COUNCIL HEARS CONCERNS ABOUT SITUATION IN ZIMBABWE AS IT HOLDS A “RELATED DEBATE” ON REPORTS AND ISSUES PRESENTED THIS WEEK

The Human Rights Council this morning held a “related debate” on reports presented and issues raised throughout the week, hearing from a score of delegations expressing their concern about the situation in Zimbabwe.

Speakers called on the Government of Zimbabwe to cease human rights violations, restore the rule of law, and allow Zimbabweans to freely express their opinion and expression. Zimbabwe was also urged to start a dialogue with opposition figures in the country aimed at forging national unity and reconciliation. Other speakers decried the focus on Zimbabwe, saying that it reflected the continued double standards used in the Council and that this situation was being dealt with regionally.

Zimbabwe said the demonstration speakers referred to had been disguised as a prayer rally. Life in Zimbabwe was not harsh because of troubled leadership, but because of a sanctions regime that withheld trade and development assistance. It was effectively an attempt to bring about regime change, interference in the free will of the people who had democratically elected the Government. The Zimbabwe Government was in dialogue with several Special Rapporteurs but the visits would not be at the call of these “fallen angels.” Zimbabwe’s regional mechanisms were effectively seized with the situation. Zimbabwe was determined to resist foreign interference in its internal affairs.

Speaking in the “related debate” were representatives of: Argentina (on behalf of Chile, New Zealand, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Djibouti, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Italy, Honduras, Hungary, India, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia), Germany on behalf of the European Union, Netherlands, United Kingdom, France, Mexico, Switzerland, Ghana, Japan, Cuba, South Africa, Algeria, Sweden, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Chile, Australia, Hungary, Slovakia, Portugal, Luxembourg, Belgium, Norway on behalf of the Nordic countries, Bulgaria, United States, Iran, Lesotho, Tanzania, Denmark, Costa Rica, Central African Republic, Belarus, Libya and Democratic Republic of Congo.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue on the reports of John Ruggie, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, Paul Hunt, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and Hina Jilani, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders.

In concluding remarks, Mr. Ruggie said that the analysis of patterns of human rights abuse by corporations had been raised and he had been doing just that, reporting last year on the study on the worst forms of abuses in relation to companies, which triggered a very interesting debate with the business community. On other questions, he said remedies were few and their effectiveness questionable; all options were on the table regarding prioritization of work; and the Global Compact was not intended as a substitute for national policy and one achievement was to attract a significant number of companies from developing countries that had joined it.

Delegates speaking in the interactive dialogue raised various issues with regard to the right to health, such as the necessity of a wide-spread human rights training of health-professionals at all levels with the engagement of all different actors in the public as well as the private sector. It was stressed that maternal mortality should be considered as a human rights issue. Concerning the report on the situation of human rights defenders, countries affirmed that they played a key role in the promotion and protection of human rights, although their vulnerability exposed them to enforced disappearance, torture, inhumane treatment and other threats.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were representatives of: Austria, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Uganda, South Africa, Portugal, the United Nations Population Fund, UNAIDS, Algeria, Denmark, Colombia.

Non-governmental organizations speaking included representatives of: Indian Council of South America, Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les peuples, Centrist Democratic International, International Commission of Jurists, Frontline, World Organization against Torture, International Service for Human Rights, Amnesty International and International Alliance of Women.

When the Human Rights Council resumes its work at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will conclude the “related debate” after which it will hear other issues including initiatives/decisions/resolutions and institution building.


Statements on “Related Debate”

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking on behalf of Chile, New Zealand, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Djibouti, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Italy, Honduras, Hungary, India, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia, said these countries placed the highest importance on the promotion of gender equality and the rights of women and girls. They were longstanding supporters of the importance of mainstreaming a gender perspective into the work of the United Nations. The promotion of gender equality and the rights of women and girls were essential to the achievement of the collectively agreed goals for peace and security, development, and also human rights. The Human Rights Council must be at the forefront of the efforts in the United Nations to promote gender equality and the rights of women and girls, and to respond to these calls. The Council needed a strategy for gender mainstreaming across the full breadth of its work and it needed to establish effective and accountable mechanisms in this regard.

In designing such a strategy and mechanisms, the Council must ensure consistency with wider gender reform and cooperate closely with the Economic and Social Council, General-Assembly and Commission on the Status of Women, as well as the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and also the United Nations Secretariat and specialised agencies. A first step in this process would be to ensure that adequate space was provided in the Human Rights Council’s agenda or programme of work to discuss both the rights of women and girls as well as the question of mainstreaming a gender perspective in all the Council’s work.

MICHAEL STEINER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said with regards to the situation in Zimbabwe, the European Union was deeply concerned by disturbing recent developments, including the violent suppression of peaceful demonstrations by opposition organizations, and about the subsequent arrest and brutal treatment of MDC members. Such actions had no place in any society. Democracy, sustainable development, peace and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The Government of Zimbabwe was called upon to commence, immediately, a sincere and constructive dialogue with opposition parties and other civil society members in order to help resolve the problems facing Zimbabwe.

