PRESIDENT OF SLOVENIA AND HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ADDRESS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL AT OPENING OF EIGHTH REGULAR SESSION
Meeting Summaries
DANILO TURK, President of Slovenia, said that this year the world was celebrating the sixtieth
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a fundamental instrument of the entire work of the United Nations. One of the basic principles that must not be forgotten was its spirit of optimism. Progress required a variety of requirements, two that seemed pre-eminent: first, removal of misinterpretations and second, realism in the implementation. It was necessary to reject the notion that human rights were brought to the international arena as an expression of the desire of the West to dominate the world. The universality of human rights was a contribution of a war-weary generation to the well being of the succeeding generations and its value was undiminished. The second basic requirement of human rights was realism in implementation. A good example was Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There was a long way to go between the proclamation of human rights and their full realization and the path led through an adequate social and international order. What constituted such an order, and how one ensured an adequate balance between various human rights—civil, political, social and cultural, was not a simple one and the search for answers took time. Priorities must be set in the right context. It was vital that policy makers not loose sight of the whole, and they must use all the opportunities which would ensure progress.
Mr. Turk said the relationship between the individual and the community was important and so was the relationship between the individual and the variety of his/her social groups within which the individual lived his/her daily life. Only a firm status of the individual, defined in terms of human rights, could protect the individual against the oppression of the group or of the society as a whole. The full realization of human rights referred to in Article 28 required careful balancing of collective needs and individual rights and, sometimes, recognition of collective rights. Legal recognition needed was a difficult task. One must appreciate the success of the Human Rights Council, which had done critical work in the preparation of the text of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted finally, by the United Nations General Assembly last September - this outcome of more than 20 years of work showed how to balance the collective and individual rights, how to protect the legitimate needs of States and, most important, how to express the collective dimension of the human identity of individuals.
Another basic dimension of the implementation of human rights related to economic and social development, which determined the scope of the achievable at a given time, President Turk said. The full realization of a right such as the right to fair trial required investment in the judiciary and that depended on economic and social factors. The Declaration on the Right to Development, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and the Working Group on the Right to Development, the High Level Task Force and the High Commissioner on Human Rights had all done some important work in linking individual’s human rights and development into a meaningful process of policy making. The Human Rights Council was an essential venue for this effort.
The Council had successfully designed its system of Special Procedures, which had to be preserved in their integrity, efficiency and independence, Mr. Turk said. A key element in the Council’s structure and method was the Universal Periodic Review of human rights. It could not be a solution to all problems; it had to be seen in conjunction with other methods. The Universal Periodic Review could develop appropriate techniques of measuring progress in Member States by engaging in a bona fide dialogue with the State concerned regarding the efforts to attain the benchmarks set by the State itself; it could enrich the understanding of the full range of issues of implementation of human rights in concreto and could contribute to a more comprehensive interpretation of human rights standards in the specific circumstances of the State concerned. It would be enhanced if dialogue continued after the meetings in Geneva, providing an opportunity for evaluation and helping design policies within United Nations Member States in response to the genuine needs of their citizens.
The Human Rights Council needed to remain engaged in situations involving emergencies and requiring immediate action to stop massive and flagrant violations of human rights, the Slovenian President said. One had to be realistic in the judgement of how much the Human Rights Council could achieve on its own. The emerging international principle of responsibility to protect gave the fullest meaning to the concept of State sovereignty. The responsibility to protect, might include in extreme cases and as the last resort, also the use of military means. The Human Rights Council would also have to cooperate with United Nations bodies and other international actors to relate to issues such as climate change or the food crisis, where civil society initiatives would be valuable allies to the Human Rights Council.
The need for assistance of the United Nations, in particular in the fields of analysis and policy advice, was constantly growing. The work done so far by the High Commissioner and the entire United Nations system would have to continue. Implementation of human rights was a one way street which would never end. Prevention and discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation continued to require new and real solutions. The threat of terrorism continued to be a challenge. Victims of terrorist attacks were victims of human rights violations and had to be protected. Mr. Turk also said that victims of error in counterterrorism activities required attention and, in some cases, protection as well. The creation of the Human Rights Council was an important act of the United Nations reform. Success of the Human Rights Council required real solutions to real problems and real assistance to real people, in particular victims of human rights violations. It also required cooperation among States and between States and non-governmental organizations and within civil society at large. The vision in the Secretary-General report of 2005 would give the Human Rights Council a proper role among the three pillars of the three council structure—the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Council.
Statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights
LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that she was very pleased to address the Human Rights Council one last time before the end of her mandate at the end of this month. Her work as High Commissioner had been very gratifying for her and she had very much appreciated to work with the Council in this critical phase of the reform of the human rights system. She thanked all ambassadors that had played a key role in this process, as well as all non-governmental organizations and her staff members who had also played a vital role.
Ms. Arbour said that it was indisputable that thus far the reform of the human rights machinery represented the most tangible achievement in the institutional renewal process of the United Nations system. Other innovative proposals, such as the creation of a more representative Security Council, still languished in the “to do” folder. The significance of the Universal Periodic Review also had to be recognized. It could provide a vehicle for scrutiny of the implementation of rights and norms beyond anything ever attempted by the former Commission. Two whole circles would be necessary before one could fully measure the added value and real impact of the Universal Periodic Review. It would then become apparent that the Council represented more than a distinction without a difference vis-à-vis its predecessor. In her view, the Universal Periodic Review’s effectiveness could be further enhanced through contributions by independent experts and appropriate follow-up mechanisms.
