HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL STARTS GENERAL DEBATE ON FOLLOW-UP AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION
The Human Rights Council this afternoon started its general debate on the follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action after concluding its discussion on the human rights situation in Palestine and other Occupied Arab Territories and on the Universal Periodic Review.
Speakers said the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action were considered a landmark occasion that had given impetus to efforts aimed at strengthening the protection of all human rights. They had provided a frame of reference for overcoming the obstacles to the promotion and universal protection of human rights. They were particularly supportive of universality, transparency, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, as guiding principles to address human rights issues. International cooperation and constructive dialogue were strongly defended as the way to effectively promote and protect all human rights.
Egypt on behalf of the African Group, France on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Cuba on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement made statements on the follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its general debate on the human rights situation in Palestine and other Occupied Arab Territories which started this morning.
Speakers said they were deeply concerned about the violation of human rights in the Palestinian and other Occupied Arab Territories. They said Israel's building of settlements was against the law as was the building of the separation wall. Many speakers criticized Israel for not having implemented Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions. Palestine and Israel were encouraged to work towards a peaceful two-country solution.
The following countries took the floor on this issue: Morocco on behalf of the Arab Group, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Bahrain, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Algeria, Yemen, Kuwait, Iran, Oman, Morocco, Sudan, Turkey and Tunisia.
The following non governmental organizations also spoke on the issue: International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Association for World Education, Association for World Education, United Nations Watch, Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations, Iranian Elite Research Center and International Association of Democratic Lawyers.
In the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review, which started on 17 September, speakers reiterated that the Universal Periodic Review had further strengthened the institution building process of the Human Rights Council. It was also stated that efforts must be made to make the Universal Periodic Review a non-politicized and non-selective mechanism. Furthermore, the important role of the non governmental organizations in the Universal Periodic Review was underlined by several countries.
The following countries took the floor: India, Nigeria, Switzerland, Mexico, China, Cuba, Romania, Sri Lanka.
The following non governmental organizations also spoke on the Universal Periodic Review: International Organization of la Francophonie, South African Human Rights Commission, International Service for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Amnesty International, United Nations Watch, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Federation for Women and Family Planning.
The Council will meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, 19 September to conclude its general debate on the follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, before hearing presentations from the Special Rapporteur on racism on the defamation of religions and from the regional preparatory meetings for the Durban Review Conference before holding a general debate on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance: follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.
Documents on the Follow-up and Implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programe of Action
The Council has before it the report of the High Commissioner on the World Programme for Human Rights Education (A/HRC/9/4 and Corr.1), which supplements the High Commissioner's previous report (A/HRC/4/85), looking at the activities of her Office from January 2007 to June 2008. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), among others, has devoted a section of its website to the World Programme and regularly replies to related queries; facilitates information-sharing and networking among all actors through development of its database on Human Rights Education and Training and its Resource Collection on Human Rights Education and Training, thereby providing information on relevant institutions, programmes, materials, human rights education and training materials. A compendium of good practices from Central Asia, Europe and North America will be launched on 10 December 2008, as a contribution to the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Within the school system, OHCHR supported 155 projects in 44 countries. In May 2008, UNDP and OHCHR launched the sixth phase (2008-2009) of the Project, which will focus on supporting projects contributing to the integration of human rights education in primary and secondary school systems and to the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. OHCHR is also developing methodological tools to support the integration of human rights education in the school system, including a self-assessment tool for Governments, a kit to assist evaluation of the impact of human rights education activities, and globally disseminating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The report of the High Commissioner on integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations system (A/HRC/9/6) will be submitted to the tenth session of the Council after the annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective in the work of the Council is held. This will allow all stakeholders to benefit from the panel discussion before submitting their views on the matter.
