HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORTS ON SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUDAN AND BELARUS

The Human Rights Council this afternoon discussed the reports of its Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in the Sudan and in Belarus, and then took up the report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Sima Samar, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, said that following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in January 2005, Sudan had embarked on a difficult path of peace building, reconciliation and reconstruction. Since the formation of the Government of National Unity, the people had seen little change in their everyday life – the emergency laws were still in place in Darfur and the East and were also applied in Khartoum, people were arbitrarily arrested and held incommunicado by security forces; torture, ill-treatment and killings of civilians continued. Discrimination and marginalization of certain groups continued and basic rights such as access to food, shelter, health and education were not guaranteed. The right to life continued to be violated, in particular in Darfur. The perpetrators were government forces, militia and armed groups such as rebel factions and Chadian opposition. Rape and sexual violence against women continued, in particular in Darfur.

Sudan spoke as a concerned country.

Participating in the interactive dialogue on the situation of human rights in Sudan were Algeria, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, Bahrain on behalf of the Arab Group, India, Bangladesh, Belarus, Australia on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, Azerbaijan, Finland on behalf of the European Union, Egypt, Senegal, Republic of Korea, China, Cuba, Japan, Canada, United States, Malaysia, Jordan, Argentina, Morocco, Tunisia and the African Union.

Sudan spoke in right of reply.
Adrian Severin, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, said during 2005 and 2006, the human rights situation in Belarus had constantly deteriorated to such an extent that the elements usually defining a dictatorship could be seen. Civil and political rights were limited, cultural rights were ignored, and economic and other rights were enhanced to reward for obedience. During the last 18 months, two negative developments had been seen: a State Official Ideology, based on former Soviet concepts had been virtually imposed; and the ethno-cultural diversity, unproblematic before, had been used to divide the country. The Government had refused any cooperation with the country Rapporteur and this was not in coherence with the United Nations Charter.

Belarus spoke as a concerned country.

Participating in the interactive dialogue on the situation of human rights in Belarus were Cuba, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yemen, Russian Federation, Iran, Finland on behalf of the European Union, Algeria, Ghana, Canada, Lithuania, Syria, Malaysia, United States, India, China, Bangladesh, Sudan, Poland, Czech Republic, Morocco, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Tunisia and Peru.

Algeria spoke in right of reply.

Marc Bossuyt, Chairman of the fifty-eighth session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said in the view of the Sub-Commission, the Council should set up an independent body in the field of human rights, which might be called the Human Rights Consultative Committee. This Committee should be composed of no fewer than 26 members, maybe 28, who should be elected. It should also be collegial to ensure a balanced view and the independence of the body. The functions of the Committee should include research, generate thematic studies, standard setting, promote coherence, technical assistance, and identify existing gaps.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue with Mr. Bossuyt were Mexico, Zambia, Argentina, Russian Federation, Peru, Finland on behalf of the European Union, Brazil, India, Japan, Nigeria, United States, Canada, Bangladesh, China, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference and Algeria.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor to talk about the situation of human rights in the Sudan and Belarus: International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, Amnesty International, Pax Romana in a joint statement with Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, Human Rights Watch, International League for Human Rights, United Nations Watch, Transnational Radical Party, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, International Peace Bureau, and Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, in a joint statement with World Peace Council.


When the Council meets at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 28 September, it will discuss reports, studies and other documents prepared by the Secretariat, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, or the Secretary-General.

Report on Situation of Human Rights in Sudan

The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/111) entitled report by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Sudan, which presents the findings of the Special Rapporteur following her first mission to the Sudan in October 2005. The Special Rapporteur visited Khartoum, Juba and Nyala in Southern Darfur and met with a large number of interlocutors. The Special Rapporteur also held meetings in Geneva prior to the visit, including with the Permanent Mission of the Sudan in Geneva. The Special Rapporteur concludes that the framework for the protection and promotion of human rights has been improved through the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the creation of the Government of National Unity and the Government of South Sudan, and the Interim National Constitution and the Constitution for the South of the Sudan, which both guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms.

However, despite the optimism generated by these positive developments at the time of her visit to the Sudan, she saw no significant improvement in the human rights situation. Peace talks in Abuja were in progress while the conflict continued in Darfur. No effective action had been taken to disarm the Government-backed militia or Janjaweed. None of the serious crimes committed during the 2004 conflict had been seriously investigated or the perpetrators brought to justice. Immunities in place for security forces were not repealed. The state of emergency laws continued in certain areas and National Security continued to detain and torture persons they suspected of crimes. Access to National Security detention facilities was generally denied, with some exceptions. New laws were introduced which limited fundamental freedoms of expression and association and were challenged in the Constitutional Court. The culture of impunity continued, especially for the security forces, and the human rights situation remained of great concern.

Presentation by Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Sudan

SIMA SAMAR, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, said that following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in January 2005, Sudan had embarked on a difficult path of peace building, reconciliation and reconstruction. In 2005, a new Government of National Unity was formed and a new interim national Constitution was adopted containing a bill of rights. Later in the year, the Southern Sudan Legislation Assembly was formed. The Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan was adopted in December 2005. That put in place a framework for the protection of human rights. Since the formation of the Government of National Unity, the people had seen little change in their everyday life – the emergency laws were still in place in Darfur and the East and were also applied in Khartoum, people were arbitrarily arrested and held incommunicado by security forces; torture, ill-treatment and killings of civilians continued. Discrimination and marginalizatoin of certain groups continued and basic rights such as access to food, shelter, health and education were not guaranteed.

The right to life continued to be violated, in particular in Darfur. Killings and harassment of civilians in villages and internally displaced person camps continued. The perpetrators were government forces, militia and armed groups such as rebel factions and Chadian opposition. The Government had failed in its responsibility to protect the population from attacks in areas where it had control. In rebel-held area, there were breaches of the ceasefire agreements by all parties and violations of obligations under international humanitarian law had exacerbated the suffering. Many civilians had been killed and displaced. In Southern Sudan, outside the towns, insecurity continued due to the absence of the rule of law and the presence of different armed groups. Rape and sexual violence against women continued, in particular in Darfur. Among her recommendations, the Special Rapporteur urged all parties to cease all hostilities, comply with the peace agreements and enter into an inclusive dialogue process to resolve the conflict peacefully.

