HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES FIRST DAY OF HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded the first day of its high-level segment, hearing from Ministers and other dignitaries from Sri Lanka, Luxembourg, Gabon, Serbia, France, Morocco, Brazil, Germany, the Republic of Korea, India, Liechtenstein, Ghana, Nigeria, Mauritius, Malaysia, Greece, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Italy, Uruguay, Japan, and Portugal.

Speakers affirmed their commitment to the Human Rights Council and welcomed the potential for change that it represented. Many welcomed the planned establishment of a universal periodic review mechanism as a way of protecting against selectivity and double standards, which they said had hampered the work of the Council’s predecessor organ, the Commission on Human Rights. Delegations also outlined the current efforts of their Governments to promote and protect human rights.

Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights of Sri Lanka, said that for the first time, Sri Lanka had established a Cabinet Ministry to deal with the subject of human rights as a clear demonstration of the resolve and commitment of the Head of State to promote and protect the rights of all people in Sri Lanka.

Jean Asselborn, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, said the leading thread of the action of the Human Rights Council should be that dignity was inherent to every human being. Much progress still remained to be done: there was too much discrimination with regard to women, minorities, children and the disabled, which traditions and cultures could not justify.

Pierre Claver Maganga Moussavou, Minister of State for Human Rights of Gabon, said the Council should be the main forum in which States recognized people’s rights. There was a common duty to defend mankind and human rights, in particular in these times when globalization could be, for some countries, a pretext to crush others with impunity.

Vuk Drašković, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Serbia, asked that the Human Rights Council take the position that the rights of Serbs and other non-Albanians had to be protected forthwith and unconditionally with international guarantees and that the existing borders of internationally recognized States could not be changed contrary to the will of those States themselves.

Philippe Douste-Blazy, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, said the Council should confirm the mandate of the special rapporteurs; confirm the unique place which non-governmental organizations should continue to hold; and adopt the Convention on Enforced Disappearances.

Mohamed Bousoubaâ, Minister for Justice of Morocco, said Morocco adhered to a number of international instruments aimed at the promotion and protection of human rights and the authorities had also withdrawn the reservations they made on certain articles of the Convention against Torture.

Celso Luis Nunes Amorim, Minister of External Relations of Brazil, said that, on 26 June, the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, Brazil would deposit the optional declaration contemplated in the Convention against Torture, allowing the consideration of petitions submitted by individuals.

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Foreign Minister of Germany, said the new Human Rights Council was one visible achievement of the endeavours to reform the United Nations. During the discussions awaiting the Council, it should at no time lose sight of the common goal of doing all that it possibly could to enable everyone around the world to live in freedom and dignity.

Ban Ki-Moon, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea, said with the launching of the Council today, human rights had found their proper place as one of the three pillars of the United Nations’ work. The enhanced prominence was the result of the universal acknowledgement that peace and development could not be fully enjoyed or realised without respect for human rights.

Anand Sharma, Minister of State for External Affairs of India, said that by establishing the Human Rights Council, the international community had reaffirmed its resolve and commitment to constantly adjust and improve its framework for addressing human rights challenges.

Rita Kieber-Beck, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein, stressed that human rights discourse should be based on genuine dialogue. The implementation of existing human rights standards should be at the foremost of the activities of the Council.

Nana Akufo-Addo, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ghana, said that Ghana had in the last decade embarked resolutely on the path of democratic development, where the principles of democratic accountability, respect for human rights and the rule of law were now at the core of their body politic.

Oluyemi Adeniji, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, said that one of the most important innovations of the Council would be the universal periodic review of human rights records of Member States. That form of peer review mechanism was a process that Africa had adopted and had been practising for the past three years. It would allow for transparency and self-assessment.

Madan Murlidhar Dulloo, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mauritius, said that to effectively carry out the responsibilities of the United Nations in the field of human rights, the Council would have new tools and more time than the preceding system.

Ahmad Shabery Cheek, Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia, said that Malaysia wished to remind the Council of the special mandate assigned to the United Nations by the international community vis-à-vis the people of Palestine. Malaysia hoped that the promise of a fresh beginning would be brought to bear with the Council addressing that urgent crisis effectively.