General Debate on Follow-up and Implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Work
OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Group considered the World Conference on Human Rights, that was held in 1993 in Vienna, as a landmark occasion that had helped the international community to take stock of its achievements and progress in the field of human rights. The programme of action had given impetus to efforts aimed at strengthening the protection of all human rights. Among other achievement, the Conference had created the post of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It had stressed the indivisibility of human rights and set in motion a process for the adoption of the Optional Protocol which would help place economic, social and cultural rights on an equal footing with civil and political rights. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action had also renewed the call to combating racism and racial discrimination. It had reaffirmed the right to development and reinforced the protection at the national level by calling for the establishment of independent national human rights institutions. Above all, the Declaration and Programme of Action had reaffirmed the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of human rights.
The African Group said the notion of universality had been constantly stressed by all countries and stakeholders, without exception. It had recently become a subject of debate as to its precise meaning. Establishing hierarchies among rights or among sets of rights was thus against universality. The disregard of regional, historical and cultural specificities was also against universality. Further, human rights protection should span around the globe and no region or people belonging to a specific region should be considered sub-humans, all peoples were equal. The human rights machinery was the ultimate expression to the international community's global efforts to promote and protect human rights. If this machinery did not observe universality of thought, concept, and application, no universality could be achieved.
Finally, many African citizens had helped build and continued to build Europe's prosperity as migrants. The new return directive that was issued by the European Parliament discriminated against them and deprived them of their most basic rights. This situation called for a serious introspection and revision if the principle of all human rights for all was to have a meaning.
JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that this year the international community was celebrating the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the fifteenth anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and this was an opportunity for the international community to reaffirm its commitment to ensuring that every human being enjoyed all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action provided a frame of reference for overcoming the obstacles to the promotion and universal protection of human rights. The European Union noted that undeniable advances in promoting and protecting human rights had been made over the last 15 years. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action had highlighted the fundamental role played by civil society in ensuring respect and promotion of human rights. The Universal Periodic Review was a key tool for the promotion and protection of human rights globally and it must be followed up effectively. The codification of international human rights law continued to progress, with new instruments being negotiated.
They could not become complacent about the situation of human rights globally, as many people continued to be denied enjoyment of their rights and fundamental freedoms, the European Union stated. There was still a distance to be covered to ensure that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action were actually put into effect and that human rights violations ceased. The international community had legitimate concerns, based on the shared conviction that no human rights violations must be allowed to escape our combined vigilance. Regarding the African Group's comments regarding the European Union migration policy, the objective of the Return Directive was harmonisation of the norms, with the priority being given to the voluntary return. The European Union remained open to further dialogue on the subject.
IMRAN AHMED SIDDIQUI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action served to build a normative bridge between all relevant human rights instruments. It affirmed the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. These sound principles needed to be applied especially when addressing issues related to poverty eradication. The Organization of the Islamic Conference believed that the international community should revive the spirit of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action to fight the growing trends of racism, racial and religious discrimination including xenophobic tendencies and its new manifestations.
MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA (Cuba), speaking on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement, said that the adoption of the Vienna Declaration had been a significant step ahead in the codification of human rights. The Non Aligned Movement attached great importance to the principles contained in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and was fully committed to the fulfilment of obligations to promote universal respect for and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. The Non Aligned Movement was particularly supportive of universality, transparency, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, as guiding principles to address human rights issues. They also strongly defended the international cooperation and constructive dialogue as the way to effectively promote and protect all human rights.
In the latest Non Aligned Movement Summit, held in September 2006 and at the Ministerial Conference in Tehran last July, Members stressed that the Human Rights Council should not allow confrontational approaches, exploitation of human rights political purposes, selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous considerations and double standards. The Non Aligned Movement also emphasized the role of the Council as the United Nations organ responsible for consideration of human rights situations in all countries. Adequate attention should be paid to the issues of underdevelopment, marginalization, instability and foreign occupation. The Non Aligned Movement also expressed deep concern over the European Union's return directive, which in their view constituted a serious violation of relevant international human rights instruments.