Regional efforts to take concrete steps to protect and support such a dialogue were welcomed. The European Union noted with concern the significant impact further difficulties in Zimbabwe could have on the region, including for regional security and prosperity, and called upon the Government to refrain from doing anything which could lead to a further escalation of the situation, and to ensure full respect for the rule of law and the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Zimbabweans. The Government should also repeal legislation curtailing freedom of expression and association, and allow peaceful assembly and provide space for the exercise of legitimate political rights. The Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression should visit Zimbabwe and report back to the Council at its sixth session on the situation there.

BOUDEWIJN J.VAN EENENNAAM (Netherlands) said the situation in Zimbabwe was of deep concern. Prohibition of demonstrations, arrests and violence were serious violations and should be put to an end immediately. The Netherlands welcomed the important role the Southern African region had played through diplomacy but believed the international community could contribute too. Special Procedures could help the Government of Zimbabwe to protect human rights and promote respect. The international community was prepared to support Zimbabwe but the Government should provide help as well through allowing access to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other mandate holders. The Netherlands deplored a recent decision to refuse entry of the Netherlands Ambassador for human rights in Zimbabwe. The request for the visit still stood and he hoped for a reply.

The Netherlands was concerned by restrictions, arrests and persecution in Belarus and the fate of at least four citizens whose whereabouts were unclear. Elections in 2006 failed to meet standards of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Political persecution continued. The Belarus authorities should cooperate with international investigations into cases of disappeared persons, and cooperate with all Special Rapporteurs and the international community to provide the citizens of Belarus with fundamental human rights according to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covent on Civil and Political Rights. In Iran there had been suppression of peaceful demonstrations and closure of human rights organizations. The Government of Iran should respect the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom wanted to follow up on the questions about concerns raised by Germany in the interactive dialogue on torture. The United Kingdom fully supported the statements made by Germany with regard to Zimbabwe. The right of the people of Zimbabwe to freedom of expression was being seriously violated. MDC staff had been arrested. The British Foreign Secretary had condemned those actions and called for the immediate release of those arrested. The year 2006 was the worst for human rights abuses in Zimbabwe since 2001, according to the information from non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The United Kingdom firmly supported that the Zimbabwe people should be free to express their opinion under the protection of the rule of law. It was clear that Zimbabwe’s neighbours were also feeling the effects of that crisis.

A dialogue between the Government of Zimbabwe, civil societies and NGOs should be conducted to improve the situation, the United Kingdom believed. It was right that the international spotlight was now set on Zimbabwe. The United Kingdom welcomed the efforts of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to monitor the judicial process in Zimbabwe. The United Kingdom also supported calls for the Special Rapporteurs on torture and on freedom of expression and opinion to visit the country and to present reports to the next session of the Council.

DANIEL VOSGIEN (France) said it was important for all States to cooperate with the Special Procedures, and it was unacceptable that some of them, such as the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, or the Working Group on arbitrary detention, had not always been able to enter certain countries, despite repeated requests. These mechanisms brought a useful contribution to the fight to improve the situation in countries with regards to the protection and promotion of human rights. All countries should refrain from adopting measures which, in the name of the fight against terrorism, impinged upon human rights. International cooperation and all measures taken to fight terrorism should conform to the obligations of international law, in particular the instruments related to human rights and international humanitarian law.

Homage should be paid to human rights defenders, who, in often very difficult conditions, and often in peril of their lives, fought for the respect and promotion of human rights. The European Union had given itself guiding lines for the defence and protection of human rights defenders, and France was making great efforts in this regard. France also supported the declaration made by Germany for the European Union and was deeply concerned about recent events in Zimbabwe. The rights of opposition, freedom of association, freedom of expression, the right to a free and fair public trial were fundamental rights which could not be breached, and dialogue should be given preference over violence.

SOCORRO ROVIROSA PRIEGO (Mexico) said Mexico firmly supported the Special Procedures and the need for strengthening of other instruments. The mandate of the Working Group on arbitrary detention should be amplified to cover the conditions of detention. Mexico also wished to see a greater debate on the fight against discrimination. In reviewing the Durban Declaration and Action Plan it would be useful to analyse existing mechanisms in terms of nondiscrimination. There was again an opportunity to address the most contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia and give new impetus to existing standards, fostering a spirit of understanding to help in the fight against intolerance. This task was vital for human rights and also the other two central objectives of the United Nations, namely development and peace.

MURIEL BERSET KOHEN (Switzerland) said that Switzerland wanted to express its views on the issue of gender discrimination. It was concerned about the cases of grave discrimination, arbitrary detention and even death because of sexual orientation and gender identity. Many countries made it illegal to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex. Legislation should be changed to become compatible with international legislation and conventions. Switzerland also drew the attention to principles adopted in Indonesia last year. All States must respect legally binding standards. The High Commissioner for Human Rights was called upon to apply them as well in her future work. Switzerland supported any discussion in the future on human rights violations based on gender identity.

KWABENA DUODU (Ghana) said the Government of Ghana shared the concerns expressed about recent developments in the sisterly Republic of Zimbabwe, and this stemmed from the conviction that Africans should be the first to comment on African issues, especially if they involved human rights. The new Africa that should be built was one that would be firmly anchored on human rights and the rule of law. The development of every nation did not always follow the “straight and narrow path”, and Ghana was the first to admit this, as it had gone through a period of turbulence which saw extensive and systematic violations of the human rights of its citizenry.

