COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORTS ON UNILATERAL COERCIVE MEASURES, SAFE DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION, OTHER ISSUES

The Human Rights Council this afternoon heard presentations of the report of the Secretary-General on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments, then held a general debate on the reports and other issues.

Kyung-wha Kang, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the reports, said the report on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation formulated specific conclusions and recommendations. While various international organizations monitored human rights obligations in relation to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, the issue was far from being addressed sufficiently. It was now time to consider access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right. With regards to the Secretary-General’s report on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, this followed the Council’s request that he seek the views of all States on the negative effects of unilateral coercive measure on their citizens. It was hoped the reports would provide useful insights and points that would be of use to the Council in the future and for its deliberations.

In the general debate, speakers raised a number of issues, including that the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had confirmed that there were existing human rights obligations emanating from the right to safe drinking water and sanitation and stressed that the right entitled everyone to sufficient, safe and accessible drinking water. The report achieved a great deal to solve uncertainty about the implications of considering access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right. Creating clarity facilitated recognition of access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right. States should work towards ensuring everyone’s access to a sufficient amount of safe drinking water.

On unilateral coercive measures, delegations said that such measures worked against the independence and the self-determination of people. The victims of the application of such measures were always the most vulnerable. Application of such measures were seen as a violation of human rights. Unilateral coercive measures and related legislation contravened international law and the UN Charter, international humanitarian standards and human rights law. Even from a supposed “realist” political perspective, these measures did not achieve the goals for which they were put in place.

Among other issues raised by delegations was the right to self-determination of peoples, which was an established human right under the UN Charter and the two International Covenants. The protection of cultural heritage was an issue that deserved to be viewed through the broader prism of protection and promotion of human rights, said a speaker. The issue of the follow-through on the Millennium Development Goals was raised by another delegate, who said that efforts made in all areas of development since 2000 were inadequate.

Speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Portugal on behalf of the European Union, India, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, Pakistan in a national capacity, Bangladesh, Italy, Bolivia, Cuba, Uruguay, Turkey, Morocco, Spain, Belgium, Algeria, Armenia, Luxembourg, and Belarus.

Also speaking were International Environmental Law Research Centre, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, International Educational Development, Friends World Committee for Consultation (QUAKER), on behalf of of several NGOs1, Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network, World Muslim Congress, International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, International Institute for Peace, Action Canada for Population and Development, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities and International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations.

Speaking in right of reply were the Netherlands, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Morocco.


The next meeting of the Council will be on Tuesday, 18 September at 3 p.m., when it will hold open-ended informal consultations.


Reports Before the Council

The Council has before it the report of the Secretary-General on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (A/HRC/6/2), which is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council decision 4/103 of 30 March 2007, in which the Council decided to request the Secretary-General of the United Nations to seek the views of all States on the implications and negative effects of unilateral coercive measures on their populations. The report summarizes replies received in response to a request for information sent to Member States. Responses were received from the Governments of Colombia, Costa Rica, Lebanon, Georgia, Romania and the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Council has before it the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments (A/HRC/6/3), which says that human rights obligations in relation to access to safe drinking water and sanitation can be derived from various treaties, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Treaty bodies as well as Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council provide for monitoring of these obligations. Regional mechanisms and national human rights institutions also play a role in monitoring. However, the debate is still open as to whether access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a human right. In its conclusions and recommendations, the report notes that there is a growing recognition that access to safe drinking water and sanitation must be addressed within a human rights framework. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights believes that it is now time to consider access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right, defined as the right to equal and non-discriminatory access to a sufficient amount of safe drinking water for personal and domestic uses – drinking, personal sanitation, washing of clothes, food preparation and personal and household hygiene – to sustain life and health. States should prioritize these personal and domestic uses over other water uses and should take steps to ensure that this sufficient amount is of good quality, affordable for all and can be collected within a reasonable distance from a person’s home.

