the Durban Preparatory Conference.




General Debate on the Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories (Continued)

NAJEEB AL BADER (Kuwait) said that the International Criminal Court and the United Nations had recognized the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people. But for 60 years, Israel had refused that. The right to self-determination was a fundamental right. The violations of international law committed by Israel were violations of the rights set out in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Everyday saw serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law by Israel. Israel was seriously neglecting its international obligations. The Council was called on to take up its responsibilities; this was essential to bring an end to this conflict. Attention was also drawn to the suffering of Palestinian prisoners, and the release of all those prisoners was called for.

OBAID SALEM SAEED AL ZAABI (United Arab Emirates) said that John Dugard, the former Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, had painted a true picture of plight of the Palestinian people in his report. Some 3.76 million people lived in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and their rights to health, education and work were being violated. The Israeli occupation also denied them decent food, clothes and housing. In Gaza, 1.5 million people were living under siege; they struggled to access the basic needs for life. The occupation spared no effort to undermine economic progress in the territories – roadblocks; limited access to fuel, water, and power, were all part of the occupation efforts by Israel, which had affected the budgets of the Palestinian ministries of health and education. The collective punishment against the Palestinian people would not help to provide security for either side. Palestinians had not been able to implement projects on health, roads and education. Israel should implement the reforms introduced by conferences such as Annapolis.

WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) welcomed reporting by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur. The humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories remained a cause for serious concerns. New Zealand endorsed Mr. Dugard’s assessment that Israel’s actions had to be measured against the standards of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Mr. Dugard’s observations in that regard were a matter of some concern. Israel had to protect itself against acts of terror, but it should not do so in a way that penalized innocent people. Israel was urged to abide by its obligations under international law. New Zealand supported the Annapolis process. It endorsed Mr. Dugard’s comment that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice had to be part of any framework developed.

OMER BERZINJI (Iraq) expressed satisfaction with the efforts of the former Special Rapporteur and thanked him for his work, while it greeted the new Special Rapporteur. The Palestinian cause was an essential one. A lasting and fair settlement of the issue was needed. Iraq’s participation in the Human Rights Council aimed at the strengthening of human rights throughout the world. It was important to take into account the rights of all people, particularly those of the Palestinian prisoners detained by Israel.

FAWZI M.S. ABUSAA (Libya) lamented the irony that the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights coincided with the sixtieth anniversary of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory. The Palestinian people had lived for more than half a century under that occupation, and that was a real tragedy for human rights principles. Israel did not respect human rights. Israel deliberately pursued violations through the restrictions and the siege on Gaza, the settlements, the construction of the Separation Wall, and the number of assassination attempts in which numerous civilians had died. Libya expressed deep concern at the flagrant violations of human rights by Israel. The Council was requested to shoulder its responsibility and find a solution to put an end to the occupation and to ensure that the occupying authority complied with the resolutions of the United Nations.

NIRAJ KUMAR PABARI, of North South XXI, reiterated its concern that the human rights tragedy of the Palestinian people remained unresolved. It offered its admiration and appreciation to all those who had worked to achieve the restoration of human rights of the Palestinian people. The former Special Rapporteur was thanked for his efforts and the new Special Rapporteur was welcomed. The new mandate holder’s expertise would contribute towards achieving greater respect for human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. A number of States had placed obstacles in the way of the work of that mandate of the United Nations Human Rights Council. States were reminded that those that did not cooperate with Special Procedures of the Council were insulting the Human Rights Council, international law, and the international community, who had approved the mandate.

HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said that they hoped that the Council could help to bring the dream of peace to the Middle East. If human rights were indivisible, should this morning’s proposal by the Special Rapporteur not be endorsed? But some in this chamber did not seem to accept that proposal, arguing that there was no symmetry between the two sides. How could asymmetry become a basis for impunity? The murder of innocent civilians could not be defended with asymmetry. Palestinian rocket attacks could not be granted impunity. Further, how could these attacks be a result of 1967 as some argued, when they had started even before that date? The root problem was the refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Iran’s President had just recently again called for Israel’s destruction. That hatred against Israel was the root cause of the problem.