Theodore Kassimis, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, reaffirmed his country’s commitment to the promotion and protection of all human rights, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. Greece had ratified all major United Nations and regional human rights instruments, and it had contributed and continued to actively participate in the work of relevant United Nations bodies.

Fuad Hasanovic, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, said many compromises had been made in the negotiations for the resolution establishing the Council, and yet it was hoped that it had established a solid foundation to advance the cause of human rights. The work of the Council should not be confined to reaction, but should focus on prevention.

Gianni Vernetti, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Italy, said the future of the Council started here, today – a date which coincided with the birthday of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mrs. Aung Saan Suu Kyi, to whom, joining the Austrian Presidency of the European Union, he wished to extend his warmest greetings. In that respect, Italy was deeply concerned about situations from which the repression of political opponents and human rights defenders emerged.

Belela Herrera, Vice-Minister for External Relations of Uruguay, said today the world was embarking on a new era with regards to the multilateral protection of human rights among countries, peoples and civilisations. Multilateralism was the best guiding principle for the relations among States.

Akiko Yamanaka, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said the Human Rights Council should be based on the past accomplishments of the Commission, assume its strengths, and add further value to them. The new Council should demonstrate concrete outcomes to the international community for it to meet its expectations.

Bernardo Ivo Cruz, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Portugal, said the establishment of the Council created a historic opportunity to strengthen the human rights machinery today. The Council preserved the strengths of the Commission, including the special procedures, but it also contained several innovative elements that represented a reinvigorating start.
The Council will reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. at which time it will continue with the high-level segment of its inaugural session, hearing from Ministers and other high-level dignitaries.

Statements

MAHINDA SAMARASINGHE, Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights of Sri Lanka, said that as a small developing nation and a vibrant democracy in Asia, Sri Lanka was heartened and humbled by the vote of confidence bestowed on the country by the international community, in electing it to the Council. For the first time in the country, a Cabinet Ministry to deal with the subject of human rights had now been established by the Head of the State as a clear demonstration of his resolve and commitment to promote and protect the rights of all people living in Sri Lanka. Under the Ministry, an advisory body consisting of State officials and civil society leaders had been set up to work together and report, including undertaking fact-finding field visits. The Permanent Standing Committee on Human Rights, set up to provide policy guidelines and leadership to the State machinery with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights, met just two weeks after Sri Lanka was elected as a member of the Council, in order to take stock of how the pledges made during the campaign could be implemented as early as possible. A large number of decisions taken at that meeting would serve as Sri Lanka’s map in the coming months.

The care of children was a matter in which the country’s President took a personal interest having declared the year 2006 as the National Year of Children, under which a Plan of Action had been formulated and projects were being implemented. Sri Lanka remained in the forefront of the campaign to have the use of child soldiers condemned and banned worldwide. The LTTE had for many years been engaged in recruiting children for armed combat. Despite their solemn undertaking given to UNICEF, the group had continued the practice of recruiting thousands of children, in most cases by force, which was well documented by UNICEF and international non-governmental organizations. Much of the complaints registered by the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission against the LTTE pertained to deliberate violations of the rights of children. The Government was in the process of finalizing the terms of reference of the Task Force on monitoring and reporting on that matter in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1612. The Government was of the firm conviction that solutions to the issues at hand had to be sought only through political means and not through military means.

JEAN ASSELBORN, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration of Luxembourg, said Luxembourg welcomed the substantial increase in the budget of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which would allow for the reinforcement of an effective instrument for the promotion and protection of the universally recognised human rights, namely civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. The inauguration of the work of the new Council was a major step forwards on the path towards universal protection of human rights, a path that began in 1949 with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The new Council should allow for increased promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world. The actions of the Commission should be reinforced by using the potentiality offered by the new body.