Statement by the Sudan as a Concerned Country

OMAR DAHAB MOHAMED (Sudan), speaking as a concerned country, thanked Sima Samar, Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Sudan, for her report. Sudan was committed to continue fully cooperating with the Special Rapporteur and the numerous other Special Procedures, as well as its unlimited cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. There were more than 100 human rights monitors in the Sudan, as well as investigators from the International Criminal Court. Reports had been submitted with reference to thematic mandates, and the Security Council, this year only, had adopted nine resolutions under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter on the Sudan.

Sudan wondered about the real motivation of one or two States that were using international forums to put pressure on the country to affect negatively its fight against poverty. Since the report had been issued, a number of positive steps had been taken, including the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Darfur Peace Agreement, which had had a positive effect for the promotion of human rights.

Sudan asked the support of the international community on the implementation of the peace agreements in the west and south of the country.

Interactive Dialogue

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan. Algeria noted that the report was dated 11 January 2006, a long time before the Darfur peace agreement had been signed, in June 2006. Algeria had also listened to the statement of the Government of National Unity. The Council should reiterate its welcome to the Abuja peace agreement as well as the measures already taken to implement it and call for the acceleration of activities in that regard, as well as encourage those parties who had not done so to sign the agreement. The Council should urge all parties to respect human rights, so that they could put an end to violations of human rights and allow the people to go home. Further, the Council should encourage the Sudan to cooperate with it and the other relevant bodies. Finally, the Council should urge all countries to honour their pledges to help in this process

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said the Special Rapporteur had acknowledged that the peace agreement was being implemented. It was a nightmare to disarm people in Darfur, where there were more than one million small arms. All armed groups should cease hostilities in order to leave the place for peace building. The Government was doing all it could to resolve the problem, through cooperation with the international community. Providing it with moral and financial assistance should strengthen the hands of the Government.

ABDULLA ABDULLATIF ABDULLA (Bahrain), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, and thanked Sima Samar, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, for her report. The Arab Group underlined the positive steps taken by the Sudan with reference to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim National Constitution. The Arab Group asked the Council to draft a resolution in support of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim National Constitution. The Arab Group also asked the international community to fulfil its obligation in providing material assistance to the African Union peacekeeping force in the Sudan.

RAJIV CHANDER (India) said that the situation in the Darfur region was urgent and needed to be immediately addressed. In view of the grave humanitarian situation, India had donated 20 thousand tons of wheat, or approximately $8.3 million to the Government of Sudan. India urged the parties to act immediately to put an end to the conflict, within the framework of the Abuja agreement.

MUSTAFISUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that the situation in Darfur was the focus of the international community. There were serious violations of human rights ongoing in Darfur. There should be a change in the current situation. The Government had been taking measures to improve the situation, however, much remained to be done. All parties should respect the Abuja Peace Agreement. The role of the African Union should be enhanced in seeking further solutions to the problem.

EVGENY LAZAREV (Belarus) said that the situation in the Sudan had to be dealt with on the principle of dialogue and cooperation. In particular, with reference to Darfur, Belarus said all efforts in the area should be taken into account, including those undertaken by the Government, the Security Council, the African Union and other regional organizations.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), speaking also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, said they deplored the devastating humanitarian effects of the conflict in Darfur, and welcomed the efforts by the United Nations and a number of countries to negotiate an end to it. They were extremely disturbed that since the agreement of June 2006 violence had escalated in the region, notably violence against aid workers. They called on the Government of the Sudan to immediately cease its attacks on civilian populations, aid workers and to provide access to humanitarian agencies. They called on the Government to make the full use of the good offices offered by the international community to strengthen dialogue to resolve the conflict.

AZAD JAFAROV (Azerbaijan) said the Abuja Peace Agreement was crucial to the peace building in Darfur. He encouraged the Government of Sudan to continue its efforts in resolving the problem in Darfur.

TAPANI KIVELA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, supported the work of Sima Samar, Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Sudan. The European Union welcomed the cooperation between the Special Rapporteur and the Government during her three visits to the country. The situation of civilians had deteriorated and the Council had a responsibility to respond to human rights emergencies, and in this case contribute to put an end to these violations. The European Union strongly supported the Special Rapporteur’s call for an immediate end to impunity, and joined her in urging all parties to fully cooperate with the International Criminal Court.

SAMAH SHOUKRY (Egypt) said that Egypt supported the statements of the Arab, African and Islamic Groups, and in that context commended the intensive efforts of the Government of Sudan in implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of South Sudan of 2005 and the Darfur Peace Agreement of 2006. Egypt also supported the role played by the African Union in bringing about peace in Darfur, which reaffirmed the capabilities of African States to resolve African matters. Finally, Egypt called on the international community to fulfill its commitments to enhancing Sudan's capacity to maintain peace and security in the region and to support its efforts in the field of human rights protection.

A Representative of Senegal said the Abuja Peace Agreement was an important document to help reach a lasting peace in Sudan and all parties should respect and faithfully implement it. Senegal endorsed the statement made by Pakistan and Algeria.

CHUL LEE (Republic of Korea) expressed deep concern over the deteriorating human rights situation in Darfur and the fact that humanitarian workers were being targeted. The Republic of Korea considered it necessary for a ceasefire to enter into force immediately to ensure the unobstructed access of humanitarian workers to the region. The Republic of Korea supported the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Sudan.

ZHANG YI (China) said Sudan was struggling against poverty, and the Council should understand the special difficulties of Sudan in that context and encourage it to continue in its efforts in promoting and protection human rights. Sudan had been endeavouring to carry out reforms and implement laws with the view to develop a better situation with respect to human rights. The Government had also been cooperating with the Special Rapporteur and the international community. The situation in Darfur should be seen within the context of the Government’s efforts to resolve the problem.