Introduction of the Reports

KYUNG-WHA KANG, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said with regards to the two reports, on the report of the High Commissioner on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation, in preparing this, the Office had solicited and taken into account the views of States and other relevant stake-holders. The considerable number of submissions received showed that the issue needed to be addressed from within a human rights framework. The report discussed issues needing further elaboration, and formulated specific conclusions and recommendations, noting that although various international organizations monitored human rights obligations in relation to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, the issue was far from being addressed sufficiently. It was now time to consider access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right.

With regards to the Secretary-General’s report on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, this followed the Council’s request that he seek the views of all States on the negative effects of unilateral coercive measure on their citizens. Responses were received from certain Governments. It was hoped the reports would provide useful insights and points that would be of use to the Council in the future and for its deliberations.

General Debate

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said unilateral coercive measures and related legislation contravened international law and the UN Charter, international humanitarian standards and human rights law. Even from a supposed “realist” political perspective these measures did not achieve the goals for which they were put in place. The OIC joined the Non-Aligned Movement in supporting an end to unilateral coercive measures, especially against any developing country. The OIC recalled UN General Assembly resolution 52/181 to adopt urgent and effective measures to eliminate the use of unilateral coercive measures.

FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that peace, security, development and human rights were interlinked and mutually reinforcing; these were the three pillars of the UN System. After one year largely dedicated to institution building, it was now time for the Human Rights Council to concentrate on its fundamental responsibility of promoting the universal respect and the effective promotion and protection of all human rights. The Council must ensure that its work would result in effective improvements of the situation of victims worldwide. The implementation of all human rights was still a work in progress everywhere. Many people were still living in extreme poverty. The implementation of the Millennium Development Goals was essential. Violations of civil and political rights persisted worldwide. The ratification of international instruments by States was not enough. The abolition of the death penalty contributed to the enhancement of human dignity. All States were urged to abolish capital punishment. All States should develop effective legal, judicial and administrative frameworks in order to prevent torture and to punish those responsible for these intolerable acts. Freedom of expression was a fundamental right, which was essential to a functioning democracy. All Governments should ensure that their domestic legal systems provided effective guarantees for the exercise of freedom of religion and belief, including the right not to profess any religion or belief. The European Union would table a resolution aimed at the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance.

RAJIV CHANDER (India) said with regards to the report on access to safe drinking water and sanitation, the study appropriately limited its scope to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, which should be the focus from the human rights perspective; it should steer clear of areas which were beyond the ambit of the Human Rights Council. The study confirmed that drinking water and sanitation needs should be the first charge on any available water resources. States should work towards ensuring everyone’s access to a sufficient amount of safe drinking water. It was up to each country to determine what this amount was. The strategy for the progressive realisation of this basic need should be based on national perspectives.

REINHARD SCHWEPPE (Germany) said the report on equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation addressed a fundamental subject of ever increasing relevance. More than 1 billion people did not have access to safe drinking water and 2.5 billion had no provision for sanitation. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had confirmed that there were existing human rights obligations emanating from the right to safe drinking water and sanitation and stressed that the right entitled everyone to sufficient, safe and accessible drinking water. Germany and Spain were lobbying for realization of this right and believed the issue needed more consideration and clarification, together with stronger normative foundations. They planned to present a draft decision calling on all States to give due attention to the report.

ANH THU DUONG (Switzerland) said that the problem of the right to access to drinking water affected millions of persons around the world, with implications on other human rights. Switzerland would continue in coming months to examine how to make concrete this right in order to benefit people around the world.