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, on behalf of World Peace Council, said that, given the indifference of the western powers and the double standards of the European Union, the Israeli occupying power continued to inflict disease, military blockades and road blockades on the Palestinian people. By resolution 181, adopted by General Assembly on 29 November 1947, the colonial powers had arbitrarily partitioned the State of Palestine, stipulating the creation of 50 per cent of Palestinian territory for the creation of the State of Israel. Then, on 15 May 1948, began one of the darkest pages of Palestinian people – Al Nakbha, in which the expulsion and robbing of Palestinian people’s and homelands took place. The Israeli State since then had taken those lands and occupied them. Israel had murdered people and bombed neighbouring countries such as Syria and Lebanon. The siege of Gaza was one of the most serious examples of premeditated violence ever committed against civilians. Israel had also been constructing a wall to separate the Palestinian people, know also as the “wall of shame”. Israel had also expanded its territory by 60,000 square kilometres, or conversely, four times more than the resolution granted. There could be no peace in the Middle East while the Israeli Government continued to deprive the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination.

DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, on behalf of World Union for Progressive Judaism, observed that the final report of the former Special Rapporteur had stated that the United Nations should withdraw from the Quartet; he had rejected the Quartet road map. Currently, there were several efforts to find a framework for negotiations among Palestinian groups between Israel and Syria and with Hamas via Egyptian efforts. The Association for World Education hoped this would lead to more direct discussions between the parties, thus avoiding a regional catastrophe. Reconciliation depended on an end to the demonization of the other. Instead in the midst of this conflict among Palestinians and between Palestinians and Israelis there were stereotypes, falsehoods and demonization of the other in school textbooks and television programmes for children and youth. The indoctrination of youth ensured that tensions carried over into the future.

DANIEL LACK, of International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, expressed revulsion and profound disagreement with the latest report of the former Special Rapporteur, John Dugard. The Special Rapporteur had shockingly disregarded international legal standards against terrorism and excused the killings of innocents. The Council was strongly urged to reject categorically that attack on the standards of human decency. Terrorism was the targeted killing of innocents to intimidate the population or compel the Government to act in a particular way. The Special Rapporteur had categorized the acts perpetrated upon Israeli civilians by Palestinians as part of their struggle for self-determination rather than as acts of terror. Further, by comparing the murders of Israeli citizens to the liberators of Nazi Germany the Special Rapporteur had grossly defamed the Jewish State and its citizenry.

Right of Reply

HILARY STAUFFER (Israel), speaking in a right of reply, said that it was disappointed by the political ploys used on the part of Syria when dialogue between Israel and Syria were already taking place. It was astounding that Syria had requested the release of detainees, when they had rejected a similar request made by Israel. Israel had filed for the early release of Al-Wali, and he had been receiving proper treatment. In future, such inquiries would be better served being made through a bilateral platform, rather than raised as a political pawn during the Council.


General Debate on Follow-up and Implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action was a landmark in the evolution of international human rights law. The core principle of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action was the universality of human rights, which had to be upheld. Universality subsumed relativism, it did not banish it. For example, it was not possible to adopt a uniform, universal standard for decriminalization of non-marital consensual sex and adultery. In that instance, let there be diversity. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, in her statement on 2 June, had enunciated several key themes which required careful consideration, among them, the need to guard against criticism of a State or Group of States as a proxy for the expression of hatred against peoples their origins or beliefs, and the need to forcefully condemn all those deplorable or manipulative distortions that hid sinister purposes, such as anti-Semitic of Islamophobic agendas.