It took Ghana a long time to realise that respect for human rights and the rule of law was cardinal to the development of every nation. It was against this backdrop that it wished to urge the Government of Zimbabwe to continue to work with members of the opposition towards forging national unity and reconciliation. All Zimbabweans should work towards banishing any negative development in their beautiful country. Ghana joined in the appeal to the Government of Zimbabwe to refrain from taking any further steps which could muddy the waters further. All Zimbabweans, both Government and opposition, should be treated fairly and equally.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), said Japan was also concerned by the situation in Zimbabwe, and associated itself with earlier statements by the European Union and others, and it appreciated the efforts of the African Union in this regard.

On health, Japan noted that Leprosy or Hansen’s disease was a curable condition but because of discrimination, poor awareness or misunderstanding, the human rights of leprosy sufferers, their families and recovered patients were violated around the world. The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had studied this and its work should serve as a guide. Japan believed the issue of leprosy should be addressed in the Human Rights Council as separate from that of other infectious diseases.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that one of the most striking examples of the policy of blockade exercised by Bush against Cuba was a plan aiming at a colonial occupation of Cuba. The Bush plan had been strengthened by further steps, including financing of mercenaries, the promotion of diplomatic campaigns against Cuba and the financing commitment of international players against the Cuban Government, including non-governmental organizations. Cuba depicted the economic war against it. Millions of dollars were assigned to that plan. In June 2006 the aggressions were intensified. Measures were adopted in the security area. The United States had free hands for the implementation of actions against Cuba, including direct military aggression to shared terrorist and even life attempts against the leaders. Funds and measures had been taken for the plan to annex Cuba. Mercenaries had been financed. The Bush plan tried to get back to American companies all that had been nationalised in Cuba. The United States undertook the encouragement of corrupt people in Cuba. Cuba wanted the true nature of the United States and its plan to be recognized.

SAMUEL KOTANE (South Africa) said it was evident that neighbouring countries to Zimbabwe, including South Africa, at the highest political level remained seized with efforts to assist Zimbabwe to resolve the issue. South Africa was concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe, and was trying to work towards a climate that was conducive to finding a suitable solution to the current political and economic challenges faced by the people of Zimbabwe. In this context, South Africa had consistently maintained and moved from the premise that only dialogue among the main political protagonists could help bring out a lasting solution.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said Algeria wished to join with other delegations who believed that the Southern African Development Community summit in Dar-es-Salaam was the most appropriate forum to address the situation in Zimbabwe. The African Union should not be hindered by the Council in its efforts to address the problem and the Human Rights Council should trust and support such efforts.

CHRISTOFFER BERG (Sweden) associated Sweden with the statements made by Germany on behalf of the European Union. Sweden wanted to raise a concern falling within the mandates of several of the reports presented, in particular those on torture, freedom of opinion and expression, arbitrary detention, health and human rights defenders. Sweden was deeply concerned at the increased, widespread and systematic violations of economic, social, civil and political rights in Zimbabwe. The Human Rights Council must not turn its back on the people of Zimbabwe. The very rights this Council was set to protect and promote were being denied and seriously violated.

The democratic rights of the people of Zimbabwe were being neglected, and their law continued to be applied selectively and repressively, including of the freedom of opinion and expression. Arbitrary detention and torture of leaders of political and civil society groups had recently been witnessed all around the world as they were arrested, brutally beaten and assaulted while in custody. The Government of Zimbabwe was urged to restore the rule of law, put an end to the use of violence and impunity and to fully respect all the human rights which the people of Zimbabwe were entitled to.

PAUL KAVANAGH (Ireland) said there was deep concern about the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, which had progressively deteriorated over a number of years, and particularly over events in recent weeks. Police action in the break up of the 11 March protest contravened the universally recognised rights of freedom of speech and of assembly. There were deeply disturbing reports of ill-treatment of opposition activists in police detention, and reports that on 18 march, opposition MP Nelson Chamisa was arrested and brutally treated. Such appalling ill-treatment of those in custody was entirely unacceptable. It infringed both on United Nations human rights standards, and the African Charter on Human And Peoples’ Rights, of which Zimbabwe was a signatory.