Continuation of General Debate on the Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that it had been extremely satisfying to listen to Archbishop Desmond Tutu this morning. Since its establishment, the Council had adopted several resolutions with regard to Israel's violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Israel had refused to implement any of the resolutions, undermining the credibility of the Council. It continued to do so, considering itself above the law. Israel continued to confiscate land in the Occupied Arab Territories. That was a clear violation of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel should end all settlement activities. The occupying power was continuing to build the racist separation wall, despite world condemnation. The Arab Group called for Israel to put an end to the siege. The Arab Group also called for the implementation by Israel of all international instruments and of its entire legal obligations towards the Arab population. The Council had to take measures to operationalize its decisions. The Arab Group called on the Council to send a clear message to Israel that it was not above legal law and that it could not shirk its obligations.
HISHAM BADR (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, expressed serious concern about Israel's inhumane practices against Palestinian civilians. The report had confirmed that those practices had been unspeakable. The African Group was greatly agitated by the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and could not forget the suffering of the people in the Syrian Golan where Israel still denied them fundamental human rights.
Every time the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution condemning Israel, it would be ignored by Israel, who would always find justification for its violations of international norms, standards and instruments. Today, the African Group was surprised by the silence of those who had spoken up and expressed their concern over grave violations of human rights everywhere in the world. The failure of the international community to oblige Israel to respect international law and regulations diminished any discussion about the violation of human rights in any other country. The Council had to decide if it was ready to address human rights violations free from double standards or if it would continue turning a blind eye to some situations and some perpetrators.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the occupying power could not use collective punishment and reprisals against civilians. Also, the construction of the barrier around East Jerusalem and within the West Bank was contrary to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. The building of illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories was contrary to the Geneva Conventions and Israel's commitment under the road map and the Annapolis process. The situation in the occupied Syrian Golan was also deeply worrying. The Organization of the Islamic Conference called on the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to take a lead role in ensuring the implementation of the Council's resolutions.
ABDULLA ABDULLATIF ABDULLA (Bahrain) said that Bahrain firmly believed that peace was the only solution to settle the crisis. The approach adopted by the Human Rights Council, in adopting resolutions with regard to the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, was a reflection of the Council's deep desire to improve the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Israel was fully responsible for the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Its activities constituted a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and of the rights of the Palestinian people. Land was being confiscated and settlements were being constantly built; Israel was changing the demographics of the region. The international community should move quickly in order to improve the situation in Palestine. Israel was called upon to implement all Human Rights Council decisions.
MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) welcomed that the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza had been respected, as it contributed to the respect of human rights and increased the prospects of successful completion of the peace process. Switzerland called upon all the parties to respect the ceasefire and to take all necessary measures to prevent violations. Switzerland expressed its concern about the blockade of Gaza, where, coupled with the strike of doctors and teachers, the humanitarian situation was further aggravated. The increasing restrictions of the liberty of movement between Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem undermined the unity of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Switzerland drew the Council's attention to the escalation of violence between Hamas and Fatah during the past months and expressed its concern about allegations of torture and ill-treatment. Switzerland called upon the Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and in Gaza to respect their obligations under international law, in particular to investigate the allegations and bring perpetrators to justice.
Finally, Switzerland welcomed the ongoing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and expressed its hopes for tangible results. Only dialogue and a political solution could lead to the end of hostilities and to a durable protection of human rights.
ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said that a firm position of the international community was needed now. The situation in Palestine went beyond occupation; it was a violation of international humanitarian law. The International Court of Justice had confirmed the unlawfulness of the Israeli settlements. There could not be peace until the rights of the Palestinian people were restored. A concrete manifestation of political will was needed. The settlements in occupied Arab lands were not a fait accompli and should be punished. The Council should take the necessary measures to halt the construction of the settlements and the continuous violations of human rights.
BENNY YAN PIETER SIAHAAN (Indonesia) said that the struggle of the Palestinian people to establish a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital had always had Indonesia's support. Indonesia noted with dismay the current human rights situation in Palestine, the Syrian Golan and other Occupied Arab Territories. The report presented this morning by Archbishop Desmond Tutu had given a detailed and chilling account of the suffering endured by the victims and survivors of the massive shelling of a small community in 2006. The survivors of the attacks had been, since then, ruthlessly subjected to every indignity and denied the most basic care and compassion. These acts constituted the most blatant and grave violations of the victims' most fundamental human rights. They also attested to a complete and deliberate disregard of international and humanitarian law. Although the perpetrator had half admitted to some degree of responsibility by alleging a technical error, it had repeatedly dodged the obligation placed upon it by the Council to undertake a thorough investigation. The present cessation of hostilities in Gaza afforded an opportunity for the restoration of the rule of law.