The leading thread of the action of the Council should be that dignity was inherent to every human being. The importance of the fundamental principle of equality among all human beings should not be questioned. Much progress still remained to be done: there was too much discrimination with regards to women, minorities, children and the disabled, which traditions and cultures could not justify. The Council should adopt without delay the draft Convention on Enforced Disappearances. Impunity was also a recurrent factor with regards to human rights violations. The fight against terrorism also should take place whilst fully respecting human rights. Respect for the fundamental dignity of human beings also implied an end to torture and inhuman treatment.
PIERRE CLAVER MAGANGA MOUSSAVOU, Minister of State at the Ministry of Human Rights of Gabon, said today a new era was dawning: the international community had decided to replace the Commission on Human Rights with the Human Rights Council. The creation of a Council was a historic occasion for the international community to improve the promotion and protection of the freedom of peoples throughout the world. The tasks that were its mandate were clearly defined. The current international situation was particularly difficult, and required a sustained effort. The search for peace should be a major preoccupation for the international community, and of the new Council. Human rights allowed all to develop and fully use their qualities, intelligence, talents and conscience, and to satisfy spiritual aspirations.

On the international level, the issue of human rights remained a constant preoccupation and an appeal for international solidarity. The Council should be the main forum in which States recognised people’s rights. There was a common duty to defend mankind and human rights, in particular in these times when globalisation could be, for some countries, a pretext to crush others with impunity. The international community should react in this regard. Poverty was increasing, inequalities between nations growing, the HIV/AIDS pandemic continuing to decimate populations, and the access of developing countries to new information technologies and communication was not always guaranteed. Racism and xenophobia continued to exist. The Council should make the greatest efforts to promote development and peace.

VUK DRAŠKOVIĆ, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Serbia, said that, because of non-liberty, discrimination, hatred, terrorism and the diktat of the stronger and the richer, hundreds of millions of people suffered and perished in the world today. It had been exactly because of the gross violations of human rights guaranteed by the Charter of the United Nations that Secretary-General Kofi Annan had been prompted to propose – and the General Assembly had accepted – that the Human Rights Council be invested with considerably greater powers than the former Commission and that it become a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly itself.

In welcoming those powers of the Council, Mr. Drašković addressed to it a request to stigmatize in a resolute way the massive and systematic violations of human rights of the Serbs and other non-Albanians in a part of the State of Serbia, the Province of Kosovo and Metohija, under United Nations civil and military administration since 10 June 1999. More than 220,000 Serbs, Roma, Turks and other non-Albanians had been expelled from Kosovo over the past seven years. More than 1,000 Serbs had been killed, including many children, and about 40,000 Serbian homes and 150 centuries-old churches and monasteries had been destroyed. Perhaps because he had been an honest witness to the truth of that human rights inferno, Mr. Marek Nowicki, the United Nations Ombudsman for Kosovo, had been replaced without explanation last year, sending a tragic message to the Serbs that the great and mighty world – its mouth full of human rights – was turning its head away from their plight. Serbia demanded that the Human Rights Council take the position that the rights of Serbs and other non-Albanians had to be protected forthwith and unconditionally with international guarantees and that the existing borders of internationally recognized States could not be changed contrary to the will of those States themselves.

PHILIPPE DOUSTE-BLAZY, Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, said all States had made commitments in order to have a place in the new Council, including the commitment to cooperate with the United Nations and its mechanisms, and to submit to a critical debate as to how they guaranteed and promoted human rights. A first, strong gesture from the Council would be to confirm the mandate of the special rapporteurs. A second would be to confirm the unique place which the non-governmental organizations should continue to hold. The Council should act with resolve wherever it was necessary, by dialogue, by the implementation of international texts, by technical assistance and by the denunciation of grave violations of human rights. With regards to issues of identity raised by globalisation with regards to security challenges, a rights-based approach should prevail.

The Council should adopt the Convention on Enforced Disappearances. Respect for human rights contributed to stability, whereas impunity was the greatest incitement to fragilisation of States and the break-up of societies. The Council should also continue its work on economic, social and cultural rights, as well as working further to fight against violence against women. To bring these projects to a fruitful end, to put an end to crime and violence, all would have to work together. Human rights defenders were at the fore-front of these issues, and they daily took considerable risks. The respect, admiration and support of all for their work was solemnly expressed.