The African Charter stated that every human being was entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. These attacks on well-known public figures served to create an atmosphere of intimidation and violence, and to show ordinary people in Zimbabwe that they could not be confident of the protection of the rule of law in their daily lives. The Government should discharge its responsibility for the safety and well-being of those in custody, and respect the basic fundamental rights of the people. There should be a return to the rule of law, and to full adherence to the democratic and governance standards to which Zimbabwe was committed as a member of the United Nations.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe) referred to the statement of the European Union on the alleged situation of human rights in Zimbabwe, notably the demonstration disguised as a prayer rally in which one person lost his life, which the Government regretted. A real prayer rally did take place at the same time as the opposition rally. Life in Zimbabwe was not harsh because of troubled leadership, but because of a sanctions regime that withheld trade and development assistance. It was effectively an attempt to bring about regime change, interference in the free will of the people who had democratically elected the government. The United Kingdom and United States were chiefly behind the efforts to quell these democratic freedoms in the country. Zimbabwe won its freedom from the United Kingdom and that country now wished to show that Zimbabwe was not free. The Zimbabwe Government was in dialogue with several Special Rapporteurs but the visits would not be at the call of these “fallen angels.” Zimbabwe’s regional mechanisms were effectively seized with the situation. Zimbabwe was determined to resist foreign interference in its internal affairs.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said that Chile continued to be concerned about the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was asked to put an end to the violation of human rights and to overcome the situation in a spirit of constructive dialogue. Chile wanted to refer as well to the statement made by Argentina earlier. The Human Rights Council had approved without a vote a resolution on mainstreaming of women’s rights. Work had been carried out and should continue. Chile wanted to see that the rights of women were incorporated as a specific matter within the Human Rights Council to give it the time it deserved. Chile would support in the next session a draft resolution on gender mainstreaming.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) said there was deep concern at the serious and deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe, and Australia warmly welcomed and strongly encouraged all regional efforts to promote a constructive dialogue between the Government of Zimbabwe and opposition figures and civil society. Zimbabweans continued to suffer both political oppression and economic catastrophe. The arrest again yesterday of opposition members and the savage beatings meted out to the leader of the opposition and civil society figures while in detention recently demonstrated the distressing lengths the Government was prepared to go to silence dissent. Its failure to govern Zimbabwe could not be more evident.

The Special Rapporteurs on torture and on freedom of expression should visit Zimbabwe and report back to the sixth session of the Council, and expedite responses to outstanding requests for visits from United Nations Special Rapporteurs as soon as possible. The Government of Zimbabwe should cease human rights violations and meet its international human rights obligations; there should be an end to impunity, a restoration of the rule of law, and democratic practices should be established.

ORSOLYA TOTH (Hungary) said Hungary also followed with serious concern the deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe. As a result of the violent break up of a peaceful, church-sponsored rally, one person was killed and another injured. There were arrests and physical abuses, including of the opposition leaders. Intimidation of political opponents, harassment, threats against farmers and destruction of districts could not e condoned in any way. There was an urgent need for dialogue both with opposition leaders, civil society and neighbouring countries to help resolve the problems facing the country, and Hungary concurred with the African Union on the need for scrupulous respect of human rights and democratic principles. Only full and complete respect of the rule of law could prevent further escalation of violence.

DRAHOSLAV STEFANEK (Slovakia) said that it wanted to follow up on concerns expressed in questions posed by Germany on behalf of the European Union during the interactive dialogue. Slovakia followed with great concern the deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe, in particular serious restrictions of the freedom of opinion and expression and the freedom of assembly. Slovakia welcomed and fully concurred with the recent statement made by the Chairperson of the Commission of the African Union calling for the scrupulous respect for human rights and democratic principles in Zimbabwe. Slovakia also supported calls for the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression to visit Zimbabwe and to report back to the sixth session of the Human Rights Council on the situation there.

CARLOS PEREIRA MARQUES (Portugal) said there was deep concern about the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, namely the clashes between police and opposition activists, as well as the brutal treatment of political opposition and civil society leaders by law enforcement officials. The Government of Zimbabwe should protect and respect the human rights of all Zimbabweans, namely the right to enjoy freedom of expression and association. These were rights enshrined in international and regional treaties to which Zimbabwe was a party. The Government of Zimbabwe was encouraged to start a meaningful dialogue with political parties and civil society to find a solution to the current crisis.

The action and involvement of all those countries that were neighbours of Zimbabwe and who wanted good governance, the rule of law and the protection and promotion of fundamental human rights, without which there could be no sustainable development, was deeply valued.

JEAN FEYDER (Luxembourg) said Luxembourg was concerned by the detention and brutal treatment of opposition leaders in Zimbabwe. The brutality and violence of the repression of the peaceful demonstration and incarceration of citizens exercising their rights to freedom of opinion and assembly should be condemned. Luxembourg hoped all political detainees would be freed immediately and called on the Government of Zimbabwe to participate in an open and constructive dialogue with all political parties and civil society. Neighbouring countries should also encourage and assist in efforts to establish the rule of law and an environment conducive to a sustainable solution.

BART OUVRY (Belgium) said that Belgium wanted to endorse the deep concerns expressed by Germany on behalf of the European Union following the recent developments in Zimbabwe. The violent repression of peaceful meetings in Zimbabwe was not acceptable. It was the responsibility of the Government of Zimbabwe to protect and promote the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its population. The Government of Zimbabwe was called upon to cooperate with the Human Rights Council and its Special Rapporteurs to shed light on the circumstances of recent developments.

The importance of an open democracy giving space for a responsible opposition had been shown by the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Belgium welcomed the elections that had taken place there. Belgium was concerned by the recent developments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, especially with regard to the explosion of violence in March last year. The Democratic Republic of the Congo must permit human rights defenders to play a role. Any political crisis must be resolved through peaceful discussions and not through violence.

ANNE MERCHANT (Norway), speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, said numerous Special Procedures had documented violations of the human rights of lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender persons, including the use of the death penalty, torture, criminal sanctions, and police harassment. Eighty countries prohibited sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex, seven of which made homosexual activity punishable by death. The death penalty undoubtedly violated international human rights standards, when the sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offence. The prohibition of torture was absolute.