M. JORIS GEEVEN (Netherlands) said the report on the scope and content of the human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation provided a clear presentation of human rights obligations under international human rights law, emphasising that the primary target of the obligations should be to ensure everyone’s access to a minimum amount of water to prevent diseases. The report achieved a great deal to solve uncertainty about the implications of considering access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right. Creating clarity facilitated recognition of access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right. The Council should continue to consider this issue: further elaboration and debate was needed. The identification of good practices could be of instrumental value, as they would foster a better understanding of the right to water and concrete steps towards realising access to safe drinking water for everyone.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said the right to self-determination of peoples was an established human right under the UN Charter and the two International Covenants. It was the basis of all human rights and its realization an essential basis for guaranteeing all other human rights. It should not be blocked by overt or covert influence, coercion or aggression. The struggle of all people for self-determination could not be condemned as terrorism. The people of Kashmir had yet to exercise their inalienable right. The situation on the ground, ongoing dialogue and confidence-building measures had to be the focus of current efforts. Kashmiri leaders and activists had called for an end to violations, such as extra judicial killings and arbitrary detention, in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Human rights violations must cease and improvements in the situation on the ground would strengthen the progress in confidence-building measures. New communication channels should be opened and efforts should be stepped up to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of Pakistan, India and the people of Kashmir.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that access to safe water was a fundamental right of humankind. The right to water was even more basic than other human rights. It was imperative to develop water strategies, while preserving the ecosystem. Water was a scarce resource which had to be used in an equitable matter. All people had the right to access to sufficient water in order for them to meet their essential needs.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) said with regards to the report on access to safe drinking water and sanitation, it probably represented a very interesting outcome for any future debate on a theme that was and would be of increasing importance for the human race. Considering that access to drinking water and sanitation was now on the agenda of the Human Rights Council, then it was clear this was a good thing. The international community should take strong and responsible action. Ways of taking action to improve the situation were many and varied, including a wide range of different instruments, belonging to several different domains. It was important to grant access to drinking water as one of the fundamental human rights. The recommendations in the report were supported and endorsed, including the proposal that the Council continue to consider the issue, and express itself on it in March 2008, including with a definition of this right.

ANGELICA NAVARRO LLANOS (Bolivia) said access to water was a fundamental human right and impacted on other rights such as the rights to health, food, and life. Former governments in Bolivia had taken repressive measures in the face of civil unrest over increased water prices and privatized water services. The present Government of Bolivia had created a water ministry and was actively tackling the problems caused by the privatization of water resources. The report should however be clearer on how much water people should have a right to. Should it be enough to survive, to cultivate foodstuff, to maintain a certain economic standard of living, to maintain an ecosystem the hosted indigenous communities? It was also important to look at the impact of privatization and the responsibilities of transnational corporations. Poor countries should not have to pay the bill for development in rich countries. Water should be withdrawn from bi-lateral and multi-lateral trade negotiations, and countries should have sovereign rights to regulate their water resources.

ABEL LA ROSA DOMINGUEZ (Cuba), referring to the report on unilateral coercive measures, said that the Non-Aligned Movement would submit a resolution on this issue during the current session. Unilateral coercive measures were against the independence and the self-determination of peoples. The victims of the application of such measures were always the most vulnerable. The application of such measures was seen as a violation of human rights. Hostility against Cuba from the United States was harming Cuban civilians and the country. These measure were not respecting the right of sovereignty, which could not be renounced. A few days ago the General Assembly called for putting an end to the current blockade by the United States. Cuba would continue to work towards achieving this objective.

LOURDES BONE (Uruguay) said the unrestricted access to drinking water and other water sources was a fundamental human right, an essential good which had immediate repercussions on health, sanitation and the environment, and thus the quality of life. Uruguayan society had understood that indiscriminate access to water was part of the national being and identity. At the regional level, Uruguay had participated in the defence of the fresh water reserves of the Guarani people. In 2002, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had adopted general observations on the right to water. The importance granted to the exchange of information and good practices in this field could not be ignored.