They needed to draw the exact legal contours of the demarcation line between freedom of expression and hate speech, especially in relation to religion – in particular, to develop a better understanding of the permissible limitation to freedom of expression by taking into account the mandatory prohibition of advocacy of religious hatred. The Organization of the Islamic Conference welcomed the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ announcement that the Office of the High Commissioner would organize an expert consultation on the topic. The Universal Periodic Review had demonstrated that an objective impartial evaluation of human rights records of all Member States was the best guarantee for the promotion and protection of human rights. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action underlined that by virtue of the right to self-determination, all people determined their political status and freely pursued their economic, social and cultural development.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, said that they were deeply concerned about the situation of migrant workers in certain parts of the world and in particular, the possibility of implementing repressive measures and policies and about intolerance and xenophobia against the migrant population. Measures to deal with the phenomenon of migration should recognize its benefits and allow, as far as possible, the regularization of migrants’ situations. Any legislation and policies on migration should be founded upon the human rights standards rules for the protection of all persons. One could not but recognize that racism, discrimination and xenophobia were the foremost problems encountered by migrants and that those phenomena in turn, in many cases, triggered social conflicts and other violations of their rights. Massive detention and deportation might lead to infringement of migrant workers’ human rights. In no way should migration be considered as a crime. The human rights treaty bodies and the Council’s Special Procedures were called upon to continue watching over States’ compliance with human rights standards, with a particular emphasis on the fight against racism and xenophobia as well as on the respect of migrant workers’ human rights.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action offered a comprehensive framework that addressed a series of issues relating to the promotion and protection of human rights that continued to require common attention. The past 15 years had witnessed considerable progress in the promotion and protection of human rights in general, and in the implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, in particular. The United Nations machinery for human rights had been considerably strengthened with the establishment of Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Since then, OHCHR had expanded its field activities and further strengthened its capacity to offer advisory services and technical cooperation. In addition, the Universal Periodic Review had considerable potential to enhance the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide, provided that it was accompanied by the necessary commitment to follow-up, both domestically as well as in the Council.

Despite those and other significant advances, the enjoyment of human rights remained a distant reality for many. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action called upon States to “eliminate all violations of human rights and their causes, as well as obstacles to the enjoyment of human rights”, yet human rights violations remained a daily reality. The significant progress achieved in the codification of human rights instruments could not substitute for the lack of universal ratification of the core human rights treaties. A strong and independent administration of justice and adherence to the rule of law remained essential to the full and non-discriminatory realization of human rights. It remained their common responsibility to ensure that every human being was able to enjoy the rights enshrined in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action in their daily life. Only then would the recommendations of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action have really been implemented.

RAFAEL GARCIA COLLADA (Cuba) said that, 15 years after the adoption of the programme of action at Vienna, its principles had become more necessary than ever. It was a milestone. It showed respect for national and regional differences and historic and cultural differences. Today was an opportunity to think about and take stock of the situation. Some core principles had not been applied. Those principles should underpin the work of the Council. The historic seventh Special Session of the Human Rights Council and the Universal Periodic Review process were positive signs and should be repeated. The Vienna Declaration required that attention be paid to social and cultural rights. Cuba appealed to all States and stakeholders to undertake a critical assessment of what had been accomplished in Vienna.

CHRIS HOVIUS (Canada) said that, at the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna, States had reaffirmed their commitment to ensure respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples and to recognize their unique contribution to the development and plurality of society. In that context, the Canadian Prime Minister had offered an historic formal apology on 11 June to indigenous communities affected by the Indian residential school system. That system was acknowledged as being a sad chapter in Canadian history and Canada had recognized that the former policy of assimilation had been wrong, had caused great harm and had no place in their country. That apology reinforced numerous other Government initiatives designed to address that issue, and was the foundation of a new relationship between Aboriginal people and other Canadians.

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation) said that this year once again they had to acknowledge that the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had not been reached. Their realization in practice faced many difficulties. The need to ensure universal respect for human rights was a main principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that had somehow found its way to the outskirts of the promotion and protection of human rights. Yet, universal respect for human rights could contribute to dispelling mistrust, the uprooting of communities and hatred that were often the causes of conflicts. Work to strengthen human rights required day-to-day efforts, and would not happen over night. Respect for human rights could not be imposed, as it was an act of free will. It was a conscious act people made towards the universal protection and promotion of human rights. Those values had been reflected since time immemorial and had moral and legal consequences. There was a mistaken belief that human rights had appeared in the last century and that they were created by one civilization. That was wrong. There was a need to develop a modern concept of human rights, a modern understanding of traditional values, so that both could enrich each other.