YURI ARIEL GALA LÓPEZ (Cuba) said the political will that was manifested by the Government of Sudan in the signing and full implementation of the peace accord should be supported, and the peace accords should be given a chance. No action should be taken under pressure or coercion, which would not help the process and would be counter-productive. Dialogue should be held, in view of the situation in Darfur. The role played by the African Union was essential, and should continue and be strengthened in close coordination with the Government of Sudan.

SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said that despite the Darfur Peace Agreement, attacks against United Nations personnel and the African Union Mission in Sudan had continued. Japan was concerned about the humanitarian situation, in particular the continued violence against civilians, including women and children in the Darfur region. Japan believed it was crucial to implement the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1706 to improve the humanitarian situation in the Darfur region. Japan asked the Special Rapporteur what kind of assistance would she like to see from the international community towards the fulfilment of her mandate.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said that gender related sexual violence continued in Darfur despite the peace agreement. Women in Darfur were subjected to all sorts of violence including sexual violence. The signing of the peace agreement did not improve the human rights situation in Darfur. Internally displaced women were vulnerable to violence and human rights violations. The peace agreement did not improve the situation of women in the region. What actions should the international community take to improve the situation of women in Darfur?

VELIA DE PIRRO (United States) said the Special Rapporteur should be commended for her thorough, detailed and perceptive overview. The report detailed the large number of violations committed against displaced persons, and the sexual crisis against women and girls in Darfur, in particular in the periphery of camps for internally displaced persons. Any further update should include information on the Government’s efforts, if any, to reduce these incidents. Any follow-up should include the continuing lack of progress in setting up a National Human Rights Commission. There should be further investigation of the situation of human rights.

IDHAM MUSA MOKTAR (Malaysia) associated itself with the statement by Pakistan. Malaysia commended the African Union’s critical role in contributing to the peace process in the Sudan. The international community should support the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and help the Sudan overcome financial and logistical constraints.

MOUSSA BURAYZAT (Jordan) said that Jordan had every confidence that the Sudanese Government would continue to resolve the problem in Darfur. Following the peace agreement, the Government had established a mechanism to implement the agreement. Jordan called on all parties to the conflict to respect the agreement and work towards peace.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the report took a human rights approach, though the matter was being dealt with in other United Nations fora. Among other things, the Special Rapporteur had taken into account the mission to Sudan by the Special Rapporteur on the prevention of genocide. What additional measures did the Special Rapporteur think could be taken to further cooperation with the International Criminal Court?

DRISS ISAYENE (Morocco) said Morocco supported the statements of the African Union and the organization of Islamic Conference. It commended the Sudan on the signing of the 2005 Peace Agreement, and for its continued cooperation with the Special Rapporteur and all other human rights mechanisms. Morocco underlined the importance of supporting the Darfur Peace Agreement, as this agreement would open the door to peace and national reconciliation.

ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) said Tunisia supported the steps taken by Sudan in the implementation of the Abuja Peace Agreement. Tunisia was confident that the Government would find solutions to the problem by fully implementing the peace agreement.

NEGOUSSE DESTA, (African Union) said the African Union supported the statement of Algeria. The African Union had always been aware of the regional dimension of the conflict, and had thus showed solidarity towards the Sudan. The African Union welcomed the Peace Agreement that had been negotiated in Abuja and in which the African Union had been deeply involved. The Peace Agreement was a solid base to achieve peace in the Sudan and would also have a positive effect in neighbouring countries.

Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the Sudan

SIMA SAMAR, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, said there were two peace agreements in Sudan; one with the South, which was signed in January 2005, but even the Sudanese Government agreed that its implementation was delayed. Also delayed was the reform of the law according to the Constitution - including the human rights act, and the police act. There were 63 laws, which had been prioritised, and would be submitted to Parliament in October. This should be accelerated to build trust and bring positive changes to daily life. In Eastern Sudan, Darfur and parts of Khartoum, emergency law was still in place. The security situation had deteriorated after signing the peace agreement, with more violations of human rights taking place. The security situation was getting worse and worse.

The United Nations and the humanitarian NGOs had no access and could not deliver aid to those vulnerable groups of human society that were in need, and this should be improved urgently. The international community should support and provide more funds to the European Union in order to provide security for the people in Darfur, without which it was very difficult to provide justice and build trust between the public and the Government. The culture of impunity continued - there were some cases that had been prosecuted, such as rape issues, but there were only a few of these, and it was far from being enough. The lack of trust between people and the authorities was clear in this situation.

The possible solution would be for the international community and the Government and the people of Sudan to have more proactive dialogue, and try to solve the problems within the Government and between the Government and the warring factions. The Government and the opposition rebel groups should find a solution to the culture of impunity and stop the suffering of the people who were living in the camps for internally displaced persons and in other areas of Darfur. More details could be found in the report on this topic.

Right of Reply

OMAR DAHAB MOHAMED (Sudan), in a right of reply, said that under exceptional circumstances, the Government had lifted the state of emergency. Despite the Government’s efforts to establish peace, some armed groups were, however, not respecting the peace agreement. With regard to the issue of humanitarian agents who had been victims of violence, the international community as a whole did not condemn the groups that perpetrated the violence. The peace agreement had limited the police’s response to attacks by the armed groups.

Report on Situation of Human Rights in Belarus

The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/36) entitled report by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights situation in Belarus which states that in 2005, like in 2004, the Government of Belarus did not cooperate with the Special Rapporteur in the fulfilment of his mandate, despite numerous attempts made to engage in a constructive dialogue. Therefore, the report is based on the findings of the Special Rapporteur’s missions to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, consultations held in Geneva, Strasbourg and Brussels, and on media reports and documentary sources.

The Special Rapporteur expresses increased concern at the steady deterioration of the situation of human rights in 2005, and urges the Government of Belarus to put an end to the ongoing human rights violations described in the present report and to bring their perpetrators to justice; to recognize all the resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights and the mandate of the Special Rapporteur; to launch a public education and public-awareness programme in the field of human rights; and to convene a national round table on the situation of human rights in Belarus.