SERGEY KONDRATIEV (Russian Federation) welcomed the ceasefire agreement, which it had consistently called for. The Russian Federation had also called for lifting of the blockade of Gaza and cessation of attacks on Israel. Israel and Palestine should refrain from activities that might jeopardize the bilateral negotiations. In that connection, the Russian Federation was concerned by the allegations that Israel's Minister of Interior had opened a bid for construction of hundreds of houses in Palestinian territories, and called for a complete freeze on that activity.
The Russian Federation welcomed the decision of the Government of Israel to release about 200 Palestinian prisoners as a good-will gesture, and noted it was an important step in solving the problems. However, it was still too early to talk about sustainable positive change. Building trust between Israel and Palestine would be the foundation for any negotiations. Overcoming the critical socio-economic situation in occupied Palestinian Territory and not allowing the chaos between various Palestinian groups was important and the Russian Federation would continue helping that process. Israel's refusal of access to the Fact-Finding Mission had created a dangerous precedent, which had negative implications for future missions and resolutions of the Human Rights Council. The Russian Federation expressed hope that the Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territory would receive Israel's permission to visit Palestinian territories.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that the Israeli occupation impacted negatively on the Palestinian economy and was a grave human rights violation. Furthermore, the occupation was a grave threat to the right to self determination of the Palestinian people. Israel continued its refusal to implement any resolution by the Council or the General Assembly. The Council had to bring a halt to the situation of impunity by stressing the principle that impunity must be rejected.
IBRAHIM SAIED MOHAMED AL-ADOOFI (Yemen) said that discussing human rights continued to be ineffective, especially since the Palestinian and Syrian people were still under occupation. Occupation was the main cause for the suffering of the Palestinians. Israel was solely responsible for the deterioration of conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Israel was continuing to carry out attacks and to build settlements and the separation wall. The occupying power continued to build settlements, illegally and in complete violation of international law, United Nations decisions and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Yemen appealed to the Council to bring the Israeli Government under pressure to put an end to the siege. Israel had also denied entry for humanitarian relief to Gaza; that was a cause of concern as it might lead to a humanitarian tragedy.
NAJEEB AL BADER (Kuwait) said that the restrictions imposed by the occupying power violated the human rights of the Palestinian People. Collective punishment of civilian populations was prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. The right to self determination was a fundamental human right and was the only guarantee to peace and security of the Palestinian People.
The human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had further deteriorated; Palestinian civilians had to be protected and all actions that violated international law and international humanitarian law had to be stopped. The prisoners had to be released from the prisons of the occupying power. Kuwait also called on Israel to put an end to practices against the population of the Syrian Golan and to take into consideration recommendations of different international bodies, including the International Court of Justice.
HAMID BAIEDINEJAD (Iran) said that despite numerous resolutions by the international community through the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council, Palestinian people were still deprived of exercising their right to self determination on their own homeland. Expansion of settlements, increasing checkpoints, demolition of houses, extrajudicial killings, imprisonment of innocent people and use of torture had characterized the occupation of Palestine for many years and had featured regularly in reports of international human rights mechanisms. Iran called upon the international community, and particularly the Human Rights Council, to take all necessary means to put an immediate end to the continuation of atrocities against the innocent people of Palestine in the Occupied Territories.
MOHAMED SAUD AL-RAWAHI (Oman) observed that the Human Rights Council, since its establishment, had adopted a number of resolutions regarding the Occupied Arab Territories. And Israel had continued to disregard the resolutions, and continued to terrorize women and children. These were systematic and organized violations against the Palestinians. The decisions of the Council had to be implemented. The international community and the Human Rights Council had to take all necessary measures to protect the Palestinian people and to ensure the implementation of the Council's resolutions by Israel.