Since she had taken office, the Special Procedures had also bolstered their collective impact and cohesion, said Ms. Arbour. She was pleased with the wide-support that the Council had shown for the large majority of the mandates and urged the Council to continue supporting them. Further, increasing recourse to Special Sessions would reinforce the relevance of the Council. She welcomed the first thematic session on the right to food, which had served to illustrate the interdependence and complementarities among rights that the Universal Declaration had envisaged. Its framers had understood that social and cultural stigmatization precluded full participation in public life, as well as the ability to influence policies and obtain justice. Yet this approach had been undermined by the post Second World War logic of blocs competing in the arenas of ideas. Civil and political rights took priority in the domestic and foreign policy agendas of influential States, while economic, social and cultural rights had been relegated to the backburner of advocacy. The Council had now the opportunity to correct this regrettable discrepancy.
Further, concerns about the unsatisfactory progress made in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, in addition to the current food crisis, and demands generated by natural disasters, highlighted the need for a comprehensive articulation of fundamental human rights, including the right to life, to security, to food, health and shelter. Ultimately, said Ms. Arbour, the gross inequalities tolerated among and between States reflected the pervasiveness entrenched in discriminatory views and practices. Discrimination and all related forms of intolerance had to continue to be forcefully combated. One should not hesitate to condemn human rights violations. Abuse had to be exposed without fearing accusations of insensitivity to cultural diversity.
It was often the action and the inaction of States, jointly with the behaviour of groups and individuals, that condoned or fostered gender-based discrimination, Ms. Arbour said. A key aspect of women’s legal disenfranchisement in many countries was the limitation placed in their ability to own or manage property. Likewise, a failure to understand or accommodate diversity had inevitably led to an erosion of rights of minorities, including refugees or migrants. The perpetuation of prejudices continued to deny equal rights and dignity of millions of persons on the basis of their sexual identity or orientation. Against this background, international human rights law had to provide the best guidance for managing and protecting the multiple identities that each carried.
The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights was committed to the development of international human rights law in a manner that was responsive to current preoccupations and debate, noted Ms. Arbour. A case in point was the exact legal contours of the demarcation line between freedom of expression and hate speech, particularly in relation to religion. In order to protect individuals and groups, a better understanding of the permissible limitations to the freedom of expression had to be developed. The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights would thus organise an expert consultation on this topic. Further, in order to strengthen their ability to prevent and punish genocide, she had also proposed and reiterated the need to study the possibility of creating a dedicated mechanism to monitor the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Another option could be pursued by creating an inquiry procedure through an Optional Protocol to the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which could sound an early warning about situations at risk of degrading into genocide. The upcoming Durban Review Conference offered an excellent opportunity to begin such a reflection.
Ms. Arbour also brought to attention the question of the protection of witnesses in the high-profile investigations and trials of serious human rights violations that were increasingly undertaken in several countries. In the worst cases, witnesses had disappeared or had been killed. States were called to work cooperatively to enact adequate laws and to put in place effective measures of protection in order to ensure the safety of witnesses.
Presenting some country-specific updates, Ms. Arbour said that the recent attacks on foreigners in South Africa had shocked and continued to alarm the international community. The Government of South Africa had to be commended for taking action in an effort to protect the groups most likely to be targeted. In Europe repressive policies as well as xenophobic and intolerant attitudes against irregular immigration and unwanted minorities were also of grave concern. An example of these policies and attitudes was represented by the recent decision of the Government of Italy to criminalize illegal immigration. In Somalia, a major humanitarian and human rights disaster was still being faced. Drastic security constraints in that country made it particularly difficult to monitor the dramatic human rights situation and adequately address protection issues. OHCHR planned to deploy a mission to Kenya and Somalia in July tasked with making a first-hand assessment of the human rights conditions on the ground.
Also, the aftermath of natural disasters in Myanmar and China had continued to mobilize the attention and concern of the international community. Ms. Arbour conveyed her sorrow and condolences to survivors in these countries for the loss of so many lives. International assistance was crucial. It was the right of victims to expect such assistance and it was the duty of governments and the international community to do everything in their power to facilitate it. In the case of Myanmar, the obstruction to the deployment of such assistance illustrated the invidious effects of long-standing international tolerance for human rights violations that had made such obstruction possible.
Ms. Arbour further announced that on 10 June, her Deputy would sign with the Government of Kyrgyzstan the Memorandum of Understanding establishing a Regional Office for Central Asia. Overall, during the past two years, much progress had been achieved in opening regional offices. The enduring difficulties in the establishment of a Regional Office for North Africa and one for Southwest Asia were unfortunate.
Ms. Arbour also hoped that Council members would continue to enhance their constructive engagement with the High Commissioner which should be the hallmark of the relationship between the Council and OHCHR. She concluded by celebrating the tangible progress in the promotion and protection of human rights that had been accomplished in recent years by the United Nations. At the same time, she warned against the continued pursuit of narrow parochial political agendas that represented the greatest impediments to the full realization of many rights which were, otherwise, clearly within reach.
General Debate
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the work during her tenure and agreed that the United Nations had made impressive progress on institutional reform and renewal in the field of human rights. This was her legacy. The Universal Periodic Review should be developed into a genuinely equitable, transparent and non-parochial mechanism. All United Nations members now had to accept that the Council would objectively look at their human rights. The preparations for the Universal Periodic Review had established that human rights were not a taboo in any part of the world. Each Member State reviewed so far had shown keenness to engage in dialogue on the promotion and protection of human rights. The Human Rights Council had two methods to reach decisions, consensus and votes, neither of which eroded the clarity on protection issues, though weak implementations of Human Rights Council decisions had at times. The Organization of the Islamic Conference welcomed the High Commissioner’s call for a unified approach to human rights in the context of the Special Session on food security.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference echoed the High Commissioner’s statement to condemn all deplorable and manipulative distortions, such as anti-Semitic and Islamophobic agendas, or distortions that conveyed any form of intolerance. Human rights violations, regardless of their origin should be condemned and any attempts to forestall “reasonable and fair criticism” should be refused. The Organization of the Islamic Conference welcomed the High Commissioner’s announcement that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would organize an expert consultation on the permissible limitations to freedom of expression. All forms of discrimination and violence against women and girls should be fought persistently, inequities should be removed, and diversity of various legal systems should be respected.