The Council should speak out against human rights violations wherever and on whatever ground they were taking place. At the national level, all had a legal duty to investigate and prosecute all instances of violence and abuse without making any distinction of any kind. At the international level, the Special Procedures were encouraged to continue to focus on these kinds of violations and provide guidance to Governments.

PETKO DRAGANOV (Bulgaria) said Bulgaria supported the statements of the European Union and others on the situation in Zimbabwe. Bulgarian history had shown that the best way to solve problems of development was through open dialogue between the government, civil society and the opposition, providing space for the exercise of freedom of expression, and allowing peaceful assembly. These were in the interests of any government striving for the democratic development of a society. Legislation curtailing political rights and freedoms were an impediment to human development. Given the eventual impact of further difficulties in Zimbabwe on the region, regional efforts were also called for. It was hoped the Government of Zimbabwe would cooperate fully with United Nations human rights mechanisms and take necessary measures to abide by internationally established human rights standards.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said the United States noted with deep regret the situation in Zimbabwe during the interactive dialogue. The United States was pleased to associate itself with the statements of the European Union condemning appalling recent developments in Zimbabwe. The United States noted its serious disappointment that the statement by the European Union and associated States had been the strongest action possible at this Council in response to events in Zimbabwe. It was the view of the Government of the United States that the recent events in Zimbabwe were exactly the sort of situation referenced by the General Assembly when it created the Human Rights Council.

Indeed, the Government of the United States believed that the members of the Human Rights Council could have more effectively addressed those events through a formal resolution. The United States continued to support the concept of a primary United Nations human rights body that could address country situations in which human rights were seriously threatened, and that could help people on the ground to enjoy better human rights protection. The United States called on all current and soon-to-be elected members of this body to take firm positions in defence of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

FOROUZANDEH VADIATI (Iran) said it was disappointing that there was a well-known group of countries trying again to impose their political agenda on the others. The scenario this time had been drawn up for one member of the African Group, namely Zimbabwe. Any problem inside the African continent should be solved through African mechanisms. It was surprising that this group was not concerned about human rights violations under foreign occupation in Palestine, the situation in Guantanamo, rendition flights, secret detentions, and the situation of migrants, illegal human trafficking and racial segregation in the Netherlands.

It was a cause of deep concern that a group of countries was making an effort to mislead the Council’s attention from the main task of institution building through naming and shaming.

ANTHONY MOTHAE MARUPING (Lesotho) said Lesotho attached great value to the enjoyment of democracy, basic freedoms and human rights. Lesotho was striving to inch towards these ideals within the means at its disposal and wanted the same for all countries, especially valued neighbours. The situation in Zimbabwe quickly came to the attention of the Southern African Development Community, and was firmly on its radar screen. The President of the Community’s organ on Politics, Defence and Security had hastened to the scene, as had the Community’s Council of Ministers. An Extraordinary Summit was scheduled for today, March 29 2007. The Southern African Development Community was therefore fully seized of the situation in Zimbabwe and had a mechanism for dealing with such matters. Lesotho asked that the Community be given a chance to sort the matter out. Its attitude and course of action was proactive and timely, and the Community shared the ideals of freedom, peace, security and human dignity and welfare for all. Lesotho was confident all parties involved on the mismatch of perceptions and expectations in Zimbabwe would come together to find a lasting solution.

MARCO JAMES KASSAJA (Tanzania) said that Tanzania’s delegation wanted to support the statements made by Zimbabwe acknowledging the efforts being made in the country. Since these efforts were continuing, it would be premature for Tanzania to pronounce itself before the Council. Nevertheless, the country said in some general observations that Zimbabwe had faced a negative image campaign by the international media which was unfair. It had clouded the real situation. The memory was still fresh of the great achievements Zimbabwe had carried out previously. Since its independence three decade ago, the country had resolved fundamental issues. Tanzania would be happy if the issue of Zimbabwe could be treated in a constructive dialogue taking into account the colonial history. The news reported in the media only scratched the surface. Tanzania suggested that a positive approach be taken toward this issue.

MARIE LOUISE OVERVAD (Denmark) said with regards to the dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, the Danish Government would like to express its utmost concern about recent developments in Zimbabwe, in particular the violent crackdown on the peaceful, church-sponsored rally of the Save Zimbabwe Campaign on 11 March. Actions which went against the freedom of opinion and of the right to peaceful assembly as well as other fundamental rights had taken place, and the Government of Zimbabwe should focus on resolving Zimbabwe’s multiple problems in a dialogue with all the country’s political forces and to the benefit of the long-suffering population.

The commitment given by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to monitor the Zimbabwean judicial process against Mr. Tsvangarai and his colleagues was a very constructive step. The Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression should visit Zimbabwe, and report back to the Council. The recent statements of African leaders on the situation in Zimbabwe were welcomed, and regional efforts aiming at securing a constructive dialogue between the opposition and the Government were encouraging.

LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Costa Rica) said the delegation of Costa Rica did no endorse the statement of the European Union on the situation of human rights in Zimbabwe. This was not because Costa Rica was not concerned by violations of human rights there, especially the right to freedom of expression. Like any other member of the United Nations, Costa Rica hoped the Zimbabwe Government would comply with appropriate international obligations and standards. He hoped the mechanisms of the Universal Periodic Review would allow objective, universal assessment of the situation in all countries, with the support of all States in their commitment to upholding human rights and freedoms everywhere.