SIMLA OZKAYA (Turkey) said that the report on safe drinking water and sanitation was a valuable contribution to meeting the Millennium Development Goals. Water and sanitation still were not available to the poorest people of the world, and consumption was on the increase worldwide. Water was at the core of sustainable development and its rational and equitable management was crucial for human survival. As the United Nations Development Programme’s Development Report 2006 had pointed out, pricing, investment and service delivery were important aspects of the issue. National governments bore primary responsibility for providing water to their citizens. Rights to water included a right to access at an affordable price to safe drinking water and sanitation. It was a challenging task to implement the right to water in a trans-boundary context and a “one-size fits all” approach would not be applicable.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said that access to drinking water was a right that should be examined inside the Human Rights Council. The constraints encountered by developing countries that were victims of desertification should be examined. The development of access to drinking water was one of the principle objectives in Morocco. Efforts were being made to increase access to drinking water in the rural areas.

JOAQUIN MARIA DE ARISTEGUI LABORDE (Spain) said the report on access to drinking water showed that good work had been done, in accordance with the mandate given by the Council, and would help to improve the way in which the latter approached the issue. The Council was a centre for tackling new issues linked to fundamental human rights. One of the main things remaining to be done was to develop additional standards in relation to economic, social and cultural rights. In connection with this issue, there was the concern of millions who did not have access to safe drinking water, nor to the parameters of the right itself. Spain was fully aware of the importance of water as a scarce resource, and a vital resource for development of both the person and the State. There should be a Conference on the issue before the next session of the Council.

BART OUVRY (Belgium) said the report showed that there were uncertainties, notably regarding whether the right to water was a secondary right or a right in itself. In Belgium legal and constitutional measures were in place to guarantee access to drinking water at affordable prices. Internationally, the issue was crucial to individual development – the issue of women’s roles in searching for water in inaccessible or unhealthy places in countries of the South was well known - and rights to food and health were directly linked to rights to water. The report was a first step in taking global action to ensure follow-up and implementation of the right to safe drinking water and sanitation.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said, on the matter of unilateral coercive measures, that they were being used to restrain the right to self-determination of peoples. Algeria would never stop seeking to include the right to self-determination of colonialized countries in the agenda of he Human Rights Council. Even if the international community was still appealing against unilateral coercive measures, certain States continued that practice. On the right of equitable access to water, Algeria proposed that they replace the concept of integrated water management with the more human rights-based concept of "management and allocation of water", which was also more consistent with the Millennium Development Goals.

ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia) said the Council should address, among other things, situations of gross and systematic human rights violations. Such violations led to most heinous crimes against humanity, including the crime of genocide. The heavy human rights machinery, with its bodies and mechanisms, had proved over many years to be an indispensable part in the development of a global system of protection and promotion of human rights. Early warning should be clearly distinguished from early action, and the United Nations human rights system bore the special responsibility for effective and continued engagements and consolidated interactions between the Special Adviser on Genocide and the Council. In addition, protection of cultural heritage was an issue that deserved to be viewed through the broader prism of protection and promotion of human rights.

JEAN FEYDER (Luxembourg) said there was concern at the follow-through on the Millennium Development Goals. Efforts made in all areas of development since 2000 had been inadequate. There was a need to increase the amount spent by European Governments on foreign aid, as per the commitments made at the European level. Luxembourg invited the Council to pursue tirelessly its efforts in support of developing all fundamental human rights, human dignity and freedoms of expression and religion, in particular, by working towards abolishing the death penalty, and of tackling problems of children in armed conflict.

ANDREI MOLCHAN (Belarus) said Belarus was deeply concerned by the spreading practice of the use of unilateral coercive measures. That was infringing upon the sovereignty of States and the human rights of citizens. Such measures constituted a gross and manifest violation of the United Nations Charter. Thus, their use could not be justified. Even though a number of resolutions had been adopted condemning unilateral coercive measures, they were continuously being spread. That testified to significant protection gaps in terms of focused monitoring and assessment of extraterritorial violations of fundamental rights. The Human Rights Council should play a leading role in the monitoring of those matters.