The Special Rapporteur urges the Government of Belarus to sign and ratify the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance as soon as it will be opened for signature and ratification, and recommends the Council to request the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to immediately establish a group of legal experts to investigate the responsibility of senior officials of the Government of Belarus in the disappearance and murders of several politicians and journalists, and make concrete proposals for their prosecution, in order to bring to an end the impunity of those involved in such crimes.

Presentation of Report of Special Rapporteur on Belarus

ADRIAN SEVERIN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, said since his last report, during 2005 and 2006, the human rights situation in the country had constantly deteriorated to such an extent that the elements usually defining a dictatorship could be seen. Civil and political rights were limited, cultural rights were ignored, and economic and other rights were enhanced to reward for obedience. During the last 18 months, two negative developments had been seen: a State Official Ideology, based on former Soviet concepts had been virtually imposed; the ethno-cultural diversity, unproblematic before, had been used to divide the country. While the resistance against the regime was increasing steadily, important parts of society were politically passive, and limited themselves to silent opposition.

During the first half of 2006, not less than 11 communications had been set to the Government, which raised serious concerns regarding human rights defenders, freedom of expression, arbitrary detention, religious intolerance, independence of justice, and torture. Only one response had been received, and this stated basically only an abstract readiness of the Government to cooperate with the thematic procedures. The Government had refused any cooperation with the country Rapporteur and this was not in coherence with the United Nations Charter. In parallel with the execution of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, at least seven other mandate holders, including the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders and others, had addressed urgent appeals, most of which had been unanswered, and those answers received were superficial. All had converged on the same opinion of human rights in Belarus.

The Special Rapporteur’s opinions and assessments had been fully confirmed by the OSCE, the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, the European Council and Parliament, and others. It was impossible to believe that all of these were wrong and biased. There were a few international players that supported the actual situation - most of which themselves had a problematic situation with regards to human rights. The rest were moved apparently by geo-political reasons, which had taken hostage human rights. Without the cooperation of the Russian Federation, the efforts of the international community to promote respect for human rights in Belarus would enjoy very limited success. All recommendations addressed to the Government in 2005 had been ignored, and these were reiterated. Under such circumstances, the mobilisation and action of the international community was essential for the situation of Belarus and its people. The Human Rights Council should ask the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to join the efforts of other international organizations to organise an international conference to discuss the situation of human rights in Belarus. The Special Rapporteur believed the extension of the special mandate was the least the international community could do in order to keep the hope that an improvement of the human rights record in that country was possible.

Statement by Belarus as a Concerned Country

SERGEI ALEINIK (Belarus), speaking as a concerned country, said that it had repeatedly stated its principle position of rejection of the mandate of this Special Rapporteur. The content of the report was a clear attempt to stigmatise and slander Belarus. The Special Rapporteur was doing this in a clearly straightforward manner, in the best tradition of notorious cold war propaganda. The Special Rapporteur made an attempt to criticize the Belarusian political and economic model, the national system of education, healthcare and social protection. He was claiming to have used reports of international organizations for this purpose. In a paradoxical manner, however, his statements were in full contradiction with the conclusions contained in the reports he referred to.

Belarus wondered how the mandate of the Special Rapporteur had become possible. The answer was evident. The Special Rapporteur on Belarus was a remnant of the atmosphere of politicisation, which marred the Commission on Human Rights and logically brought this body to a well-know end.

The Member States were currently grappling with an immense and challenging task of developing the mechanisms that would constitute the basis for constructive and comprehensive interaction of all States on the issue of promotion of human rights. The Council had a unique opportunity to work on issues in a new way, abandon senseless confrontation once and for all, and create a new genuinely universal system of evaluation of human rights situations.

Interactive Dialogue

JUAN ANTONIO FERNÁNDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that in his long carrier with the United Nations as a Cuban diplomat, he had never witnessed seeing a report such the one presented against Belarus. It was completely unacceptable to present such a report against a UN Member State. The report was submitted reputedly as a UN paper. The Special Rapporteur had put himself as a leader of the political opposition of Belarus. It was an insult to Member State of the United Nations. It was an anti-communist crusade of the cold war. Cuba was repulsed by the report; it was a shameful report. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur had nothing to do with other countries, which he mentioned in his report. He should concentrate on Belarus.

BENNY YAN PIETER SIAHAAN (Indonesia) said that Indonesia did not support country-specific mandates, but noticed the wide gap between views of the Special Rapporteur and the Belarus delegation. A large contradiction of views, in such an issue as human rights, usually involved politicised positions. Without prejudging the case, Indonesia wished to stress that dialogue and cooperation were important in a manner that was balanced, fair, and transparent. Human rights education, capacity-building and other aspects were also important.

FAISAL NIAZ TIRMIZI (Pakistan) said that Pakistan had read the report of Adrian Severin, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, with deep interest. The information presented in the report was not first hand and sounded as if it came from a Byelorussia opposition party. The analysis and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur lacked focus, and Pakistan was not fully convinced he had observed impartiality and objectivity in carrying out his mandate.

WALID AETHARY (Yemen) said that the Special Rapporteur had said that human rights were violated in Belarus but he had mentioned Yemen because it was working with Belarus. The Special Rapporteur should delete the name of Yemen, which had nothing to do with the mandate of the Rapporteur.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said the establishment of the post of Special Rapporteur on the situation of Belarus at its inception had nothing to do with concerns for human rights in that country, but showed a tendentious and controversial character, and these concerns had been reaffirmed today. The report showed a clear bias, and contempt for the country and its people, along with appeals to overthrow the Government and to put pressure on it. The conclusions and recommendations recalled directives to conduct special operations to overthrow the Government. This was a flagrant violation in internal affairs, and was in contradiction with human rights, discrediting the institution of Special Rapporteurs. The politicisation, double-standards and bias were what had led to the disbanding of the Commission on Human Rights. The Russian Federation was therefore in favour of terminating the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus.

MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) understood the issue of a Special Rapporteur getting into the political domain. The Special Rapporteur went beyond the scope of his mandate, and the framework chosen for his work, gave the impression that he was directing the political opposition to overthrow the Government. The Council had not authorized the Special Rapporteur to deal with issues such as arms and bilateral trade agreements. Iran asked the Special Rapporteur to prove his ability to uphold impartiality and objectivity in carrying out his mandate.