BASILE DIBA (Central African Republic) said that it wanted to present the apologies of the Government of the Central African Republic for not having been able to assist the three previous session of the Human Rights Council. During 2006 and 2007, the country was the victim of multiple aggressions conducted by enemies of the Republic. When the Government decided to concentrate its effort for the reconstruction of the destroyed country, the enemies of the Republic aggressed and occupied the Northeast of the country’s territory in October 2006. New aggressions have been perpetrated in March 2007.

This was not only a serious attack on the territorial integrity but also on international humanitarian law. Despite this insecurity, the question of human dignity was in the focus of the Government’s priorities. Before March 2005, the Central African Republic was absent from the Human Rights Council. From now, the Council could count on the cooperation of the Central African Republic. The panoply of the reforms of the Council should enhance its capacity to better achieve the promotion and protection of human rights all over the world.

EVGENY LAZAREV (Belarus) said after the intervention by the Netherlands delegation, regarding alleged disappearances in Belarus, the Netherlands showed that it was ill informed regarding the situation. The competent bodies of Belarus worked ceaselessly to determine the fate of persons who had disappeared, and these investigations were reported on regularly to the authorities and to the Working Group on forced disappearances. The Netherlands was intentionally trying to produce these facts outside their context, focusing on one particular disappearance, and giving it a political nuance.

On cooperation with Special Procedures, Belarus had cooperated with the thematic mechanisms of the Council. The thematic bodies received exhaustive information on the situation in Belarus. The Netherlands should study the situation more closely before displaying its incompetence publicly in a debate in the Council. Everybody knew that the situation of human rights in the Netherlands was a shameful example of prostitution and trafficking in persons, and the Netherlands should first deal with its own situation.

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya) said Libya was concerned by the attitude of a group of countries that still thought Rhodesia existed. Libya did not condone violations of human rights anywhere, but there appeared to be an attempt to take revenge on Zimbabwe. How else could one explain the silence of the Council on human rights violations in other parts of the world, such as inter-communal violence, secret prisons, torture, unilateral sanctions, and deprivation of prisoners’ rights. The Council in its first tender year should deal with all violations of human rights, regardless of who the perpetrators or victims were.

SEBASTIEN MUTOMB MUJING (Democratic Republic of Congo) said that Zimbabwe was going through a period of economic and political difficulty. Appropriate solutions were being looked at with the country. The Government of Zimbabwe, conscious of its responsibility, had undertaken a campaign of social dialogue with all partners of civil society as well. Unfortunately, some agitators took advantage of it. Democratic opposition must know its place. They should use official channels. Because of some opposition leaders, the Democratic Republic of Congo was also facing similar problems. Unless there was political goodwill from all sides, the Government would be obliged to enforce the law. Certain opposition leaders were claiming to be human rights defenders and thus manipulating the real cause. The question of Zimbabwe had to be addressed with fairly, otherwise the Council ran the risk of falling back like the defamed Commission did on double standards.

Continuation of Interactive Dialogue on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations, Right to Health and Human Rights Defenders

DANIEL CHLADEK (Austria) said with regards to the report by Mr. Hunt, he advocated for the wide-spread human rights training of health professionals at all levels, and with the engagement of all different actors in the public as well as the private sector. Taking into account the complexity of the right to health and the need to be very concrete when applying it in practice, he should express his views on which aspects of the right should be included in such human rights trainings, and what practical examples health professionals could be confronted with in their daily work which touched upon human rights and the right to health. Austria welcomed the comprehensive compilation of case law in the second part of the report, focusing on the judicial accountability aspect in the realisation of the right to health.

PIL-WOO KIM (Republic of Korea) said human rights defenders played a key role in the promotion and protection of human rights, from awareness raising to fighting against dictatorships. But their vulnerability exposed them to enforced disappearance, torture and inhumane treatment, and other threats. The Declaration on Human Rights Defenders was an important tool with which to address the lack of legal redress and persistent impunity, the main obstacles to creating an environment conducive to the activities of human rights defenders. The Republic of Korea hoped this would continue to be one of the guiding concerns of the Council.

CISSY TALIWAKU (Uganda) said the Government of Uganda welcomed the excellent report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, and the recommendations in his previous report of 2005. The Government of Uganda continued to explore all avenues in providing health care to its citizens, sometimes under very difficult circumstances, as the task was enormous given the demands on the health sector, especially by diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, measles, and others. It was the Government’s desire to address child and maternal mortality, since these were areas in which mortality was still unnecessarily high. The Government had tried to develop an integrated approach for interventions, especially against neglected diseases, and in all these, the Government had encouraged community participation in order to increase ownership and compliance to the programmes for maximum benefits to the recipients.

SAMUEL KOTANE (South Africa) said South Africa supported and concurred with the recommendations the Special Rapporteur made on the right to health. Mr. Hunt made references to South Africa’s Constitution, which included a Bill of Rights, recognizing the right of access to health care services. South Africa was required to achieve the progressive realisation of this right within its available resources. Recognising the undue disease burden placed on South Africa, which was a developing country, the country had made significant strides to address in particular, in a progressive manner, the needs of the most vulnerable groups of the society namely women, children and the elderly. South Africa also shared the Special Rapporteur’s profound concern about the situation that prevailed in Iraq, in particular the intolerable health situation faced by Iraqis who were displaced in vast numbers inside their own country.