MOHAMED BOUSOUBAÂ, Minister of Justice of Morocco, said Morocco, which has made the spreading human rights a pillar of its policies and a fundamental way to build a democratic society, had not hesitated from the start in strongly supporting the Human Rights Council. All the international instruments should be implemented in cooperation with all countries, which were endeavouring to promote the effectiveness of the Council. It was impetrative that all norms and standards should be discussed and implemented by all countries. In order to attain the goals set up by the Council the international community should work hand in hand through effective diplomatic means. The resources should also be made available to the strengthening of the international mechanisms set up by the Council. Morocco was attached to the fundamental rights of its citizens through the promotion of human rights. The Head of State was devoted in promoting the human rights of all of his citizens. Morocco was open to the world and it was ready to any scrutiny with regard to human rights. In order to further human rights, a series of legislation had been put in place and implemented in order to sustain the respect for human rights. Through democratic institutions and consultancy agencies, the rights of nationals living in the country had been strengthened. A number of non-governmental organizations had been operating in the country without any constraints.

Morocco adhered to a number of international instruments aimed at the promotion and protection of human rights. The Government had released a number of prisoners held in connection with the conflict in the Saharan part of Morocco. The authorities had also withdrawn the reservations they made on certain articles of the Convention against Torture. A new personal law had been enacted to enable women equal opportunity in the society. Anti- discrimination legislation had also been put in place to eradicate any form of exclusion in the society. In order to enhance human development and to put an end to the social differences, a new programme had been adopted by the Government and would promote the rights of women and children, among others. At the international level, Morocco was also active in promoting the rights of peoples, in particular those of Palestinians.

CELSO LUIS NUNES AMORIM, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Brazil, said that the Human Rights Council had to build on the achievements of the Commission on Human Rights. Six decades of Commission work had provided abundant examples of how counterproductive a purely confrontational strategy could be. In human rights there were neither masters, with nothing to learn, nor pupils, with nothing to teach. They could all learn from each other.

Mr. Amorim said that among the several forms of violation of human rights, torture was a particularly abominable one. In that connection, on 26 June, the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, Brazil would deposit the optional declaration contemplated in the Convention against torture, allowing the consideration of petitions submitted by individuals. Hunger and disease could also in their effects be seen as forms of anonymous torture, imposed by unjust societies – or even by the international society itself – on individuals. Those affected by such scourges were in no position to enjoy other civil and political rights. Combating poverty and illness was also a way of promoting human rights and of reinforcing democracy. That was why Brazil, under President Lula’s leadership, was committed to the design of innovative mechanisms for development financing and to the elimination of historical distortions that affected the international trading system. In addition, Brazil was particularly engaged in efforts to combat racism and promote social equality for the Afro-descendant majority in the country. The creation of the Human Rights Council offered a unique opportunity to instil new life into the consideration of human rights in the United Nations system. Ideals – precisely those that had been inscribed in the Universal Declaration – had to prevail over political expediency.

FRANK-WALTER STEINMEIER, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, said this was a new era for the promotion of international human rights. The Council represented a great opportunity for improved human rights protection. The new body was one visible achievement of the endeavours to reform the United Nations. Its establishment was far from easy - indeed, initial hopes and plans for the project had had to be scaled back. And yet it was hoped that today would go down in the history of the United Nations as a milestone for the global promotion and protection of human rights, and all should work together towards this goal. The promotion and protection of human rights remained a key concern of the international community as a whole, and the success of the Council would be directly proportional to the degree to which its work was constructively supported by all States, including those that were not, or were not yet, its members.

The establishment of the Council, which was concluded with today’s meeting, was just a first step towards an overhaul of multilateral human rights policy. In coming months, some difficult debates would have to be held on both substantive and procedural matters. One principle was of particular importance: the Council should not remain silent in the face of gross and systematic violations of human rights, regardless of where in the world they were committed. This was a prerequisite for its work. But the work would consist of far more: it would above all be the task to make a tangible contribution to preventing abuses and correcting any that did occur. During the discussions awaiting the Council, it should at no time lose sight of the common goal of doing all that it possibly could to enable everyone around the world to live in freedom and dignity.