ABDELMOUNAIM EL FAROUQ (Morocco) said that the human rights situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories had been an important item on the agenda of the Human Rights Council for a very long time. The arbitrary measures taken daily by Israel presented a blatant violation of international undertakings and institutions. The example of the High-Level Mission was the evidence of that. The Human Rights Council was now requested to take all necessary measures to ensure its decisions would be implemented and to put an end to the disastrous humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian Territory.
Morocco condemned the constant difficulties and harassment of the Palestinian population by Israel and the demographic changes Israel was making were in clear violation of international law. Morocco and the King Hassan VI supported all international initiatives aimed at building of comprehensive peace that ensure a sovereign Palestinian State in peace and security and in cooperation with all the people in the region.
ZEHOR HASSAN SID AHMED MOHAMMED (Sudan) said that the situation in the Occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories was very serious. Israel was continuing to build its separation wall and settlements which were a blatant violation of the human right to housing and other rights. They needed to work together to overcome double standards and put a stop to those activities. The international community had to join efforts to respect the rights of the Palestinians to self determination and to found their own State with Jerusalem as its capital.
ASLIGUL UGDUL (Turkey) said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was at the core of all other problems in the region. All were aware that a durable peace in the Middle East would no be possible without solving that conflict. The international community had demonstrated a strong will in support of the Annapolis peace process. The success of the resumed process would largely depend on the parties acting with common sense and moderation. Turkey welcomed the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and the recent release of Palestinian detainees by Israel. That constituted an important step in building confidence between the parties. The ongoing talks had to continue, until they produced a concrete outcome.
ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) said that the human rights situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories should be the priority for the Human Rights Council, given its importance and the fact that human rights violations highlighted brutal practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The situation had worsened under the unjust Israeli occupation. The occupying power continued to confiscate buildings and impose fait accompli, in violation of international law. The wall constituted the separation of communities and ignored the opinion of the International Court of Justice.
Tunisia called on all people of good will to ensure Israel's respect for its obligations and to ensure the release of prisoners. Lasting peace that guaranteed a sovereign Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital was the only solution. The Council had to ensure that Israel abided by the relevant resolutions.
KAREN FRANCIS, of the International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, said that they had no choice but to condemn those who imposed their will on others. Were they really willing to allow history to condemn them for yet another inaction, another failure, to stand up and say, “no more”? The present day Holocaust of the Palestinian people, their dignity and their struggle would not be cancelled, as the Jewish Holocaust was not, from history. The Council had to fulfil its universal humanitarian obligation.
DAVID LITTMAN, of the Association for World Education, recalled that the United Nations General Assembly had proclaimed 2009 as the International Year of Reconciliation. In doing so, it had stressed that “dialogue among opponents from positions of respect and tolerance was an essential element of peace and reconciliation”. Gaza, under the administration of Hamas, was a classical example of a divided society: the division between Gaza and the West Bank, Gaza and Israel, Gaza and Egypt and Gaza and the wider world. In order to have a respectful dialogue among opponents, certain barriers had to be removed. The future of Gaza was unclear as it might be united to the West Bank or could become an independent State. An important symbol of a willingness to enter into a reconciliation process and serious negotiations would be the renunciation of the Hamas Charter, which refused all negotiations and peace agreements and called for the destruction of the State of Israel.
SHABARINATH NAIR, of North-South XXI, said those were troubled times in Palestine and Palestinians had suffered human rights violations for as long as the United Nations had existed. North-South XXI commended the High-Level Fact-Finding Mission for the courage displayed in the report that presented the evidence of the suffering of the people. It was hoped that that would be an example to all States in the Council and to all Special Procedure mandate-holders.
North-South XXI emphasized the consequences of Israel's responsibility for violations of international law and welcomed the recommendation that included reparations to families and the injured communities. Those measures included steps to ensure such violations did not occur in the future, redressing the underlying illegal situation of occupation and denial of the right to self determination and the interdiction to all other States to refrain from recognizing any of the effects of Israel's illegal actions against the Palestinians.
HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, expressed support for the peace process in the Middle East. At this session, the human rights situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories was a single agenda item. The Secretary-General had said that he was disappointed that the Human Rights Council had singled out countries as targets, and yet this topic continued to single out one State. United Nations Watch said that this method was not working and it was time to heed the Secretary-General's call. Also, this approach had so far led to one-sided-resolutions against Israel. That had not been working either. Incitement should not be used in this forum. Earlier on, a parallel had been drawn between the situation of the Palestinians and crimes of the Nazis. That should not be accepted.
KLAUS NETTER, of B'nai B'rith International, speaking on behalf of Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations, expressed disappointment that item seven (human rights situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories) was part of each and every session of the Council. It had been their understanding that this would not be necessarily the case. The discussions under this agenda item were repetitive in the sense that speaker after speaker accused Israel of all conceivable human rights violations, without any reference to human rights violations committed by Palestinians. Some reference to positive developments on the ground seemed to escape the attention of most speakers, such as the recent Israeli-Palestinian security and economic cooperation at the local level in Jenin.
MARYAM SAFARI, of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, noting the progress made in the development of the concepts of international peace and security and the instruments and bodies dealing with grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law, drew the attention of international community to the silence of the international organizations towards confronting past and present crimes that had taken place in the Occupied Territories. Why had this age-old crisis remained unresolved? The international peace and security order was sufficiently functional. The whole international community was called upon to condemn the gross and systematic violations of human rights and humanitarian law of the residents of the Occupied Territories and to take steps towards putting an end to the widespread killings in the Gaza Strip and to come to the assistance of the victims of those crimes. The Human Rights Council and the Muslims of the region had to pay more attention to the terrible situation in the Gaza Strip.
LEILA ENAYATI, of the Iranian Elite Research Center, said that it knew that the Human Rights Council tried hard to prevent these tragedies from happening, but now that the situation in Gaza had become so critical, what was to be done? Could anything be done to prevent people from dying? When they saw the conditions of the children of Gaza, they could not just remain indifferent. What could they do in these bitter times to send the children of Gaza a gift of love and friendship?
RAPHAEL BENARROSH, of International Association of Democratic Lawyers, in a joint statement with Union of Arab Jurists, said that the report of the events in Beit Hanoun proved Israel's violations. Israel was not occupying Gaza anymore, but it had transformed it into a prison to which it held the key. People could not even move out of Gaza to get basic healthcare. The result was a true danger of a humanitarian disaster. That was contrary to international law. It was a violation of human rights. Israel's occupation had to be halted, as it had to be in the other occupied Arab territories. The idea of East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital had to be brought about. The international community had unforgivably delayed the consideration of the problem and had to mobilize and act in order to ensure peace.
Continuation of General Debate on Universal Periodic Review
SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said that the Universal Periodic Review by definition was a periodic exercise. Governments were expected to report on the follow-up of the outcome at the next review. The modalities of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism had already been defined and required no further discussion. India therefore found the holding of the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review at this stage as premature.
OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria) was convinced that no new cycle for the Universal Periodic Review should be invented and that the cycle was supposed to continue in its four year cycle. The summary of views expressed and general comments on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review however should be an integral part of the report. There was also a strong need to apply the rule of procedure that statements ruled out of order should not be included in neither the Review nor in the report of the session.
MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said that Switzerland considered that the foundations that were lain in the first two Universal Periodic Review sessions had been sound, although with time and practice the Council could further improve this process. Switzerland, in conjunction with the Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, had organized a workshop this July on an initial evaluation of the organization of the Universal Periodic Review. From Switzerland's perspective, this workshop had demonstrated the relevance and necessity of sharing with the different delegations and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights the good practices and difficulties encountered in all the preparatory phases of the Universal Periodic Review. They had also noted that the Universal Periodic Review had enabled certain States to take measures even before the presentation of the report. The involvement of civil society in the drafting of the national report had also opened up new and promising possibilities of dialogue.