DAVID TAKACS, of International Environmental Law Research Centre, said every nation should develop legislation on safe drinking water and sanitation. Among other things, such legislation should aim at preventing discrimination in the face of access to water, whether it be provided by public or by private actors. Free basic water was a goal towards which all countries should strive. Proclamation of a fundamental right to equitable access to safe water and sanitation was just a first step: States should give pre-eminence to water’s social and environmental importance, and assume absolute responsibility for ensuring that all citizens realized this fundamental right.

JESSICA MARASOVIC, of Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, said that more than 1 billion people lacked basic safe water supplies, and 10,000 people died each day as a result of lack of water and sanitation. The Council had an opportunity to respond to that by identifying and disseminating best-practices and monitoring realization of rights to water, providing technical support to States and international organizations, calling for national legislation to guarantee those rights and adopting and recommending Sub-Commission guidelines.

KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, considered that attention to unilateral coercive measures was of major importance. International Educational Development agreed with Syria’s view that the United States’ Syrian Accountability Law was a serious violation of international law. Possible acts by the United States against Venezuela were also of concern. More countries were urged to submit information to the High Commissioner. The fact that apparently all religions were falling seriously short in providing equal rights of women was also noted, as was the issue of religious extremism, which was affecting all religions.

RACHEL BRETT, of Friends World Committee for Consultation (QUAKER), on behalf of of several NGOs1, said, with regard to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that all States should work in good faith to implement in their domestic law and to put into practice the provisions of that vitally important and long-overdue human rights instrument, and seize the historic opportunity presented by the adoption of the Declaration to enter into a new relationship with indigenous peoples based on a principled commitment to the protection of human rights. The adoption of the Declaration was an important milestone on the road to full respect for the rights of indigenous peoples, but the road ahead remained long and arduous, and the Council should begin to contribute now to the successful realization of the journey.

JOHN FISCHER, of Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network, said the international community was often slow in responding to discrimination or violations of human rights that undermined effective responses to HIV/AIDS. Many States were unwilling to acknowledge marginalized groups at risk of HIV infection, such as gay men, drug users, sex workers and others. The Council should be vigorous in addressing their needs, and ensuring that protection gaps were closed to guarantee the human rights of marginalized groups. There was a need to remind the Council of the extensive human rights violations committed against people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

SHAGUFTA ASHRAF, of World Muslim Congress, said that the concept of self-determination was a very powerful one. That right belonged to peoples and not to States or Governments. In 1947, Pakistan and India had emerged as separate States, but the right of self-determination had not been considered suitable for the people of Indian-Occupied Kashmir. Kashmir was not part of India, and the United Nations recognized it as disputed territory. India had continued to maintain its hold and human rights violations had continued unabated. The Indian Government had staged sham elections to stifle the voice of the Kashmiri people. The United Nations had a direct role and responsibility to enable the people of Jammu and Kashmir to exercise their right of self-determination. The Human Rights Council had a clear role in that regard.

SYED FAIZ NAQSHDANDI, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said the principle of self-determination was embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, as universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among States. All peoples had the right to self-determination, by virtue of which they freely determined their political status and freely pursued their economic, social and cultural development. That right could only be exercised in the absence of coercion and foreign occupation. Unfortunately, even after six decades, the people of Kashmir were still waiting for the effective implementation of their right to self-determination.

L. VERZEGNASSI, of International Institute for Peace, said Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, had unflinchingly upheld ideals of dignity and human rights. Freedom of religion, belief and expression were basic rights. The right of choice – whether in regard to religion or expression – was an essential one. Ideals of democracy could not be switched on or off. Only when those ideals were second nature was there any hope for human rights to be accepted fully across the world. Hatred bred violence, violence bred violence and discrimination bred discrimination. Constitutional and legal structures segmented people into classes based on religion, gender or other categories. Attacks on places of worship, prohibitions on the display of religious symbols and discrimination against vulnerable groups undermined basic human rights.