BAN KI-MOON, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea, said with the launching of the Council today, human rights had found their proper place as one of the three pillars of the United Nations’ work. The enhanced prominence was the result of the universal acknowledgement that peace and development could not be fully enjoyed or realised without respect for human rights. The three pillars of the United Nations, namely, peace and stability, development, and the promotion of human rights and democracy, were all mutually reinforcing and interdependent. There was every expectation that the new Council would be stronger, more effective and efficient than its predecessor. In many ways, the work done this year would be pivotal to the evolution of the Council, and more importantly, to the protection of human rights for many generations to come.

A new start was always pregnant with promises. But these would not materialise without the will and cooperation of all concerned. With the launching of the Council, human rights were at a new start. What was required now was the full commitment and conjoined efforts of all who aspired to make human rights a bond that bonded humanity rather than a barrier that divided. The members of the Council should be unswerving in their commitment to making human rights the third and equal pillar of the United Nations, along with peace and security and development. Efforts should be renewed for a full and more effective implementation of the existing human rights norms. The Council should also promptly and effectively respond to urgent human rights situations. It should build upon the practice of the Commission in incorporating the active participation of all major stakeholders in its work, and there also needed to be more frequent interaction and dialogue with the High Commissioner.

ANAND SHARMA, Minister of State for External Affairs of India, said that by establishing the Human Rights Council, the international community had reaffirmed its resolve and commitment to constantly adjust and improve its framework for addressing human rights challenges. In its first year the new Council was to establish a universal periodic review mechanism, which should ensure equal treatment of all Member States and also prevent selectivity and double standards. While improving and rationalizing mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the former Commission on Human Rights, the Council should adopt an even-handed approach in dealing with civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, on the other. Another major challenge was terrorism. The international community should recognize that terrorism was a direct violation of human rights, in particular the most basic rights to life and liberty.

India’s democratic polity, with an independent and impartial judiciary, free and independent press, vibrant civil society and powerful and independent National Human Rights Commission, provided the basis for nurturing a culture of respect for and promotion and protection of human rights in India. India had also taken an important initiative for the empowerment of women by reserving one third of all seats for women in urban and local self-government. Meanwhile, the right to work was being significantly realized with the launch of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme earlier in 2006.

RITA KIEBER-BECK, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein, stressed that human rights discourse should be based on genuine dialogue. The foundation of such a dialogue was firmly established: universality of all human rights; interconnected and interdependent nature of all human rights; all human rights should be given the same emphasis; and implementation of international standards was first and foremost an obligation of States, while the universal promotion and protection was a legitimate concern of the international community as a whole. That meant that States had to engage with each other in order to enhance the implementation of human rights standards worldwide. And the Council should be able to respond to human rights crises worldwide in an effective and credible manner. The implementation of the existing human rights standards should be at the foremost of the activities of the Council. Reality was that there were very high human rights standards on paper, and that their application was very poor. If only the standards set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was binding on all States, were applied worldwide, the numerous reports on the global situation on human rights would look much different.

Capacity-building and technical assistance should be a core activity of the new Council: non-implementation of human rights standards could be due either to the unwillingness or inability of States to implement agreed standards. The United Nations, but also other bodies such as regional organizations, should assist every State that lacked the capacity for implementation. That would greatly contribute to the implementation of human rights standards worldwide and also would help identify those States that were not willing to implement those standards. During its June session, the Council should set the right tone for the future of human rights work; should establish clear processes, including deadlines on all matters that were yet to be resolved, such as the universal periodic review and the review of special procedures; and the session should result in a simple, generic agenda which would allow for discussion of all human rights issues at future sessions, without placing unnecessary emphasis on any particular subject matter, which would not sit well with the goal of sending the Council off to a new start. Liechtenstein strongly believed that an agenda that was fundamentally different from the Commission was essential in order to leave the past behind.

NANA AKUFO-ADDO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ghana, said that Ghana had in the last decade embarked resolutely on the path of democratic development, where the principles of democratic accountability, respect for human rights and the rule of law were now at the core of their body politic. That had come about because of the deep disillusionment of the broad masses of Ghanaians with long periods of authoritarian, military rule in the years after independence, which were characterized by widespread violations of the human rights of its citizenry, involving the senseless killings of innocent persons, unexplained disappearances, mass detentions, and the arbitrary seizures of private property.