NYNKE WIJMENGA (Netherlands) said that article 5 of the Vienna Declaration stated that all rights were universal, interdependent and interrelated and that it was the duty of States to promote and protect all human rights. Article 5 of the Vienna Declaration thus confirmed article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the sense that all persons were entitled to equal protection by human rights norms regardless of their status. The Netherlands wished to draw the Council’s attention towards a vulnerable group which existed in every society and frequently suffered from discrimination based on their status by both States and from within societies: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The Council rightfully devoted a lot of time to combating intolerance and countering discrimination. The Netherlands called upon politicians worldwide to act and speak responsibly, never to incite to violence and to protect this group of people from harm. The Netherlands called upon the members of this Council to respect diversity in sexual orientation and strongly urged the President of the Council to put the topic of human rights violations based on sexual orientation on its agenda, thus answering the call by the 54 United Nations Member States that signed a joint statement read out by Norway in December 2006.

ALEJANDRO NEYRA SANCHEZ (Peru) reiterated the importance of the result of the Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Turning to the extreme criticism sometimes expressed on the former Human Rights Commission, it was noted that when their continent had been suffering from dictatorship and from human rights violations, the Commission had not seemed to be so bad. When the Council had started its work, it had not started from scratch. In the second year now, they were already seeing several results – the Universal Periodic Review being an important one. The holding of Special Sessions was also an important new feature, and the holding of the first thematic Special Session (on the right to food) was especially welcomed. In the world of the Council, the cooperative approach had been often overplayed: individual and regional contributions had been underplayed with a view of reaching consensus. Peru believed that the Council could and should do more. There was still time to correct the weak parts of the Council. The role of civil society and its active participation was believed to be particularly important in order to make improvements.

MAYSA URENA MENACHO (Bolivia) supported the statement by the Group of Latin America and Caribbean Countries. With regard to the rights of migrants, although Europe had been a continent of immigrants since the end of the First World War, the European Union had hardened the conditions of detention for migrants, no matter how long they had been in these countries. Migrants contributed to the demographic dynamism of the European continent. Migrants provided solutions to population problems, and migratory flows were beneficial for both the migrants and the country of destination. Yet, the fundamental rights of people were denied to their compatriots of Latin America. Migrants were imprisoned for a term of 18 months as stipulated in terms of the new European Union directive. There was a possibility of imprisoning mothers and young people without taking into account family or school situations. The world had undergone difficulties recently, such as pollution and global warming. Making migrants the scapegoats was no solution. Bolivia appealed to the conscience of world leaders, parliamentarians, and members of the Council not to accept the terms of the return directive.

LADA PHUMAS (Thailand) appreciated the Council’s efforts to hold a discussion on the human rights of women during the first week. Violence against women was a global concern and required their attention as well as concerted action at all levels. Thailand welcomed the Secretary-General’s efforts and commitment to end violence and discrimination against women and girls, as well as to ensure gender equality and respect for women’s rights. In his study, the Secretary-General had offered views on how to reduce and eliminate violence against women, including the need to address the issue in a holistic and comprehensive manner in order to find practical and sustainable solutions. Special attention should be given to those women and girls among the most vulnerable groups in society and thereby prone to various forms of exploitation and deprivation. The Human Rights Council should set an example by supporting women in all dimensions, aimed at helping to end violence against women in a sustainable manner.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said that the Vienna Declaration had reaffirmed the international community’s commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, calling on them to ensure universal respect of human rights. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action stressed just as strongly the need to protect States from any acts aimed at dismembering their sovereignty. The Vienna Declaration recommended that States draw a national plan of action with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights. Morocco had drafted such a plan for democracy and human rights. Its overall purpose was to strengthen the transition to democracy in the Morocco. It served as a framework for coordinated actions and it also defined the role of each stakeholder in order to reach that goal. Morocco planned to conduct local and regional discussions in order to involve representatives of civil society and local players in the establishment of that national programme.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, in a joint statement with Europe-Third World Centre; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; and France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, said that the high level conference on food security in Rome did not come up with solutions. The conference was limited in scope and was held hostage by the private sector and companies that supported food subsidies. The Special Rapporteur on the right to food expressed disappointment in his report to the Council and they shared in that disappointment. Human rights were the only approach to find the right answers. They thanked the Cuban Government for requesting the Special Session on the right to food. The Council should call on the Special Rapporteur to prepare a report on responses by States and other concerned stakeholders. The Council must also carry out a retrospective analysis on what brought the world to this point and come up with recommendations. It should also include data on official development assistance policies as implemented by States and their impact on the right to food.