TAPANI KIVELA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union regretted that the Government of Belarus did not react favourably to the demands of the Special Rapporteur to visit the country. The European Union shared the concerns of the Special Rapporteur concerning civil society, which had been the subject of repression by the Government of Belarus.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) said the Special Rapporteur had a given mandate that had been provided to him by the United Nations, and he should not go beyond that, but deliver it free from any Governmental or non-Governmental influence. The Special Rapporteur went well beyond his mandate in several cases, and it was not in his mandate or purview to make certain judgements, and he should remove these from his report, as they reflected a selective and biased approach. Mr. Severin suggested applying an embargo, and recommended that this be imposed on Member States, and this was unacceptable. Special Rapporteurs should put emphasis on dialogue and cooperation, and seek to identify best practices.

PAUL ARYENE (Ghana) said reference was made to the satisfaction of economic needs in order to keep complaints silent, and further explanation of this was required. Was the question of language applicable only to Belarus, or to other countries? With regards to the Belarus economy, how did the Special Rapporteur reach his conclusions?

PAUL MEYER (Canada) appreciated the efforts of the Special Rapporteur. Belarus had systematically refused to give him access to the country. There was lack of cooperation on the part of the Government. The human rights situation in Belarus had deteriorated in 2005 and had continued in the same direction in 2006. How could the UN and the international community provide support to the democratic forces and civil society actors advocating compliance by Belarus with its obligations under the international human rights law?

EDVARDAS BORISOVAS (Lithuania) said that Lithuania aligned itself with the statement made by Finland on behalf of the European Union. Lithuania supported the activities and report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, and regretted the lack of cooperation on the Belarusian side. Parts of the society of Belarus had disagreed with the manner in which the last elections had been carried out and had expressed their active social position on that issue. What was the situation of those people, if they were detained, and were the conditions of detention in accordance with international standards? What was the Special Rapporteur’s opinion on the silencing of many active members of the society, in particular intellectuals?

AYMAN RAAD (Syria) said the purpose of the Council was to safeguard human rights, not to condemn or politicise issues for particular ends. The Special Rapporteur and the response of Belarus presented a certain contradiction. There was a certain trend towards politicising the position of the Special Rapporteur. There could be no progress without dialogue and cooperation. The Human Rights Council should help Belarus to protect and defend human rights.

IDHAM MUSA MOKTAR (Malaysia) said that the report contained some recommendations, which deviated from the spirit of positive engagement. Recommendations such as attaching conditions to trade and travel restrictions for Government officials did not lend themselves to a fruitful human rights discourse. Malaysia emphasized the importance of adopting a collaborative attitude in the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide.

VELIA DE PIRRO (United States) commended the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus for his in-depth and forthright analysis of the situation in Belarus. The United States regretted that obstructionist tactics had been employed by the Government against the activities of the Special Rapporteur. And, unfortunately, over the course of 2006 the situation had continued to deteriorate, as had been noted in the report. The United States asked the Special Rapporteur if he would address the question of how could the international community best support the people of Belarus.

RAJIV CHANDER (India) said the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur appeared to be inexact and prescriptive, and to not take into account the situation on the ground. The steps to be taken would only further alienate the Government of Belarus, and not contribute towards improving the situation of human rights for the people of Belarus, the responsibility for which lay with the Government. Such resolutions only contributed to acrimony, deepened mistrust, and were counter-productive, contrary to the spirit of harmony and dialogue that should prevail within the Human Rights Council.

WU CHENQI (China) said that China had read the report of the Special Rapporteur. China believed that truth should come by listening from both sides, but it was not the case of the Special Rapporteur. The Rapporteur only listened to one side in establishing his report. Such a situation would not help in promoting cooperation with States.

MUSTAFISUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that country-specific mandate holders had a high level of responsibility and they had a most difficult task in balancing their various obligations. Bangladesh was distressed when such a delicate balance was not shown in a report. In terms of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, Bangladesh was surprised that a second report had been issued without a visit to the country. Bangladesh had expected the report to be factual and accurate. While Bangladesh realized the difficulties the Special Rapporteur faced, the sweeping statements, unprofessional views, and opinions on topics that went well beyond the mandate in the report indicated that it was biased. A constructive dialogue, not naming and shaming, was what was needed.

HAMATOU MOKHTAR (Sudan) said the representatives of the African Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference who commented on the report were correct - the Special Rapporteur had exceeded his mandate - he had made judgements that were not just on human rights - they were on the economic and social situation. Nor had he said how to safeguard human rights. He had criticised certain pillars of national sovereignty which should be inviolable. The Human Rights Council should avoid such topics, as it should rely on cooperation and dialogue.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) said that the ILO had expressed concern about the trade unions in Belarus. He asked if the right to freedom of expression was respected in accordance with international conventions relevant to such rights.

VERONIKA STROMSIKOVA (Czech Republic) said that the Czech Republic supported the work of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, and that, indeed, the Czech Republic had been a consistent supporter of the special procedures. It welcomed the reports by the Special Rapporteurs and felt that it was important that such reports were made available to the populations concerned. In that regard, the Czech Republic regretted the access to such reports had been denied to the people of Belarus by its Government.

DRISS ISAYENE (Morocco) said the Special Rapporteur when designated had received a mandate that was limited, and which was not infinitely extendable. His report referred to a number of countries, including Morocco, making a value judgement that was tendentious and unacceptable. This was an instance of exceeding a mandate which the Human Rights Council could not endorse or tolerate. The many and courageous steps of Morocco in the field of human rights were well known by all, and justified its election to the Human Rights Council. For all these reasons, Morocco formally requested that paragraph 72 be deleted from the report, as it had nothing to do with the mandate or the subject.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) asked how positive cooperation could be established when such a report which advocating for confrontation was submitted by the Special Rapporteur. The human rights situation of any country could be discussed in the Council without any form of politicizatoin. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea rejected the report of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus.

SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia) said that Tunisia had read with interest the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, but were surprised that the Special Rapporteur had exceeded his mandate by interfering in political issues. He had referred to the issue of arms transfers, which were not within his mandate. Tunisia wished to recall the will of the international community expressed in General Assembly resolution 60/251 to make the Council a forum for the promotion and protection of human rights and not for the politicisation of human rights issues.

MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS (Peru) said Peru regretted that there was no process of dialogue and cooperation between the Government of Belarus and the Special Rapporteur. Special Procedures in order to be objective as possible always required the goodwill of the country concerned, and their acceptance of visits and being prepared to enter into dialogue with various Government, NGOs, and civil society segments. With regards to the murder of two journalists, what was the position with the investigation of the murders, and what led the Special Rapporteur to assume the hypothesis that this was not being carried out with due process and a view to impunity. What provisions in the criminal code and the new code of criminal procedure, contrary to commitments undertaken under the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, were contravened? Which specific provisions represented a restriction on the exercise of political rights?

Concluding Remarks by Special Rapporteur on Belarus

ADRIAN SEVERIN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, said he could not answer all questions, but remained at the disposal of the Human Rights Council if it wished to go into more detail. Although many had said the report was factless or not factual, there was a short list of facts in the report, which had been selected from a longer list. There was a lot of criticism of the regime change, but there was no suggestion in the report of a need for regime change from a political point of view. This was beyond the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. However, he did suggest a regime change from the point of view of behaviour. Human rights were intimately linked to the political situation in a country. Within a certain type of societal organization, there could be no respect for or capacity to defend human rights. Countries should enhance the rules and institutions to defend human rights. This was not a political stance.

The limits of the mandate, which had been raised by many speakers, referred to human rights, which was a global and coherent issue, which was of global concern and required a global approach. It was not just about assessment, it was about reforms and changes that were required to translate commitments into respect for human rights. Therefore, there were no boundaries with respect to human rights. If human rights were truly to be promoted, then the access to financial institutions of those who were violating them should be instituted. For a real dialogue, there was a need for two sides, and both of them to be of good faith. If the Government of Belarus had engaged in dialogue, then its opinions, explicitly given and transferred would at least have been quoted in the document, but the Special Rapporteur said he had nothing to quote, and this was because of the lack of dialogue.

On progress, he had not been able to identify any. No one had mentioned it, and he had not been made aware of any progress made. On what the international community could do, he would not elaborate on this, as he had already done it in his introductory speech. He repeated he was available for details on specific questions. He could undertake any shortcomings, mistakes which could be in the report, but only one thing he could not accept, and this was claims of a lack of fairness and neutrality. He had tried to prepare the report to the best of his capacities to assess a reality without dialogue and remaining unbiased and neutral, and therefore did not accept any accusations of the contrary. Incantations on human rights did not protect these, nor the ordinary people from violations of human rights. The Human Rights Council should look to realities, and do something specific to make changes to the situation.

Right of Reply

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria), speaking in a right of reply, said that he was not aware of any United Nations ban on the sale of conventional weapons to Egypt or Morocco, or indeed any of the African countries mentioned on the basis of human rights considerations. Such a politicized report did damage to the very values the Special Rapporteur was supposed to uphold and risked damaging the very spirit in which this Council was supposed to operate.

Report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

The report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (E/CN.4/2006/2- E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/44) on its fifty-seventh session contains a list of draft decisions proposed to the Commission on Human Rights for adoption; a list of resolutions and decisions adopted by the Sub-Commission at its fifty-seventh session; the organization of work of the session; and consideration of: the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation, in all countries, with particular reference to colonial and other dependent countries and territories: report of the Sub-Commission under Commission on Human Rights Resolution 8 (XXIII); administration of justice, rule of law and democracy; economic, social and cultural rights; prevention of discrimination; specific human rights issues; and the draft provisional agenda and adoption of the report.

Presentation of Report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

MARC BOSSUYT, Chairman of the fifty-eighth session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, thanked the Council for having made it possible for the Sub-Commission and its Working Groups to meet during four weeks in August, and for taking into account its expert advice. The Sub-Commission had met during difficult circumstances, due to the transitional period and uncertainty on its future. Nevertheless, Members had attended the session and adopted a number of resolutions, all of them by consensus. The current report contained information about guiding principles dealing with small arms and light weapons and the fight against poverty. The annex presented decisions and recommendations on the future of the Sub-Commission.

In the view of the Sub-Commission, the Council should set up an independent body in the field of human rights, which might be called the Human Rights Consultative Committee. This Committee should be composed of no fewer than 26 members, maybe 28, that should be elected and that should also be collegial to ensure a balanced view and the independence of the body. The functions of the Committee should include research, generate thematic studies, standard setting, promote coherence, technical assistance, and identify existing gaps.

With reference to the universal periodic review, there were different views and the Sub-Commission had considered that it was not advisable for it to get involved, but it remained available if its assistance was required.

The report also contained past and present contributions made by the Sub-Commission. The Appendix contained a list of studies undertaken by this body, and also of ongoing studies. In concluding, the Sub-Commission thought that keeping a collegial body of elected members was a means of enhancing the work of the Human Rights Council.

Interactive Dialogue

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico) said the Sub-Commission was to be congratulated for the work done during the fifty-seventh and fifty-eighth sessions. Note had been taken of the draft decisions that had come before the Council for its consideration. The Council should take action on draft decision 4 in the report of the fifty-seventh session, and 3, 4, 6 and 9 of the report on the fifty-eighth, in order to facilitate and support the conclusion of work currently underway. The draft decision on the prevention of human rights violations perpetrated by small arms was an important step forwards. The six draft decisions referring to the establishing of new mandates should be analysed in global terms by the Council at the appropriate moment. The contribution of the Sub-Commission, and its vision of the future, could be further food for thought. The Council should also consider the four draft guidelines submitted by the Sub-Commission and take an appropriate line.