Nana Akufo-Addo said that, among the issues to be considered as part of the first year programme, the adoption of a universal periodic review mechanism was of particular interest to the Ghanaian delegation. Ghana was the first country to be reviewed by the Africa peer review mechanism under the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. On the basis of that experience, Ghana was convinced that the proposed universal periodic review mechanism would improve the human rights situation globally if its work was characterized by openness, dialogue and cooperation. In Ghana’s bid for a seat on the Council, it voluntarily made a number of commitments which it intended to make a reality. As a preliminary step, Ghana was currently involved in the process of adopting all the human rights instruments to which it was not a party.

OLUYEMI ADENIJI, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, said that one of the most important innovations of the Council would be the universal periodic review of human rights records of Member States. That form of peer review mechanism was a process which Africa had adopted and had been practising for the past three years. It would allow for transparency and self-assessment. It would also place responsibilities on the Member State not only to observe the tenets of human rights but also to be seen to be doing so. Human rights were all about observance of domestic and international covenants. They were about respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights of citizens. Therefore, the principal actors in that endeavour were none other than States who had signed up to international covenants and should have adopted national legislation in order to domesticate the provisions of the covenants. The periodic review of the Human Rights Council should therefore be carefully considered in all its ramifications so that at the outset the mechanism was set out in such a way that it would serve the purpose it was intended – universality of application, pragmatic criticism of violators of human rights, and observable transparency and non-confrontational ways of seeking change in behaviour of States.

It was regrettable that despite the progress made in economic and scientific development, the rights of vast numbers of people continued to be violated on systematic and regular bases across the world. A vast majority of people still lived in abject poverty in a world bursting with affluence. Preventable diseases and malnutrition killed children in the millions while the world had resources to end that scourge. Conflicts were allowed to kindle and rage unabated while they could be prevented if statesmanship and sober judgement had been deployed to their resolution. As one faced the great challenges of promoting and protecting human rights, it was imperative that an agreeable balance between civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights was found. That could only be effectively achieved if a nexus between all segments of rights was established. Otherwise, the discussion of human rights especially in their civil and political contents alone would be meaningless. The achievement of political stability and conflict resolution in most countries was intrinsically linked to economic development. The promotion and protection of human rights was an integral part of Nigeria’s foreign and domestic policy.

MADAN MURLIDHAR DULLOO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mauritius, said the international community’s common determination to succeed in reforming the United Nations institutional set-up for promoting and protecting fundamental rights had led to the creation of the Council, and members of the Council now had a primary responsibility to ensure that this newly-created institution functioned effectively with the collaboration of all stakeholders. The Human Rights Council would not only strengthen the United Nations machinery to become a principal organ, but would also build the capacity of Member States to enable them to comply with their human rights obligations to ensure the well-being and dignity of their citizens. The pursuit of human rights did not necessarily need to be a confrontational process: by promoting cooperation and dialogue, the Council would be able to build a feeling of common ownership of the human rights mission of the United Nations.

To effectively carry out the responsibilities of the United Nations in the field of human rights, the Council would have new tools and more time than the preceding system. Clear procedures and methods of work had to be established at the Council’s very outset to ensure its effectiveness, especially with regards to the new aspects such as the universal periodic review mechanism, which had been designed to protect the new system from selectivity and to ensure that no State or Government was above the law. The Council needed to act on the basis of credible information. The first session of the Council was of critical importance: the decisions made would determine the overall credibility and usefulness of the Council. A tremendous and challenging task was ahead, and time was of the essence.

AHMAD SHABERY CHEEK, Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia, said that Malaysia’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights was rooted in its rich cultural heritage and in its firm belief in the inherent dignity of the human person and respect for the principles of equality, freedom and justice. Malaysia’s efforts in that regard went hand in hand with the prominence it devoted to the promotion of racial harmony and equitable socio-economic development, while taking into account both individual rights and the general well-being of society as a whole. In its work, the Council had to be guided by the principles of universality, indivisibility, inter-relatedness and interdependence of all human rights. Malaysia believed that the Council should serve as a useful forum to enhance dialogue, broaden understanding and promote mutual respect for all coming from different civilizations, cultures and religions, with various particularities and backgrounds. Distinct national circumstances and varying levels of development, too, inevitably would impact on Council efforts in that area.