ELLY PRADERVAND, of Women's World Summit Foundation, in a joint statement with Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women's Association; International Federation of University Women; Solar Cookers International; World Movement of Mothers; and Worldwide Organization for Women, said women were the key to ending poverty and hunger but they needed resources, especially to save children from malnutrition and starvation. The United Nations estimated that women produced 80 per cent of the food consumed in Africa, 65 per cent in Asia and 45 per cent in Latin America. Major United Nations conferences and summits regarded the empowerment of women as an effective way to combat poverty hunger and disease. Many international conferences over the past two decades had helped to sensitise policy makers to the cost of gender discrimination and many development actors had tirelessly drawn attention to the fact that the African farmer was a women and that gender support in her role to feed the continent was called for. Armed with resources, knowledge and equal opportunities women could erase most of the world’s hunger in our lifetime.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, said that they appreciated the official apology by the Government of Canada concerning the school system. This had been a long needed apology but it was far from acknowledging the various existing treaties. The Canadian Government had to fully participate in the follow-up to the Durban Declaration. These were two good examples of resisting the basic rights of indigenous peoples. The Government of Canada should also recognize indigenous people’s economic, social and cultural rights. These would lend to the call of the Vienna Declaration to accept the equality of rights for everyone. Cuba was also thanked for requesting the Special Session on the right to food. Concerning the appointment of the indigenous experts, why were two experts chosen from Asia? An expert from North-America was needed; this would lead to universality, so as to truly protect the rights of all indigenous people.

KATHERINE MCDONALD, of Action Canada for Population and Development, in a joint statement with Latin American Committee for the Defence of Women's Rights (CLADEM), congratulated Brazil for submitting the resolution at the thirty-eighth General Assembly of the Organization of American States on human rights for sexual orientation. They saluted the 34 members of the Organization of American States for agreeing by consensus that serious human rights violations were faced by individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity and that this situation required attention within the principles of universality, indivisibility, and interdependence of human rights. This was the first time in the history of the hemisphere that the words sexual orientation and gender identity appeared on an official document approved by consensus by the 34 countries of the Americas. This unprecedented document in the region was the result of the consensus, including the English speaking Caribbean countries whose legislation still criminalized sexual conducts between adults of the same sex. Further Action Canada saluted civil society in its extraordinary efforts to advance the human rights of transsexual, transgender, intersex, bisexual, lesbian and gay activists of Latin America and the Caribbean.

DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, in a joint statement with International Humanist and Ethical Union, said regarding female genital mutilation the written statement stated the reason why 96 percent of Egyptian women were still subjected to female genital mutilation despite state legislation in 1997 outlawing the practice. UNICEF figures indicated that over 3 million young girls were mutilated each year in 32 countries, 29 of which are Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The number of honour killings was on the increase worldwide. Ten years ago in 1998, there were a reported 300 cases of honour killings in one province of Pakistan alone. This practise must be criminalized and the law strictly enforced. The stoning of women for alleged adultery still occurred regularly in Iran, Sudan and other countries.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08076E