EVA TOMIC (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her most comprehensive, thorough and stimulating presentation to the Council. The European Union had the honour to publicly pay the warmest of tributes to the High Commissioner for her tireless work over the past four years. Her tenure had coincided with some truly momentous developments in the United Nations’ human rights landscape, including the establishment of the new Human Rights Council and the launching of the Universal Periodic Review process which held out the promise to be a truly valuable innovation. For this promise to be fulfilled, the Universal Periodic Review must truly be an effective, transparent and efficient process. The expansion of the Office of the High Commissioner where it was most needed and relevant, in the field, was also welcomed.
The European Union believed the High Commissioner had been instrumental in motivating and leading the efforts to integrate human rights throughout the work of the United Nations. This work had at times been challenging. The High Commissioner had vigorously and most effectively rolled out and ramped up her Office’s field presences, through the expansion in the number and the enhancement in the type of both country and regional offices being established. The European Union welcomed the fact that there were currently almost 50 such field presences, and also regretted hearing that the OHCHR office in Angola was closed at the end of May, a matter which it hoped could be revisited in the near future. It was important to ensure that the focus on expanding at the field level did not happen at the expense of sufficient support to OHCHR core functions, including treaty bodies and the system of Special Procedures.
The European Union wished to highlight the importance of non-discrimination and the principle of universality for all human rights for all. The Union was committed to tolerance, respect for diversity, integration and would continue to work against racial and related discrimination.
SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, recognized the important role the High Commissioner had played, especially her efforts to steer the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in becoming more responsive and more engaged with the Council. The role of OHCHR in achieving a smooth transition from the Commission to the Council was recognized. The support of OHCHR had helped to quick-start the Universal Periodic Review. The African Group shared with the High Commissioner the pride in the fact that the Council issued the Convention on Disappearances and the Declaration on Indigenous Peoples. The Office’s increasing efforts to mainstream the right to development in the international agenda was also welcomed. Racism and racial discrimination continued to affect the daily lives of billions of people. The African Group welcomed the emerging spirit of consensus witnessed in the deliberations of the last session of the Preparatory Committee of the Durban Review Conference. The Office’s intention to organise an expert consultation on the freedom of expression was welcomed. This was an example of the interaction that could and should exist between the Office and the Council.
The countries of the African continent were well aware of the various challenged they faced. The South African Government was commended for its prompt action. The African Group shared the High Commissioner’s assessment of the dangerous humanitarian and human rights disaster in Somalia. The international community was called upon to assist the transitional Government of Somalia. The African Group reaffirmed its commitment to a complementary and mutually reinforcing institutional relationship between the Council and the Office. While the African Group had not always had a convergence of views with the High Commissioner, this in no way had diminished the high esteem its members held for her.
SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) thanked the High Commissioner for her overview and commended her leadership of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in this crucial reform phase which witnessed the establishment of the Human Rights Council and rapid expansion of OHCHR activities, particularly in terms of field presence. In her statement, the High Commissioner had touched upon a number of important issues, including individual and collective obligation of Governments for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, evolving non-discrimination norms vis-à-vis sensitivity towards cultural specifications, further definitions of limitation on freedom of expression in the context of incitement to racial or religious hatred, and creation of a dedicated mechanism to monitor application of the Convention on Genocide. These were issues that merited detailed analysis. The elaborate and complex human rights architecture that had been developed comprising of numerous instruments and mechanisms would function more effectively if individual elements of this architecture focused on and respected their assigned mandates - duplication was both counter-productive and wasteful.
India’s experience in the Universal Periodic Review was positive and India looked forward to the views of the non-governmental organizations and national institutions. India would like to underscore the importance of adequate representation from Asia during the scheduled appointment of some Special Procedures mandate holders. India extended it’s sympathies and condolences to the governments and peoples of China and Myanmar.
GIOVANNI CARACCIOLO DI VIETRI (Italy) stated that Italy has always been in at the forefront of the fight against racism, intolerance, racial discrimination and xenophobia. The Italian Government was considering the possibility to introduce into draft legislation a specific norm to typify the crime of illegal entry into the national territory. This decision had not been taken yet but would be considered in the coming weeks by both chambers. This norm had no relation to xenophobic attitudes, but would examine the negative consequences of illegal immigration for the society as a whole. The High Commissioner had referred to “the recent attacks against Roma settlements in Naples and Milan”. There were two distinct events, in Novara and in the outskirts of Naples. The former luckily had limited consequences. Thanks to the prompt intervention of the police, nobody suffered personal harm in the latter attack, but the settlement was seriously damaged and had to be evacuated. All local and State authorities as well as political forces firmly condemned these attacks and would continue to exercise the responsibility to protect all persons present on the Italian territory. Public powers were acting rigorously against anybody responsible for such crimes that were explicitly typified and punishable under Italy’s criminal code. Italy was committed to the fight against all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerances.
BABACAR CARLOS MBAYE (Senegal) said Senegal had listened with great attention to the High Commissioner’s reflections. Senegal found in them a further reason to stay committed to human rights. All efforts had to be pursued in this regard. The High Commissioner had recalled the urgency for promoting tolerance. The world had to be open to diversity. It was vital for the preserving of peace internationally. The proposed seminar on the freedom of expression and human rights was welcomed and could provide indications on ways to conciliate freedom of expression with ending instigation to racial and religious hate and discrimination. This was an excellent occasion to contribute to the better perception of the interdependence and complementarity of all fundamental freedoms. Tolerance in societies and between nations would help the promotion and protection of human rights. As the time of the High Commissioner’s mandate was coming to an end, Senegal thanked her for the way she had contributed to the opening of an African Regional Office and for her hard work and determination that she had shown in promoting and protecting human rights.
MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) said Ms. Arbour’s career abroad had been devoted to expanding concepts of human rights and fundamental justice. As High Commissioner, she had championed causes that languished at the margins of the human rights work of the United Nations. She was committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and the independence, impartiality and managerial skills exhibited by her were essential qualities for her successor.
Recent successes of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights included its expanded presence in the field; the work of country offices was augmented by regional offices and human rights advisors placed with United Nations country teams; and the promotion of high-level visits to various countries, including recently to Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, and Georgia. Canada supported these developments and emphasized the importance field work had in promoting and protecting human rights. Canada also recognized the contribution of the Office’s Human Rights Council’s Secretariat to the work of the troikas in drafting the Universal Periodic Review reports - in which the real value lay in the preparation and follow-up that took place in each review. A number of aspects of the Universal Periodic Review remained a work in progress, such as the involvement of civil society in all phases of the review and follow-up to recommendations. Canada would continue to work to ensure that this innovative tool advanced the protection and promotion of human rights around the world.
I. GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said Indonesia was profoundly grateful for the High Commissioner’s work and exemplary leadership that she had demonstrated throughout the four eventful years of her tenure. She had helped in the very challenging work of redesigning the human rights system. The Universal Periodic Review in particular had grown to a good start. The process of strengthening the Council had enhanced the human rights protection. The Special Session on the right to food had been a welcomed event. Indonesia hoped that all countries would stand to their commitment to protect and
defend human rights. It should preclude self-interest.
MABEL GOMEZ OLIVER (Mexico) thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her accomplishments during her tenure. The Human Rights Council needed to be further strengthened and Mexico agreed with the High Commissioner that there was an historic opportunity before the Human Rights Council. Mexico believed that the achievements thus far were the sum of the roles many people had played and thanked the High Commissioner for the work that the Office of the High Commissioner had played. Mexico supported Louise Arbour’s call to strengthen the necessary systems in order to make the Human Rights Council effective and acknowledged that there remained considerable work ahead. There should be a consolidation of the recognition of the universality of human rights.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) paid tribute to the actions carried out by the High Commissioner during her tenure. The solidification of the human rights system was a work still in progress. The Universal Periodic Review process had to adapt to the other treaty bodies and Special Procedures. The Office of the High Commissioner’s regional expansion and its collaboration to peacekeeping efforts was welcomed. Equal attention had to be paid to all human rights. This required one to take a comprehensive view of country situations and not only take a narrow look to one single right. It was up to States to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights. France was particularly saddened to see the High Commissioner’s departure.
MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan) highly commended the role of the High Commissioner in leading the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with integrity and independence. The Universal Periodic Review had opened the way for the constructive participation of all States in the protection of human rights. The Council should continue its support of Special Procedures and further strengthen the system. The Special Session on the right to food was also welcomed. It was also of great importance to protect witnesses of human rights violations.
VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) expressed condolences to the peoples of China and Myanmar for the recent natural disasters affecting those countries. The Russian Federation thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her review of the current human rights situation and her personal commitment in increasing the effectiveness of the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. The Russian Federation recognized that there was still much work to do, including the need to increase donors to the Office of the High Commissioner. The Russian Federation applauded the High Commissioner’s ability to improve sensitivity towards cultural rights. It also thanked the High Commissioner for the improved relations between the Office and the Russian Federation. The High Commissioner was leaving a wealthy inheritance to her successor.
BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) said Ms. Arbour’s unwavering dedication allowed the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to expand and develop its substance, its support for mechanisms which promote and protect human rights, and its presence on the ground. The newly established human rights mechanism, the Universal Periodic Review, highlighted and emphasized cooperation between States. The foundations created by Ms. Arbour’s initiative this year were the right foundations for human rights work in the future. Switzerland welcomed her efforts to make sure all necessary documents for the Universal Periodic Review were made available, which was necessary to meet the deadlines established. The organization of the Universal Periodic Review gave way to important high quality interactive dialogues between Member States. Switzerland would like to express it gratitude for and all the success going forward to Ms. Arbour and the Office of the Commission of Human Rights, which had their highest esteem.
LI BAODONG (China) said that during her four years as High Commissioner, Ms. Arbour had actively contributed to the protection of the human rights of the most vulnerable. China wished her all success in her future work and career. China hoped that she would continue to support human rights. China welcomed the Special Session on food crisis and the issue of food security still required the attention of the Council. China hoped that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would follow up the implementation of the resolution and monitor the policies that had a negative impact on food security. The High Commissioner’s frank dialogue with the Council was welcomed. China also welcomed the technical cooperation provided by the Office of the High Commissioner to developing countries. At the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights violations were still prevailing. On behalf of the Chinese Government, the delegation also thanked the international community for their sympathy, support and assistance provided to them in the wake of the earthquake. China was already starting post-disaster reconstruction.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC08054E
Speakers Pay Tribute to High Commissioner for Human Rights who Concludes Four-Year Mandate at the End of June
The Human Rights Council this morning opened its eighth session and heard statements by Danilo Turk, President of Slovenia, and Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, before starting a general debate in which speakers paid tribute to the High Commissioner who will conclude her four-year mandate at the end of June.
Danilo Turk, President of Slovenia, said that it was necessary to reject the notion that human rights were brought to the international arena as an expression of the desire of the West to dominate the world. There was a long way to go between the proclamation of human rights and their full realization and the path led through an adequate social and international order. One had to appreciate the success of the Human Rights Council, which had done critical work in the preparation of the text of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted finally, by the United Nations General Assembly last September. The Council had also successfully designed its system of Special Procedures, which had to be preserved in their integrity, efficiency and independence. A key element in the Council’s structure and method was the Universal Periodic Review, but it could not be a solution to all problems; it had to be seen in conjunction with other methods. The Human Rights Council needed to remain engaged in situations involving emergencies and requiring immediate action to stop massive and flagrant violations of human rights.
Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that she was very pleased to address the Human Rights Council one last time before the end of her mandate at the end of this month. It was indisputable that thus far the reform of the human rights machinery represented the most tangible achievement in the institutional renewal process of the United Nations system. The significance of the Universal Periodic Review had also to be recognized. Two whole circles would be necessary before one could fully measure the added value and real impact of the Universal Periodic Review. She was also pleased with the wide-support that the Council had shown for the large majority of the Special Procedure mandates and urged the Council to continue supporting them. Further, increasing recourse to Special Sessions would reinforce the relevance of the Council. The first thematic session on the right to food was thus welcomed. Discrimination and all related forms of intolerance had to continue to be forcefully combated. In order to protect individuals and groups, a better understanding of the permissible limitations to the freedom of expression had to be developed. The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights would thus organise an expert consultation on this topic.
Delegations speaking in the general debate paid tribute to the work of the High Commissioner and her Office and recognized the important role she had played in the transition from the former Commission to the actual Council, in quick-starting the Universal Periodic Review, and in setting-up a number of regional offices worldwide. Her announcement that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would organize an expert consultation on the permissible limitations to freedom of expression was welcomed by a number of speakers. Others noted that the solidification of the human rights system was a work still in progress.
Speaking this morning were the delegations of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, India, Italy, Senegal, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, France, Japan, the Russian Federation, Switzerland and China.
The next meeting of the Council will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon when it will continue with its general debate. If there is time, it will hear the presentation of reports by the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
DANILO TURK, President of Slovenia, said that this year the world was celebrating the sixtieth
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a fundamental instrument of the entire work of the United Nations. One of the basic principles that must not be forgotten was its spirit of optimism. Progress required a variety of requirements, two that seemed pre-eminent: first, removal of misinterpretations and second, realism in the implementation. It was necessary to reject the notion that human rights were brought to the international arena as an expression of the desire of the West to dominate the world. The universality of human rights was a contribution of a war-weary generation to the well being of the succeeding generations and its value was undiminished. The second basic requirement of human rights was realism in implementation. A good example was Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There was a long way to go between the proclamation of human rights and their full realization and the path led through an adequate social and international order. What constituted such an order, and how one ensured an adequate balance between various human rights—civil, political, social and cultural, was not a simple one and the search for answers took time. Priorities must be set in the right context. It was vital that policy makers not loose sight of the whole, and they must use all the opportunities which would ensure progress.
Mr. Turk said the relationship between the individual and the community was important and so was the relationship between the individual and the variety of his/her social groups within which the individual lived his/her daily life. Only a firm status of the individual, defined in terms of human rights, could protect the individual against the oppression of the group or of the society as a whole. The full realization of human rights referred to in Article 28 required careful balancing of collective needs and individual rights and, sometimes, recognition of collective rights. Legal recognition needed was a difficult task. One must appreciate the success of the Human Rights Council, which had done critical work in the preparation of the text of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted finally, by the United Nations General Assembly last September - this outcome of more than 20 years of work showed how to balance the collective and individual rights, how to protect the legitimate needs of States and, most important, how to express the collective dimension of the human identity of individuals.
Another basic dimension of the implementation of human rights related to economic and social development, which determined the scope of the achievable at a given time, President Turk said. The full realization of a right such as the right to fair trial required investment in the judiciary and that depended on economic and social factors. The Declaration on the Right to Development, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and the Working Group on the Right to Development, the High Level Task Force and the High Commissioner on Human Rights had all done some important work in linking individual’s human rights and development into a meaningful process of policy making. The Human Rights Council was an essential venue for this effort.
The Council had successfully designed its system of Special Procedures, which had to be preserved in their integrity, efficiency and independence, Mr. Turk said. A key element in the Council’s structure and method was the Universal Periodic Review of human rights. It could not be a solution to all problems; it had to be seen in conjunction with other methods. The Universal Periodic Review could develop appropriate techniques of measuring progress in Member States by engaging in a bona fide dialogue with the State concerned regarding the efforts to attain the benchmarks set by the State itself; it could enrich the understanding of the full range of issues of implementation of human rights in concreto and could contribute to a more comprehensive interpretation of human rights standards in the specific circumstances of the State concerned. It would be enhanced if dialogue continued after the meetings in Geneva, providing an opportunity for evaluation and helping design policies within United Nations Member States in response to the genuine needs of their citizens.
The Human Rights Council needed to remain engaged in situations involving emergencies and requiring immediate action to stop massive and flagrant violations of human rights, the Slovenian President said. One had to be realistic in the judgement of how much the Human Rights Council could achieve on its own. The emerging international principle of responsibility to protect gave the fullest meaning to the concept of State sovereignty. The responsibility to protect, might include in extreme cases and as the last resort, also the use of military means. The Human Rights Council would also have to cooperate with United Nations bodies and other international actors to relate to issues such as climate change or the food crisis, where civil society initiatives would be valuable allies to the Human Rights Council.
The need for assistance of the United Nations, in particular in the fields of analysis and policy advice, was constantly growing. The work done so far by the High Commissioner and the entire United Nations system would have to continue. Implementation of human rights was a one way street which would never end. Prevention and discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation continued to require new and real solutions. The threat of terrorism continued to be a challenge. Victims of terrorist attacks were victims of human rights violations and had to be protected. Mr. Turk also said that victims of error in counterterrorism activities required attention and, in some cases, protection as well. The creation of the Human Rights Council was an important act of the United Nations reform. Success of the Human Rights Council required real solutions to real problems and real assistance to real people, in particular victims of human rights violations. It also required cooperation among States and between States and non-governmental organizations and within civil society at large. The vision in the Secretary-General report of 2005 would give the Human Rights Council a proper role among the three pillars of the three council structure—the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Council.
Statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights
LOUISE ARBOUR, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that she was very pleased to address the Human Rights Council one last time before the end of her mandate at the end of this month. Her work as High Commissioner had been very gratifying for her and she had very much appreciated to work with the Council in this critical phase of the reform of the human rights system. She thanked all ambassadors that had played a key role in this process, as well as all non-governmental organizations and her staff members who had also played a vital role.