South Africa therefore called on the Human Rights Council to find a constructive approach to deal with this matter. South Africa also shared the Special Rapporteur’s assessment of the serious impact on the delivery of health services to the Palestinian people, caused by Israel’s withholding of funds to the Palestine Authority as well as the withholding of donor funds caused by the sanctions imposed on the Palestinian Authority. South Africa therefore urged all parties to consider carefully the inconsistency of their actions in this region, taking into account their human rights approach in other parts of the world, where upholding civil and political rights and the freedom of expression was of primary concern.

ANA BRITO (Portugal) said Hina Jilani's report gave a clear picture of the violations of the rights of human rights defenders working in the field of economic and social rights. It was these defenders who often had a harder time having their work accepted as human rights work. The Council last week adopted a resolution containing one important operative paragraph on the role of non-governmental organizations in realizing these rights, and the report showed the work they did to be even more valuable.

LUZ ANGELA MELO (United Nations Population Fund-UNFPA) said UNFPA understood the importance of the mechanism of the Special Rapporteur on health in advancing the scope of international human rights standards regarding reproductive health, and in that sense would like to express its appreciation and support for the work of the Special Rapporteur. Since the inception of the mandate, the Special Rapporteur had understood the importance of reproductive health to ensure the right to health. He had contributed significantly to the advancement of standards at the international level, and, where it mattered most, at the local level. The Special Rapporteur always insisted that the right should not only be enjoyed by the wealthy and powerful, but also by the most vulnerable and marginal members of society.

Working on reproductive health constituted a very difficult agenda, and the efforts of the Special Rapporteur had helped UNFPA in operationalising the right to reproductive health with a human rights-based approach. It had been an invaluable tool for staff in the field. The human rights community, bilateral cooperation and the United Nations system should work together to help countries to achieve universal access to reproductive health, including reduction of maternal mortality rates.

SUSAN TIMBERLAKE (UNAIDS) said that at the end of 2006, there were an estimated 39.5 million people living with HIV, nearly half of them women. Throughout the epidemic, governments had recognized how critical the promotion and protection of human rights were to an effective response to HIV. In the last few years, governments had made this recognition explicit in terms of specific, and in some cases time-bound, commitments. These commitments built upon the important work of the Commission on Human Rights. But if universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support were to be achieved, much more had to be done to protect human rights in the context of HIV.

In the drive towards universal access, the AIDS response needed the full engagement of the Human Rights Council. UNAIDS looked forward to the Council’s contribution to the global AIDS response. There were many opportunities, such as promoting accountability for the commitments to achieving universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support through the Universal Periodic Review, supporting the Special Procedures mandate holders to integrate HIV into their work and enabling the High Commissioner’s Office to expand her capacity to provide HIV- and human rights-related technical assistance to countries, among others.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said with regards to the report of Mr. Hunt, this included a chilling description of the deprivations of the populations of Iraq and of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. On Iraq, he had mentioned that there were 2 million internally displaced persons, as well as 2 million refugees. This very much echoed the gravity of the human rights situation expressed in the statement by the Iraqi Minister for Human Rights. How did the Special Rapporteur explain that precious little concern on this grave situation had been expressed in the Council, and that no special session or even special item had been included, Algeria asked.

With respect to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Special Rapporteur had noted a denial of the right to health by a callous resort to health sanctions by donors, which had affected the sick, the infirm and the elderly living under occupation. Why did the Special Rapporteur think the international media and the usually articulate international non-governmental organizations had not expressed concern for these two burning issues commensurate with what they expressed on other current human rights issues, Algeria wondered.

MARIE LOUISE OVERVAD (Denmark) said the work of Hina Jilani had been crucial to the protection and support of human rights defenders and was highly appreciated. She had set a standard for future mandate holders and Denmark encouraged the continuation of the work. The well-justified interest in the situation of female human rights defenders was significant, and it would be useful to have some insight into how her experience as a female human rights defender had influenced her implementation of the mandate.

TOMAS CONCHA (Colombia) said that Colombia expressed gratitude for the three important reports presented yesterday. Concerning Mr. Hunt’s report, illegal armed groups and drug cultivation were important issues. The Government of Colombia was conscious of the need to deal with those problems, respecting international conventions such the Vienna Convention. Colombia wanted to refer to the comments made in the high-level segment regarding the cultivation of drugs and stated that this issue was not within the mandate of the Council and outside of the Special Rapporteur’s purview.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, said indigenous peoples were discriminated against internationally, despite being historically recognised. Some States were attempting to vilify indigenous peoples who were defending their basic rights for protection against abuses and the promotion of their fundamental human rights. Ms. Jilani had noted in her report that in cases of violations of the rights of indigenous defenders, it was sometimes alleged that private companies or landholders were responsible for attacks or threats against the defenders. Indigenous peoples had become easy prey for anti-terrorism campaigns, which were being used to justify violations of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples (MRAP), said transnational corporations were responsible civilly and morally for violations of human rights and it was indispensable for mechanisms to be consolidated to establish this responsibility. Transnationals could be accomplices or perpetrators and instigators. Abundant literature showed that voluntary codes failed as did self regulation and “independent” oversight by civil society. It had become almost routine to accept the pre-eminent economic power of transnationals. The response was to fix the principle of equality of al persons, physical and moral, before the law, and the subordination of economic power to proper national and international legal and social organs.