Mr. Cheek said that Malaysia was convinced that the intergovernmental Council stood to benefit from the participation of civil society, with its broad and diverse expertise in various fields. Given the limited time available in the first session, Malaysia agreed on the importance of appropriate interim measures to ensure that no protection gap existed during this transitional period. As they focused their attention on the work to be carried out by the newly established Council, they must not overlook the responsibilities that they carried from the past. In that regard, Malaysia wished to remind the Council of the special mandate assigned to the United Nations by the international community vis-à-vis the people of Palestine. Malaysia hoped that the promise of a fresh beginning would be brought to bear with the Council addressing that urgent crisis effectively. Indeed, that represented a litmus test for the Council’s credibility and legitimacy.

THEODORE KASSIMIS, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, reaffirmed Greece’s commitment to the promotion and protection of all human rights, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. Greece had ratified all major United Nations and regional human rights instruments. It had contributed and continued to actively participate in the work of relevant United Nations bodies, as well as in United Nations conferences in the field of human rights. Greece closely cooperated with the United Nations human rights treaty bodies, as well as special rapporteurs, and took their recommendations into serious consideration. In recent years, Greece had taken important steps in the field of human rights protection. A series of constitutional amendments were also carried out with a view to fully integrating them into Greece’s fundamental laws and contemporary international standards. Further, a new provision on affirmative action in favour of women was put in place by reproducing almost verbatim the relevant provision of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. In 2002, comprehensive legislation was adopted to combat trafficking in human beings and to ensure protection of and assistance to the victims of the scourge. A comprehensive National Plan of Action had been launched to that effect, in cooperation with international organizations and non-governmental organizations. Those instruments had already yielded positive results.

In 2003, Greece had introduced the institution of the Children’s Ombudsman, entrusted with the task to promote and protect children’s rights. Significant amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure had also been adopted, in the light of relevant recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Government had tabled an important draft bill against domestic violence. Greece attached great importance to the contributions of the national institutions to the promotion and protection of human rights. In the country, such an institution had been operating since 2000, in close coordination with the Greek Ombudsman and in full conformity with the Paris Principles. The Commission on Human Rights had actually done a lot. However, Greece was not fully happy with the current state of affairs. The violation of human rights continued to constitute a stigma for world society. The most fundamental human rights – the right to life – was being encroached upon on a daily basis through acts intended to serve various interests, fanaticism and terrorism.

FUAD HASANOVIC, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, said many compromises had been made in the negotiations for the resolution establishing the Council, and yet it was hoped that it had established a solid foundation to advance the cause of human rights. In this regard, it should not be forgotten that the responsibility lay with the States. Their commitment to build on the strengths of the former Commission and put to life important innovations to overcome the identified loopholes and shortcomings would be of vital importance. An effective and efficient Council would contribute to strengthening the credibility and legitimacy of the entire United Nations system. It was necessary to solemnly try to avoid the stereotypes of the past: a fresh start was not possible with old habits.

The work of the Council, which started today, should not be confined to reaction, but should focus on prevention. It should provide States with guidance and assistance to reach the highest human rights standards. Human rights crises should be addressed promptly and effectively, and the same applied to long-standing human rights violations. The universal periodic review mechanism should be developed as a true mechanism for cooperation between the Council and the respective country, based on interactive dialogue with and full involvement of the country concerned. It should have an effective follow-up mechanism essential to its proper functioning. There were high expectations and an enormous workload ahead. Based on the commitment to making a real difference that had been demonstrated in the work so far, there was confidence that the constructive spirit would prevail. It was a duty and moral obligation to all, and first and foremost to the victims of human rights violations worldwide.

GIANNI VERNETTI, State Minister for Foreign Affairs of Italy, said that, on several occasions, the Government of Italy had expressed its satisfaction and its broadest support for the newly established Council, which represented one of the most important results achieved at the September 2005 World Summit. The need for an authoritative and effective organ – capable of building upon the positive aspects of the Commission on Human Rights, by overcoming at the same time its drawbacks – had emerged long since. The future of the Council started here, today – a date which coincided with the birthday of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mrs. Aung Saan Suu Kyi, to whom, joining the Austrian Presidency of the European Union, he wished to extend his warmest greetings. In that respect, Italy was deeply concerned about situations from which the repression of political opponents and human rights defenders emerged.