Ms. Arbour said that it was indisputable that thus far the reform of the human rights machinery represented the most tangible achievement in the institutional renewal process of the United Nations system. Other innovative proposals, such as the creation of a more representative Security Council, still languished in the “to do” folder. The significance of the Universal Periodic Review also had to be recognized. It could provide a vehicle for scrutiny of the implementation of rights and norms beyond anything ever attempted by the former Commission. Two whole circles would be necessary before one could fully measure the added value and real impact of the Universal Periodic Review. It would then become apparent that the Council represented more than a distinction without a difference vis-à-vis its predecessor. In her view, the Universal Periodic Review’s effectiveness could be further enhanced through contributions by independent experts and appropriate follow-up mechanisms.
Since she had taken office, the Special Procedures had also bolstered their collective impact and cohesion, said Ms. Arbour. She was pleased with the wide-support that the Council had shown for the large majority of the mandates and urged the Council to continue supporting them. Further, increasing recourse to Special Sessions would reinforce the relevance of the Council. She welcomed the first thematic session on the right to food, which had served to illustrate the interdependence and complementarities among rights that the Universal Declaration had envisaged. Its framers had understood that social and cultural stigmatization precluded full participation in public life, as well as the ability to influence policies and obtain justice. Yet this approach had been undermined by the post Second World War logic of blocs competing in the arenas of ideas. Civil and political rights took priority in the domestic and foreign policy agendas of influential States, while economic, social and cultural rights had been relegated to the backburner of advocacy. The Council had now the opportunity to correct this regrettable discrepancy.
Further, concerns about the unsatisfactory progress made in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, in addition to the current food crisis, and demands generated by natural disasters, highlighted the need for a comprehensive articulation of fundamental human rights, including the right to life, to security, to food, health and shelter. Ultimately, said Ms. Arbour, the gross inequalities tolerated among and between States reflected the pervasiveness entrenched in discriminatory views and practices. Discrimination and all related forms of intolerance had to continue to be forcefully combated. One should not hesitate to condemn human rights violations. Abuse had to be exposed without fearing accusations of insensitivity to cultural diversity.
It was often the action and the inaction of States, jointly with the behaviour of groups and individuals, that condoned or fostered gender-based discrimination, Ms. Arbour said. A key aspect of women’s legal disenfranchisement in many countries was the limitation placed in their ability to own or manage property. Likewise, a failure to understand or accommodate diversity had inevitably led to an erosion of rights of minorities, including refugees or migrants. The perpetuation of prejudices continued to deny equal rights and dignity of millions of persons on the basis of their sexual identity or orientation. Against this background, international human rights law had to provide the best guidance for managing and protecting the multiple identities that each carried.
The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights was committed to the development of international human rights law in a manner that was responsive to current preoccupations and debate, noted Ms. Arbour. A case in point was the exact legal contours of the demarcation line between freedom of expression and hate speech, particularly in relation to religion. In order to protect individuals and groups, a better understanding of the permissible limitations to the freedom of expression had to be developed. The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights would thus organise an expert consultation on this topic. Further, in order to strengthen their ability to prevent and punish genocide, she had also proposed and reiterated the need to study the possibility of creating a dedicated mechanism to monitor the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Another option could be pursued by creating an inquiry procedure through an Optional Protocol to the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which could sound an early warning about situations at risk of degrading into genocide. The upcoming Durban Review Conference offered an excellent opportunity to begin such a reflection.
Ms. Arbour also brought to attention the question of the protection of witnesses in the high-profile investigations and trials of serious human rights violations that were increasingly undertaken in several countries. In the worst cases, witnesses had disappeared or had been killed. States were called to work cooperatively to enact adequate laws and to put in place effective measures of protection in order to ensure the safety of witnesses.
Presenting some country-specific updates, Ms. Arbour said that the recent attacks on foreigners in South Africa had shocked and continued to alarm the international community. The Government of South Africa had to be commended for taking action in an effort to protect the groups most likely to be targeted. In Europe repressive policies as well as xenophobic and intolerant attitudes against irregular immigration and unwanted minorities were also of grave concern. An example of these policies and attitudes was represented by the recent decision of the Government of Italy to criminalize illegal immigration. In Somalia, a major humanitarian and human rights disaster was still being faced. Drastic security constraints in that country made it particularly difficult to monitor the dramatic human rights situation and adequately address protection issues. OHCHR planned to deploy a mission to Kenya and Somalia in July tasked with making a first-hand assessment of the human rights conditions on the ground.
Also, the aftermath of natural disasters in Myanmar and China had continued to mobilize the attention and concern of the international community. Ms. Arbour conveyed her sorrow and condolences to survivors in these countries for the loss of so many lives. International assistance was crucial. It was the right of victims to expect such assistance and it was the duty of governments and the international community to do everything in their power to facilitate it. In the case of Myanmar, the obstruction to the deployment of such assistance illustrated the invidious effects of long-standing international tolerance for human rights violations that had made such obstruction possible.
Ms. Arbour further announced that on 10 June, her Deputy would sign with the Government of Kyrgyzstan the Memorandum of Understanding establishing a Regional Office for Central Asia. Overall, during the past two years, much progress had been achieved in opening regional offices. The enduring difficulties in the establishment of a Regional Office for North Africa and one for Southwest Asia were unfortunate.
Ms. Arbour also hoped that Council members would continue to enhance their constructive engagement with the High Commissioner which should be the hallmark of the relationship between the Council and OHCHR. She concluded by celebrating the tangible progress in the promotion and protection of human rights that had been accomplished in recent years by the United Nations. At the same time, she warned against the continued pursuit of narrow parochial political agendas that represented the greatest impediments to the full realization of many rights which were, otherwise, clearly within reach.