CALIXTO NAVARRO, of Centrist Democratic International, said there were countries in the world which persecuted those who dared to differ from Government policies. According to recent reports, a Minister of the Chinese Government had declared that he would persecute all those who interfered with the construction of a harmonious socialist society. Falun Gong religious activists as well as other groups in China that struggled in a civic and peaceful manner for human rights were within this category. In Cuba, young activists who promoted freedom of expression had been constantly persecuted, threatened and attacked. Be it in Sudan, China or Cuba, or in other countries around the world where human rights were violated, men and women suffered terror and even death for their ideas and their defence of basic human rights, and the Council should not remain silent before this.

NICHOLAS HOWEN, of International Commission of Jurists, said the focus on the relationship between human rights and business was welcome. Expansion of global markets had not brought better protection against corporate human rights abuses, and this was a serious problem that touched on the Council’s mandate. States did not fully understand their duty to protect against these violations. National regulation was often inadequate, access to justice limited, and regulation on the part of States was clearly insufficient. Voluntary and multi-stakeholder initiatives had a role to play, but many lacked credibility and were not upheld in practice. They had limited coverage, lacked robust reporting or monitoring criteria, and had poor mechanisms to address accountability and non compliance. The mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations should analyse patterns of corporate abuses and integrate the perspective of victims.

LEAH HOCTOR, of Front Line, the International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, expressed concern that while the Human Rights Council debated the situation in Iran and Uzbekistan behind closed doors, on the ground, human rights defenders risked imprisonment, torture and even their lives. The organization raised the question on whether the Human Rights Council would seriously address the issue of the dangers to human rights defenders in Iran and Uzbekistan.

ANAIS PARKER DE LA ROCHEFORDIERE, of World Organization against Torture, said there was a worldwide upsurge in repression against activists engaging in the defence of economic, social and cultural rights. Trade union rights were flouted or non-existent in many countries, and trade union leaders were also often the victims of violence, generally committed by private security companies, and often with the complicity of local and/or national authorities. Organizations defending lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender minorities’ rights were still considered as a risk for society, which fostered numerous acts of reprisals against these human rights defenders, who remained highly discriminated against, and whose work in favour of human rights was rarely acknowledged. Women human rights defenders were also subjected to attacks on more than one front.

CLEMENT VOULE, of International Service for Human Rights, said the “right to promote and protect human rights” was enshrined in the UN system and human rights defenders played an important role in making sure States fulfilled their international obligations. Much depended on the information these defenders collected on the ground, and their freedom to operate impacted directly on the work of the Human Rights Council. The participation of non-governmental organizations was important and should be extended. The organization asked how the work of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders could be enriched and maintained over time, and in view of the poor response rate among States to the Special Rapporteur’s communications, what measures the Council could adopt to reinforce cooperation with Special Procedures.

VALERIA FRUZZETTI, of Amnesty International, said that with regard to the report on the right to health, Amnesty International welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s support for its developing campaign on human dignity, including its plans to increase work on maternal mortality as a human rights issue. Amnesty International asked who should carry out the detailed, technical and ongoing work required to document trends, advances and setbacks on a global scale. Concerning the report on human rights defenders, Amnesty International asked what measures could be taken to increase the awareness of these groups as human rights defenders.

HELENE SACKSTEIN, of International Alliance of Women, said Mr. Hunt’s report challenged human rights civil society organizations and health professionals alike to pay more attention to economic, social and cultural rights in general and the right to health in particular. One shocking example of this general lack of interest underscored was maternal mortality, and the burden of this scourge fell disproportionately on women in low-income countries and on women living in poverty. Maternal mortality exposed profound and multiple inequalities: global, ethnic, and gender-based. This massive human rights catastrophe of global dimension had not attracted the attention it deserved. It was hoped that a concerted effort to fight maternal mortality would serve as an equally powerful vehicle to better integrate a women’s human rights perspective in the implementation of the full range of economic, social and cultural rights for all special groups on the Council’s agenda.

Concluding Remarks by Expert on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations

John Ruggie, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations, said he was particularly grateful to delegations who expressed appreciation for the attempt to find a new way forward on this issue. Analysis of patterns of human rights abuse by corporations had been raised and he said he had been doing just that, reporting last year on the study on the worst forms of abuses in relation to companies, which triggered a very interesting debate with the business community. Although the mandate was initially thought of as desk based, he had been out in the field for regional and community consultations, as inclusively as possible (in Bogota more than ten indigenous groups were involved in discussions), and visiting industries in Colombia and Peru. The non-governmental organizations asked if it would be useful to do these studies on an ongoing basis, and he agreed and invited them to contribute as much as possible.

On other questions, Mr. Ruggie said remedies were few and their effectiveness questionable; all options were on the table regarding prioritization of work; the Global Compact was not intended as a substitute for national policy and one achievement was to attract a significant number of companies from developing countries that had joined it. Brazil had said that the United Nations lacked capacity to deal with these issues at present. He agreed. This was a crucially important area, yet institutional capacity did not match its importance.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07029E