Mr. Vernetti reiterated that the promotion of democracy and the rule of law was one of Italy’s priorities. For that reason, Italy continued to emphasize the importance of strengthening and working within the “Community of Democracies”, in which Italy was accepted as a full member last September. He renewed Italy’s strong commitment towards the universal abolition of the death penalty. Furthermore, Italy intended to pay specific attention to combat any form of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, the use of which still remained one of the most serious and aberrant forms of human rights violation. Here it was most appropriate to reiterate that no economic, political, cultural, social or religious reasons, no emergency, no strategic or political aim, could ever be used as a valid exception to justify torture.

BELELA HERRERA, Vice-Minister for External Relations of Uruguay, said today the world was embarking on a new era with regards to the multilateral protection of human rights among countries, peoples and civilisations. It was necessary to look to the future, and imagine the Council as a powerful tool serving, promoting and protecting the civil, economic, social and cultural rights of the peoples of the world, showing that the cause of human rights was no mere utopia, but the best possible contribution towards improving the lives of all on the planet. Multilateralism was the best guiding principle for the relations among States. Uruguay had a lengthy tradition of respect for human rights, except for a particular hiatus, and aimed to incorporate these in a true State policy.

The strengthening of legislation and of national bodies competent in the field of human rights, and the extension of international humanitarian law to protect human rights at the national level was a step forward which Uruguay was working to implement, with the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Council should be a tangible, and qualitative step forward in the protection and promotion of human rights. The Council should be guided by the principles of universality and non-selectivity, and this would be a major step forward. The universal periodic review mechanism should be a cornerstone of its work, and should reflect a new culture of impartiality and non-selectivity in which countries would accept this review openly and in a spirit of dialogue, as it would be a collective undertaking where primacy would go to the shared final concern: the enjoyment of human rights throughout the world.

AKIKO YAMANAKA, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, said the mainstreaming of human rights within the United Nations was proceeding irreversibly. The Human Rights Council should be based on the past accomplishments of the Commission, assume its strengths, and add further value to them. In the promotion of human rights, importance was attached to striking a balance both on the “principle” level and on the “implementation” level, and further a balance between the two. The new Council should demonstrate concrete outcomes to the international community for it to meet its expectations. What became important then were effectiveness, constructiveness and responsiveness, and in order to attain these three aims, it was most important for Member States to share responsibility by taking an initiative in setting examples for the promotion and protection of human rights.

In the last few decades, the human rights situation in the world had improved significantly, and many countries had been democraticised. However, many grave violations of human rights were still witnessed throughout the world. How significant the new Council proved to be would indeed depend on whether it could pave the way for resolving those grave human rights violations. Japan attached great importance to dialogue and cooperation with partner countries. At this historical turning point of the Council, participants had gathered with the common goal to “promote human rights”. It was hoped that with this common goal in mind, the newly established Council, through candid dialogue and the spirit of cooperation, would fully meet its expectations and not cease to be a “ray of hope” for people suffering from grave suppression of human rights around the world.

BERNARDO IVO CRUZ, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Portugal, said the decision to establish the Council was a remarkable step to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide. It entailed substantially more than a mere change of name when compared to the former Commission. The polemics and criticism, sometimes unfair, directed towards the Commission, mainly in its last phase, should not diminish its valuable work and achievements. The twentieth century had proved that the denial of human rights had been at the root of many conflicts. The creation of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and her Office had been major steps towards the improvement of the United Nations human rights machinery.

The establishment of the Council created a historic opportunity to strengthen the human rights machinery today. The Council preserved the strengths of the Commission, including the special procedures, but it also contained several innovative elements that represented a reinvigorating start. This new body represented a reinvigorating start, an opportunity which should not be passed up to renew commitments to human rights and to increase efforts to facilitate the full enjoyment of these rights by all people everywhere. At the same time, lessons should be learnt from the past. The United Nations human rights machinery had to better understand the different realities of human rights in the world. The international community had come a long way, and it was now time to move from principles to practice.