General Debate
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the work during her tenure and agreed that the United Nations had made impressive progress on institutional reform and renewal in the field of human rights. This was her legacy. The Universal Periodic Review should be developed into a genuinely equitable, transparent and non-parochial mechanism. All United Nations members now had to accept that the Council would objectively look at their human rights. The preparations for the Universal Periodic Review had established that human rights were not a taboo in any part of the world. Each Member State reviewed so far had shown keenness to engage in dialogue on the promotion and protection of human rights. The Human Rights Council had two methods to reach decisions, consensus and votes, neither of which eroded the clarity on protection issues, though weak implementations of Human Rights Council decisions had at times. The Organization of the Islamic Conference welcomed the High Commissioner’s call for a unified approach to human rights in the context of the Special Session on food security.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference echoed the High Commissioner’s statement to condemn all deplorable and manipulative distortions, such as anti-Semitic and Islamophobic agendas, or distortions that conveyed any form of intolerance. Human rights violations, regardless of their origin should be condemned and any attempts to forestall “reasonable and fair criticism” should be refused. The Organization of the Islamic Conference welcomed the High Commissioner’s announcement that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would organize an expert consultation on the permissible limitations to freedom of expression. All forms of discrimination and violence against women and girls should be fought persistently, inequities should be removed, and diversity of various legal systems should be respected.
EVA TOMIC (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her most comprehensive, thorough and stimulating presentation to the Council. The European Union had the honour to publicly pay the warmest of tributes to the High Commissioner for her tireless work over the past four years. Her tenure had coincided with some truly momentous developments in the United Nations’ human rights landscape, including the establishment of the new Human Rights Council and the launching of the Universal Periodic Review process which held out the promise to be a truly valuable innovation. For this promise to be fulfilled, the Universal Periodic Review must truly be an effective, transparent and efficient process. The expansion of the Office of the High Commissioner where it was most needed and relevant, in the field, was also welcomed.
The European Union believed the High Commissioner had been instrumental in motivating and leading the efforts to integrate human rights throughout the work of the United Nations. This work had at times been challenging. The High Commissioner had vigorously and most effectively rolled out and ramped up her Office’s field presences, through the expansion in the number and the enhancement in the type of both country and regional offices being established. The European Union welcomed the fact that there were currently almost 50 such field presences, and also regretted hearing that the OHCHR office in Angola was closed at the end of May, a matter which it hoped could be revisited in the near future. It was important to ensure that the focus on expanding at the field level did not happen at the expense of sufficient support to OHCHR core functions, including treaty bodies and the system of Special Procedures.
The European Union wished to highlight the importance of non-discrimination and the principle of universality for all human rights for all. The Union was committed to tolerance, respect for diversity, integration and would continue to work against racial and related discrimination.
SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, recognized the important role the High Commissioner had played, especially her efforts to steer the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in becoming more responsive and more engaged with the Council. The role of OHCHR in achieving a smooth transition from the Commission to the Council was recognized. The support of OHCHR had helped to quick-start the Universal Periodic Review. The African Group shared with the High Commissioner the pride in the fact that the Council issued the Convention on Disappearances and the Declaration on Indigenous Peoples. The Office’s increasing efforts to mainstream the right to development in the international agenda was also welcomed. Racism and racial discrimination continued to affect the daily lives of billions of people. The African Group welcomed the emerging spirit of consensus witnessed in the deliberations of the last session of the Preparatory Committee of the Durban Review Conference. The Office’s intention to organise an expert consultation on the freedom of expression was welcomed. This was an example of the interaction that could and should exist between the Office and the Council.
The countries of the African continent were well aware of the various challenged they faced. The South African Government was commended for its prompt action. The African Group shared the High Commissioner’s assessment of the dangerous humanitarian and human rights disaster in Somalia. The international community was called upon to assist the transitional Government of Somalia. The African Group reaffirmed its commitment to a complementary and mutually reinforcing institutional relationship between the Council and the Office. While the African Group had not always had a convergence of views with the High Commissioner, this in no way had diminished the high esteem its members held for her.
SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) thanked the High Commissioner for her overview and commended her leadership of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in this crucial reform phase which witnessed the establishment of the Human Rights Council and rapid expansion of OHCHR activities, particularly in terms of field presence. In her statement, the High Commissioner had touched upon a number of important issues, including individual and collective obligation of Governments for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, evolving non-discrimination norms vis-à-vis sensitivity towards cultural specifications, further definitions of limitation on freedom of expression in the context of incitement to racial or religious hatred, and creation of a dedicated mechanism to monitor application of the Convention on Genocide. These were issues that merited detailed analysis. The elaborate and complex human rights architecture that had been developed comprising of numerous instruments and mechanisms would function more effectively if individual elements of this architecture focused on and respected their assigned mandates - duplication was both counter-productive and wasteful.
India’s experience in the Universal Periodic Review was positive and India looked forward to the views of the non-governmental organizations and national institutions. India would like to underscore the importance of adequate representation from Asia during the scheduled appointment of some Special Procedures mandate holders. India extended it’s sympathies and condolences to the governments and peoples of China and Myanmar.
GIOVANNI CARACCIOLO DI VIETRI (Italy) stated that Italy has always been in at the forefront of the fight against racism, intolerance, racial discrimination and xenophobia. The Italian Government was considering the possibility to introduce into draft legislation a specific norm to typify the crime of illegal entry into the national territory. This decision had not been taken yet but would be considered in the coming weeks by both chambers. This norm had no relation to xenophobic attitudes, but would examine the negative consequences of illegal immigration for the society as a whole. The High Commissioner had referred to “the recent attacks against Roma settlements in Naples and Milan”. There were two distinct events, in Novara and in the outskirts of Naples. The former luckily had limited consequences. Thanks to the prompt intervention of the police, nobody suffered personal harm in the latter attack, but the settlement was seriously damaged and had to be evacuated. All local and State authorities as well as political forces firmly condemned these attacks and would continue to exercise the responsibility to protect all persons present on the Italian territory. Public powers were acting rigorously against anybody responsible for such crimes that were explicitly typified and punishable under Italy’s criminal code. Italy was committed to the fight against all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerances.