ENCYLA SINJELA (Zambia) said that Zambia fully supported the recommendations made in the report of the Chairman of the fifty-eighth session of the Sub-Commission. The establishment of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had been well intended. The Sub-Commission had been tasked with carrying out research on human rights issues for the Council and had contributed to the promotion and progressive development of human rights. Unfortunately, the Sub-Commission had fallen prey to the politicization that prevailed in the Commission on Human Rights. It was Zambia’s position that without interference from the Commission, the Sub-Commission would have fulfilled its mandate better. However, in Zambia’s view certain aspects of the Sub-Commission had to be maintained, in particular the social procedures, experts and complaint procedures. In that context Zambia supported the continuance of an independent expert body. The proposed human rights consultative committee had a huge role to play in helping the Council to fulfil its obligations with impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said Argentina had taken note of the proposals made by the Sub-Commission in its last two sessions. The historical contribution to the protection and promotion of human rights by the Sub-Commission was recognised, and it was hoped the future advisory body to the Council would be appointed with wider participation of the General Assembly, through candidates who could be proposed through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Office of the Secretary-General. The future body should play an essentially preparatory role, and in the procedure, which was to take place of the 1503 Procedure, it should have an important role to play. With regards to the draft resolutions, a number of these should be left pending until the future advisory body had started operations.

SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation) said the Chair of the Sub-Commission was thanked for the report and for the recommendations in the report. The Sub-Commission had played a very important role in terms of the standardisation of norms in human rights law, and its attempts to resolve problems in that area. There had been maintenance of the mandate so that the Sub-Commission could act as an aid to the General Assembly. A new advisory body should be established in the hope that it would be useful to the Council to facilitate its work. There should be continuing development of doctrines and research as the Sub-Commission had done in the past. There should be an appropriate working method for the body that would exclude politicisation of activity, and provisions relating to the adoption of country reports should be maintained. The importance was to maintain the doctrine that was already established with regards to human rights.

MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS (Peru) said that the report presented by the Chairperson of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection on Human Rights contained specific recommendations, which his country would like to comment on. Like Mexico, Peru was concerned about the impact of small arms. The issue of poverty should be considered through a human rights approach. Guidelines and principles in that regard should be implemented. Peru agreed that the Sub-Commission should keep its advisory function to prepare papers and studies. Within the context of the 1503 procedures the communications procedures should be in the hands of independent experts.

ANN MARI FROBERG (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked Marc Bossuyt for the presentation of the reports of the Sub-Commission from its 2005 and from its final 2006 final session, and the views of the Sub-Commission on the Council’s future system of expert advice. The European Union had already set out its views on possible options for the Council’s future system of expert advice in the context of the informal consultations chaired by the Ambassador of Jordan. Nevertheless, the European Union welcomed the views of the Sub-Commission and looked forward to examining them in detail in the context of the inter-sessional work of the council. The European Union considered that the Sub-Commission should carry out and complete its ongoing work. Consideration of proposals of new activities should however be deferred until after a new system of expert advice had been created by the Council.

SÉRGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) commended Mr. Bossuyt for his intervention during which he had made important, useful and relevant remarks regarding the subsidiary body of the former Commission, to which Brazil attached great importance. Brazil also wished to pay tribute to the historic role of the Sub-Commission as a true think-tank for the Commission on Human Rights. It had introduced new items for reflection in the realm of human rights: among others, the right to water and the responsibility of transnational corporations. Now the Council should concentrate on the aspects of the competence of the new expert body. First, that body should not lose the relevant capacities or the legacy of the Sub-Commission. Brazil also felt that the possibility should be considered that the new body would play a role in assisting in the process of the universal periodic review, in particular regarding follow up.

RAJIV CHANDER (India) said that the architecture of the Council was still being determined and developed. No decision should be taken which would amount to prejudging the outcome of the process of review and rationalization of mandates and mechanisms of the former Commission, including the Sub-Commission. The issues should be addressed in the framework of the working group on review and rationalization of mandates and mechanisms.

SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) thanked Mr. Bossuyt for his reports and praised the achievements of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Japan indicated, though, that some of the studies conducted by the Sub-Committee were not always close to the work of Commission. Japan considered it important to study a new system of expert advice and assure its effectiveness.

ABDUL BIN RIMDAP (Nigeria) thanked the Chairperson for his report on the work of the Sub-Commission and agreed with his assessment that the lack of certainty on the future work of the Sub-Commission had affected the work of its last session. Nigeria particularly welcomed the resolution of the Sub-Commission on small arms and light weapons because such weapons had done much to destabilize the world. The Sub-Commission had been very useful to the Commission and in that regard, Nigeria supported the formation of a new body and the renewal of the mandates of the special procedures that had played such an important role in the work of that body in the past.

RACHEL LEATHAM (United States) said that when the Sub-Commission convened last August, it had continued to distribute mandates to its experts, without waiting for the new decisions of the Council. The Council had to decide on the maintaining of that body, which was politicised and costly. The budget of the Sub-Commission had exceeded the budget of its main body. An expert body should be set up to provide guidance and in a cost-effective manner.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) thanked Marc Bossuyt for the presentation of the reports of the Sub-Commission from its 2005 and 2006 sessions, and the views of the Sub-Commission on the Council’s future system of expert advice. Canada was of the view that consideration of proposals of new activities should however be deferred until after a new system of expert advice had been created by the Council so as not to prejudge the outcome of the review process.

TOUFIQ ALI (Bangladesh) said that the deliberations of the Sub-Commission had provided them not only with food for thought, but with ideas that could be followed up in the Council. Regarding corruption, the definition should also include institutional corruption. The issue of the disappearance of States for environmental reasons was of particular importance to a country like Bangladesh that was threatened by the rise of the sea level. With regard to small arms, the report had done a commendable job, but Bangladesh was of the view that it should also include information on the suppliers of small arms as well. Turning to the future of the Sub-Commission, it had made some very important contributions in the field of human rights. The system of a subsidiary body to the Council needed to be maintained. It was the only way that smaller countries such as Bangladesh could get expert advice. Bigger countries might not feel that need so greatly. That should be taken into consideration when considering the fate of the Sub-Commission.