MARIANA OLIVERA WEST (Mexico) said that Mexico attached greatest importance to the Universal Periodic Review in the Human Rights Council. This process served to increase the credibility of the Council by permitting the review of States in respecting their human rights obligations. The review of the first 32 countries had been highly instructive, with a high degree of commitment by the States, as expressed in the high quality of submitted documents and the interactive dialogue. The quality of documents prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the input from civil society had created a broad vision that enriched the dialogue.
These were early days for the Universal Periodic Review and there were still things to improve. Still it was important to retain a cooperative sprit and to provide support to developing countries to participate in the mechanism.
Mexico would be reviewed in the fourth session in February 2009 and the Government had already started the consultation process with the view to prepare the national report. Extensive invitations to two-day consultations in Mexico City and the provinces had been extended to civil society organizations, academia and the judiciary. The report would be distributed in October. The Government was also in the process of strengthening grass root support for the report through the establishment of an Internet site. Mexico reiterated its commitment to drafting and carrying out the programme of activities together with other actors, as a follow-up to the results of the Universal Periodic Review.
QIAN BO (China) said that the Council had not agreed to focus on the evaluation of the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review. China was not opposed to voluntary reporting. However, human rights protection was not a response to the Universal Periodic Review but a continuous process. The resolution on institution building had to be implemented and confrontation should be avoided. The general debate should be held on a clearly technical level and not turn into a discussion of single countries.
MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA (Cuba) said that the Universal Periodic Review was an instrument to assess the human rights situation of all States. This had brought to an end to selective discriminatory practices, which had discredited the late Commission. Cuba had no objection of the holding of the debate taking place today. Also, Cuba proposed that States could also recount their experiences of the first Universal Periodic Review round, before its end. This should be done on a voluntarily basis.
FLORENTINA VOICU (Romania) said that Romania was convinced that the information provided by States on the implementation of recommendations on the Universal Periodic Review had demonstrated the commitment to the improvement of the human rights situation in their territories.
The national authorities had initiated the process of implementation of recommendations made to Romania during the Universal Periodic Review. This process would be strengthened through permanent coordination and cooperation with non governmental organizations active in the protection of human rights. The Romanian authorities had intensified their efforts to complete the preparation of national reports to international human rights bodies and the periodic report had already been submitted to the Committee for Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Romania was going to sign the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on handicapped persons and the ratification process would soon start in the Parliament. The internal process on signing the United Nations Convention against Forced Disappearances was well advanced. Finally, the Government of Romania had adopted the national strategy for child protection for 2008-2013 and the national Child Protection Agency had already submitted for public debate a series of draft laws on family and child development.
RAJIVA WIJESINHA (Sri Lanka) said that the Universal Periodic Review had been a learning experience for Sri Lanka as well as for many others. In the areas where Sri Lanka was weak, Sri Lanka had recognized both the problem and possible solutions. Sri Lanka was glad to receive the technical assistance that it needed. With its internal conflict resolved, as the European Union had suggested, with terrorism rendered powerless, Sri Lanka would be able to do much more for the rights of its entire people.
SANDRA COULIBALY LEROY, of the International Organization of la Francophonie, expressed the hope that the next Universal Periodic Review session would be held in a spirit of dialogue and cooperation. They encouraged national human rights institutions of the Francophonie Member States to participate in the preparatory phases leading to the Universal Periodic Review. A number of States had asked them for assistance in the preparation of the Universal Periodic Review and thus they continued to contribute to this work by preparing and making available tools explaining how the Universal Periodic Review operated. Further, making all documents available in all United Nations languages would help all participants to participate in this work.
KATHARINA ROSE, of the South African Human Rights Commission, welcomed the opportunity to contribute to the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review. This process further strengthened institution building within the United Nations system and supported the work of existing human rights bodies. National human rights institutions were more recent actors in the human rights arena and as independent institutions that adhered to the Paris Principles were increasingly recognised as the natural partner at the domestic level to help implement recommendations resulting from the international human rights system. They were also well placed to support the necessary connection between domestic, regional and international human rights systems. The Universal Periodic Review was a nascent process that had enormous potential for States to demonstrate their commitment to the international human rights standards. The South African Human Rights Commission encouraged the Human Rights Council to continue promoting the role of national human right institutions in the Universal Periodic Review and encouraged other national human rights institutions to engage in the Universal Periodic Review process.