BABACAR CARLOS MBAYE (Senegal) said Senegal had listened with great attention to the High Commissioner’s reflections. Senegal found in them a further reason to stay committed to human rights. All efforts had to be pursued in this regard. The High Commissioner had recalled the urgency for promoting tolerance. The world had to be open to diversity. It was vital for the preserving of peace internationally. The proposed seminar on the freedom of expression and human rights was welcomed and could provide indications on ways to conciliate freedom of expression with ending instigation to racial and religious hate and discrimination. This was an excellent occasion to contribute to the better perception of the interdependence and complementarity of all fundamental freedoms. Tolerance in societies and between nations would help the promotion and protection of human rights. As the time of the High Commissioner’s mandate was coming to an end, Senegal thanked her for the way she had contributed to the opening of an African Regional Office and for her hard work and determination that she had shown in promoting and protecting human rights.
MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) said Ms. Arbour’s career abroad had been devoted to expanding concepts of human rights and fundamental justice. As High Commissioner, she had championed causes that languished at the margins of the human rights work of the United Nations. She was committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and the independence, impartiality and managerial skills exhibited by her were essential qualities for her successor.
Recent successes of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights included its expanded presence in the field; the work of country offices was augmented by regional offices and human rights advisors placed with United Nations country teams; and the promotion of high-level visits to various countries, including recently to Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, and Georgia. Canada supported these developments and emphasized the importance field work had in promoting and protecting human rights. Canada also recognized the contribution of the Office’s Human Rights Council’s Secretariat to the work of the troikas in drafting the Universal Periodic Review reports - in which the real value lay in the preparation and follow-up that took place in each review. A number of aspects of the Universal Periodic Review remained a work in progress, such as the involvement of civil society in all phases of the review and follow-up to recommendations. Canada would continue to work to ensure that this innovative tool advanced the protection and promotion of human rights around the world.
I. GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said Indonesia was profoundly grateful for the High Commissioner’s work and exemplary leadership that she had demonstrated throughout the four eventful years of her tenure. She had helped in the very challenging work of redesigning the human rights system. The Universal Periodic Review in particular had grown to a good start. The process of strengthening the Council had enhanced the human rights protection. The Special Session on the right to food had been a welcomed event. Indonesia hoped that all countries would stand to their commitment to protect and
defend human rights. It should preclude self-interest.
MABEL GOMEZ OLIVER (Mexico) thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her accomplishments during her tenure. The Human Rights Council needed to be further strengthened and Mexico agreed with the High Commissioner that there was an historic opportunity before the Human Rights Council. Mexico believed that the achievements thus far were the sum of the roles many people had played and thanked the High Commissioner for the work that the Office of the High Commissioner had played. Mexico supported Louise Arbour’s call to strengthen the necessary systems in order to make the Human Rights Council effective and acknowledged that there remained considerable work ahead. There should be a consolidation of the recognition of the universality of human rights.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) paid tribute to the actions carried out by the High Commissioner during her tenure. The solidification of the human rights system was a work still in progress. The Universal Periodic Review process had to adapt to the other treaty bodies and Special Procedures. The Office of the High Commissioner’s regional expansion and its collaboration to peacekeeping efforts was welcomed. Equal attention had to be paid to all human rights. This required one to take a comprehensive view of country situations and not only take a narrow look to one single right. It was up to States to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights. France was particularly saddened to see the High Commissioner’s departure.
MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan) highly commended the role of the High Commissioner in leading the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with integrity and independence. The Universal Periodic Review had opened the way for the constructive participation of all States in the protection of human rights. The Council should continue its support of Special Procedures and further strengthen the system. The Special Session on the right to food was also welcomed. It was also of great importance to protect witnesses of human rights violations.
VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) expressed condolences to the peoples of China and Myanmar for the recent natural disasters affecting those countries. The Russian Federation thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her review of the current human rights situation and her personal commitment in increasing the effectiveness of the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. The Russian Federation recognized that there was still much work to do, including the need to increase donors to the Office of the High Commissioner. The Russian Federation applauded the High Commissioner’s ability to improve sensitivity towards cultural rights. It also thanked the High Commissioner for the improved relations between the Office and the Russian Federation. The High Commissioner was leaving a wealthy inheritance to her successor.
BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) said Ms. Arbour’s unwavering dedication allowed the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to expand and develop its substance, its support for mechanisms which promote and protect human rights, and its presence on the ground. The newly established human rights mechanism, the Universal Periodic Review, highlighted and emphasized cooperation between States. The foundations created by Ms. Arbour’s initiative this year were the right foundations for human rights work in the future. Switzerland welcomed her efforts to make sure all necessary documents for the Universal Periodic Review were made available, which was necessary to meet the deadlines established. The organization of the Universal Periodic Review gave way to important high quality interactive dialogues between Member States. Switzerland would like to express it gratitude for and all the success going forward to Ms. Arbour and the Office of the Commission of Human Rights, which had their highest esteem.
LI BAODONG (China) said that during her four years as High Commissioner, Ms. Arbour had actively contributed to the protection of the human rights of the most vulnerable. China wished her all success in her future work and career. China hoped that she would continue to support human rights. China welcomed the Special Session on food crisis and the issue of food security still required the attention of the Council. China hoped that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would follow up the implementation of the resolution and monitor the policies that had a negative impact on food security. The High Commissioner’s frank dialogue with the Council was welcomed. China also welcomed the technical cooperation provided by the Office of the High Commissioner to developing countries. At the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights violations were still prevailing. On behalf of the Chinese Government, the delegation also thanked the international community for their sympathy, support and assistance provided to them in the wake of the earthquake. China was already starting post-disaster reconstruction.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC08054E