ZHOU FENG (China) said that the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had carried out a number of thematic studies since its inception. The Sub-Commission had correctly implemented it mandate while the Commission was marked by politicisation. The Sub-Commission should be maintained as an advisory expert body. Although States appointed experts, they acted independently. The terms of the appointment of experts should not exceed four years and should not be repeated for more than two terms.

FAISAL NIAZ TIRMIZI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), thanked Marc Bossuyt for the presentation of the reports of the Sub-Commission. The OIC underlined the past valuable input of the Sub-Commission on new instruments and the development of new laws. The OIC believed that the new expert advice body should be retained by the Council as a think-thank and should be subsidiary to the Council. It should respect the geographical representation of the Council in its composition, and States should nominate the experts. The issues to be discussed by this expert body should be decided upon by the Council and should include issues at the request of the Council, including the promotion and protection of human rights. The issues should be thematic and not country specific. It was the prerogative of the Council to keep its legislative function. Monitoring of the implementation of decisions would be the responsibility of the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) said Mr. Bossuyt was thanked for his comments regarding the advisory body of experts that would replace the Sub-Commission. The body was thanked for its contribution to the discussion on the new advisory body. The African Group had already expressed its position on this recommendation, and believed that the recommendations were generally positive. The Sub-Commission had played an important role in promoting human rights both at an institutional and normative level. The consultative body should be subsidiary to the Council, entrusted with thinking, analysis, and expert’s reports and information that should go to the Council. The function of human rights protection was one of the prerogatives of the Council, and not that of any body that replaced the Commission. The advisory body should not deal with any country-specific situation. Members should be elected by Member States and the Council, and be recognised by their devotion to the cause of human rights. Geographical distribution should be ensured.

Concluding Remarks by the Chairperson of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

MARK BOUSSYUT, Chairperson of Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection on Human Rights, thanked all those who expressed their support for the work done by the Sub-Commission. The resolutions adopted by the Sub-Commission were adopted by consensus. With regard to the maintenance of a collegial body, it was necessary to allow the experts to work together and not in isolation. A collegial body was essential to guarantee the independence of the body. On the presentation of candidates, Governments should nominate them and not the Secretary-General. The Sub-Commission should be compared with other expert bodies and not with a body that comprised government delegates as members. The work done by the Sub-Commission had financial implications and that was why the budget was high.

Statements by Non-Governmental Organizations on Reports on Human Rights in Somalia, Myanmar, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Belarus

JAN LONN, of International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, said the organization took much interest in the reports of the experts and Special Rapporteurs on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Somalia, where human rights situations needed global attention. It wished to especially commend the Independent Expert Ghanin Alnajjar for his report and careful assessment of the grave challenges facing Somalia today. It appreciated the spirit of solidarity with the people of Somalia in which the Expert was undertaking his mission.

IRENE KHAN, of Amnesty International, said Darfur’s civilian population urgently needed protection. In the corridors of the Council, there was talk about the need for balance. It was surprising that the Council should remain silent on Guantanamo Bay when it spoke of Darfur. True concern for the protection and promotion of human rights demanded that the Council address the human rights situation in Guantanamo without further delay. The Council should not hide behind dubious appeals for impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity.

SUHAS CHAKMA, of Pax Romana in a joint statement with Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, said that there had not been any improvement in Myanmar with regard to human rights, on-going humanitarian crisis and the process of national reconciliation for the establishment of democracy. The deterioration of the situation had forced the Security Council on 16 September 2006 to put Myanmar on its agenda. Such human rights violations once against justified the need for country Rapporteurs of the Council. It would be unfortunate if the Council were to fail to address such situations.

MARIETTE GRANGE, of Human Rights Watch, welcomed the report of Sima Samar, Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Sudan, and called upon the Council to take measures to protect civilians in the Sudan, particularly in Darfur, condemn the crimes committed there, in particular the Government of the Sudan’s policies of targeting civilians, and support the full deployment of the United Nations peacekeeping force in the country. With reference to the situation in Belarus, Human Rights Watch asked the Council to put pressure on the Government to grant immediate access to the Special Rapporteur to the country.

LEON SALTIEL, of International League for Human Rights, said the Human Rights Council should extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus. 2006 had seen some of the greatest crackdowns on human rights since Belarus gained independence in 1991, with the flawed and fraudulent presidential elections. The long litany of human rights offences in Belarus ranged from beating and jailing of youth activists in democracy movements, deaths of outspoken journalists, and the disappearance and presumed murder of four major public figures.

LEONIE WAGNER, of United Nations Watch, said despite the signing of the agreement in May, atrocities continued to be committed in Darfur by the Janjaweed militias, sponsored by the Government which had subjected hundreds of thousands of victims to crimes against humanity, such as mass rape and mass killing. The innocent men, women and children of Darfur continued to suffer. Why was the Council refusing to speak out with a clear voice, to specifically condemn the gross violations committed Sudan?

MATTEO MICACCI, of Transnational Radical Party, regretted the fact that the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar had been repeatedly prevented by the Burmese Government from carrying out his mandate. All democratic countries represented in the Council should act to support all democratic forces in Burma and abroad to solve a longstanding crisis that the Burmese Government was unwilling to tackle.

MARCEL WETSH OKONDA, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said the Democratic Republic of Congo, thanks to the help of the international community, had just held its first democratic elections for more than 40 years, and this was a positive step. However, there were still some areas of concern, including post-electoral tensions, the impunity of suspected perpetrators of massive human rights violations and international humanitarian law, and the need for the protection of human rights defenders.

NYAN LETT, of International Peace Bureau, welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. Two known students who were human rights defenders had been re-arrested by the Government of Myanmar. The Government implemented none of the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur. The special mechanisms mandate should be maintained with regard to Myanmar.

DONSKOY SEMINOVICH, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, in a joint statement with World Peace Council, said the organization was shocked by the non-objective report of Adrian Severin, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus. He had provided misinformation about the situation in Belarus, for instance dealing with ensuring food security and a decent standard of living for the population. The Special Rapporteur undermined the authority of the United Nations and the Council, and the organization asked how could the Council entrust the mandate to such a dishonest person.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06050E