PAUL DZIATKOWIEC, of International Service for Human Rights, in a joint statement with Baha'i International Community, regretted the attempts of some States to remove any opportunity to discuss developments related to the Universal Periodic Review process and the mechanism as a whole. In order for the Universal Periodic review to meet its full potential, all stakeholders should be given opportunities to inform the Council of progress and obstacles in implementing Universal Periodic Review recommendations. The International Service believed that the discussion was a substantive follow-up to the Universal Periodic Review outcome and was critical to the credibility and relevance of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism.
PHILIPPE DAM, of Human Rights Watch, said that the first rounds of the Universal Periodic Review had shown some unevenness. The preparatory process at the national level was important. Member States were encouraged to organize broad consultations between all stakeholders. A number of Governments had approached the exercise as a foreign policy exercise, this was regretted. Their vision was to strive for the high quality of the review and its outcome.
GIYOUN KIM, of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, drew the attention of the Council to the need for a genuine and meaningful consultation process at the national level in the preparation of a national report and in the follow up to the Universal Periodic Review outcome. Otherwise, the Universal Periodic Review risked becoming a one-time event taking place only in Geneva and with little relevance elsewhere. Many Asian countries under the review in the first and the second session of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group had not made sincere efforts to engage with civil society and had missed an important opportunity to identify the main human rights issues and explore the way to address them.
The Asian Forum strongly urged the countries under review at the fourth session of the Universal Periodic Review to make all efforts to prepare their national reports through a genuine in-country process including broad consultation with all relevant stakeholders. It also urged the Human Rights Council to provide much improved procedures to ensure the participation of national non governmental organizations in the Universal Periodic Review process and to establish substantive working methods for the follow up to the Universal Periodic Review outcome.
MARIANNE LILLIEBJERG, of Amnesty International, said that the first objective of the Universal Periodic Review was the improvement of the human rights situation on the ground. Leading into the first two rounds of the Universal Periodic Review, many of the reviewed States held consultations with civil society in the preparation of their national reports. This good practice must be nurtured and developed as the Universal Periodic Review process grew. Finally, Amnesty International suggested that the Peacebuilding Commission make use of the information of the Universal Periodic Review process.
OPHELIE NAMIECH, of United Nations Watch, said that the Universal Periodic Review was a significant advance for the Human Rights Council. It represented a true potential for the victims of human rights violations. United Nations Watch was preparing a report on the first Universal Periodic Review sessions. Non governmental organizations had not been referred to enough during some of the reviews, as for example in the case of the review of Bahrain. They also regretted the fact that regional blocks had prevailed during the Universal Periodic Review.
JOHN FISHER, of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, made three proposals in order to strengthen the Universal Periodic Review process. First, States should clearly indicate their position on each one of the recommendations. Second, this position should be provided before the report on the outcomes was adopted. In the first two rounds of the Universal Periodic Review there had not been much time between the interactive dialogue and the debate on the outcomes. This would improve in the following rounds of the Universal Periodic Review. Third, the report currently consisted of seven separate documents, which contributed to a piecemeal approach. Only one document should be made, under one document number, to ensure improved transparency. Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network recognised the leadership of the former President of the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the review process.
SAMUEL KISSI, of Federation for Women and Family Planning, in a joint statement with Action Canada for Population and Development, brought the Council's attention to the insufficient treatment of issues of reproductive rights and reproductive health, including maternal mortality, within the Universal Periodic Review process thus far. For example, the issue of adolescent sexuality and reproductive health education had never been raised in the context of the Universal Periodic Review, although the international community had made many commitments in this area. The Federation urged States under review to report on and include voluntary commitments regarding reproductive rights.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC08099E