DANIEL TOWNSEND, of Action Canada for Population and Development, said that the existence of protection gaps – areas of human rights which were not covered under any existing mandate within the Special Procedure systems – ran counter to the Council’s foundational principles of non-selectivity and of promoting all human rights. The Council had to build on this discussion and begin the process of addressing those protection gaps. Areas for which new mandates should be created should be defined. Areas falling into gaps, for which initial exploration could be undertaken by one or more existing mandates holders, should be identified.

SARDAR AMJAD YOUSAF, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said that the right to self-determination was the most fundamental collective human right of peoples. Realization of that right was an essential condition to guarantee the observance, protection and promotion of all other human rights. The right to self-determination was the right of a people to determine its own destiny, including to choose its own political status, and to determine its own form of economic, social and cultural development. Granting the right to self-determination to the people of Kashmir would assure the dividends of peace to the whole region of South Asia in the form of economic, social and cultural progress.

MOHAMED CHEIKH, of International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, said it was imperative to promote, protect and defend all human rights including the right to development. Occupation of a State was a violation of all human rights and Western Sahara was a case in point. Morocco was not content with mere occupation, but also took over the natural resources of the people of Western Sahara. The right to self-determination of the people of Western Sahara had to be assured without delay.


Statements in Right of Reply


JORIS GEEVEN (Netherlands), in a right of reply, said that the Netherlands fully supported the statement by the representative of Defence for Children International, and underlined that the example given on monitoring of detention of children showed the added value civil society organizations had in the promotion and protection of human rights. The Netherlands was fully committed to cooperating with Defence for Children International to strengthen human rights protection both in the Netherlands and abroad.


MUNU MAHAWAR (India), speaking in a right of reply, said, in regard to the statement by Pakistan, that the two countries were discussing outstanding issues bilaterally, and the fifth round of talks was due to be launched shortly. The Composite Dialogue had led to a significant improvement in relations, and was based on the assurance by President Musharaff that no part of Pakistan would be used to launch terrorist activity. India was keen to move forward, and was convinced that that could only take place in an atmosphere of peace. There was a need to be vigilant against using language or voicing sentiments that could be viewed as supporting terrorists. The sentiments articulated by Pakistan were not helpful in that regard.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), in a right of reply, said it was to be hoped that there would not be a tendency to politicize the work of the Council. Morocco was not occupying Western Sahara. When you were in your own home, your were not occupying anything. A non-governmental organization representative had spoken of human rights violations and restrictions and those were inaccurate. Morocco had been a long-time investor in natural resources projects in the region concerned. Morocco had proposed a status of autonomy to resolve the dispute over the Western Sahara area.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), in a right of reply, said that it was difficult to delegitimize the rights of the Kashmiri people, who were fighting for their rights. The Kashmir dispute had been recognized by the United Nations. The dispute should be settled in an international forum like the United Nations. This Council was the most appropriate forum to raise the human rights violations in the region. Human rights abuses fuelled the conflict.

SUMEDHA EKANAYAKE (Sri Lanka), speaking in right of reply, said Sri Lanka had been amazed to hear the comments made by International Educational Development with regard to certain issues, in particular the reference made to two political parties in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was a democracy, and all political parties in the Parliament were elected by the people through regular elections. With regard to a comment on the tsunami rehabilitation, the non-governmental organization should receive the information from the appropriate United Nations agencies and other international non-governmental organizations with regard to the progress that had been made in this area in all parts of the country.

LAZHAR SOUALEM (Algeria), speaking in a right of reply, said Morocco had been called upon to explain itself over the occupation of the Western Sahara. The Moroccan attitude was not productive.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), in a second right of the reply, said that Morocco did not know what the basis was for Algeria's statement, as Morocco had not cited Algeria in his statement.

LAZHAR SOUALEM (Algeria), speaking in a second right to reply, said the town of Tinduf was geographically in Algeria - the Ambassador had not mentioned the country by name, but the town was in Algeria, and not anywhere else.


1Joint statement on behalf of: Friends World Committee for Consultation (QUAKER); International Service for Human Rights; Amnesty International; International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH); and International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (Rights and Democracy).