HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONSIDERS REPORTS OF SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS ON DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND MYANMAR

The Human Rights Council this afternoon discussed the reports presented by the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Myanmar before starting a general debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention.

Vitit Muntarbhorn, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said during the last year he had carried out visits to Mongolia, Japan and the Republic of Korea to analyse the impact of the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on these countries. It was regrettable that the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had declined to cooperate with him and had not invited him. Recently the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had submitted a report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child and it was in the process of reforming its laws on narcotics control and money laundering; these were positive aspects. Pursuant to the 2007 floods, humanitarian agencies now had greater access to the country. Civil and political rights were severely constrained in the country. There was an extensive use of torture and public executions. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should ensure a more equitable development process in the country and implement human rights effectively, bearing in mind its membership of some human rights treaties.

Speaking as a concerned country, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea denounced and resolutely rejected continued submission of the report by the Special Rapporteur who was the product of the most undisguised and extreme politicization, selectivity and double standards prevalent in the Commission on Human Rights. There was no truth in the report. Now that the Council had been established, the mandate of this Special Rapporteur, which was an anachronistic legacy of the Commission, should also be terminated accordingly. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been maintaining the respect for and observance of the international human rights instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea also sought genuine cooperation in the area of human rights.

The following delegations took the floor in the general debate on the report on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: the United States, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Cuba, Syria, Indonesia, New Zealand, Thailand and the United Kingdom. Jubilee Campaign also made a statement.

Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said that the first “annual” report in his address was built on previous thematic reports and focused on the situation of human rights in Myanmar during the period of February 2007 to February 2008. The second report was a follow-up to the mission presented to the Council last December. His annual report highlighted signs of continuous deterioration in the economic and social sectors, which further aggravated the humanitarian and human rights situation in the country. The increased militarization in rural areas had contributed to the impoverishment of villagers and to the increase in the number of internally displaced persons. Despite the shortcomings of the Government’s social policies, humanitarian assistance should not be hostage of politics and the population of Myanmar had the right to the same level of assistance from the international community that other countries in the region received. Finally, Mr. Pinheiro added that for a democracy to be sustainable it had to be inclusive and representative of the views of all the people in Myanmar.

Myanmar, speaking as a concerned country, cited a series of developments which had taken place in the country, including the visit of the Special Adviser of the United Nations Secretary-General to Myanmar from 6 to 10 March this year and the meeting between Aung San Suu Kyi with members of the Executive Committee of the National Leagues for Democracy. These positive developments and significant political developments vividly demonstrated the commitment of the Government of Myanmar to transform the country into a democratic State. Myanmar found the Special Rapporteur’s report completely lacking in important attributes such as objectivity and impartiality. The report was very intrusive and attempted to intrude into the internal domestic policies of Myanmar. The Special Rapporteur was not able to visit Myanmar after December 2007. The Government would have liked to accommodate his mission but the timing was not convenient as the authorities had been engaged in preparatory work for the holding of the National Referendum. During the Special Rapporteur’s previous visits, the Government had extended the fullest possible cooperation to the Special Rapporteur and furnished first-hand detailed information on the country.

Speaking in the general debate on the reports on Myanmar were China, the United States, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, India, the People’s Democratic Republic of Laos, Canada, Norway, Thailand, the Russian Federation, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Viet Nam, New Zealand, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Cuba and Malaysia.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, International Commission of Jurists, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, Asian Legal Resource Centre, Worldview International Foundation, in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), Reporters without Borders - International and Anti-Slavery International.

Speaking in the general debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention were
Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Canada, Italy, France and the United Kingdom.

Speakers expressed concerns about the situation of human rights in Sudan, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Belarus, China, Somalia, and Iran.

When the Council resumes it work at 10 a.m. on Friday, 14 March, it will conclude its general debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention before starting its review, rationalization and improvement of mandates process concerned the mandates of the Special Procedures on violence against women, the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, freedom of opinion and expression, the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, and human rights defenders. The Foreign Minister of Cameroon will also address the Council.

Documents

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Vitit Muntarbhorn (A/HRC/7/20), which covers the period from 2007 to the beginning of 2008. The report states that the country was often in the news during the period under review due to the nuclear issue, which is being dealt with under the umbrella of the six-party talks involving China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States. Those talks also provided an avenue to address some human rights issues, thus providing more humanitarian space in a variety of settings. The human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea remains grave in a number of key areas. This report examines the situation particularly from the following perspectives: human rights and the development process: the inequity factor; access to food and other necessities: the disparity factor; rights and freedoms: the insecurity factor; displacement and asylum: the mobility or immobility factor; groups of special concern: the inequality factor; and consequences of violence and violations: the impunity factor. While much depends upon global-local political will to test the desire for transparency and responsibility, whether through softer or harder entry points, it is important to underline the longstanding and systematic nature of human rights transgressions in the country which are highly visible, substantial and exponential. The report ends with a variety of recommendations to both the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the world community to ensure the improvement of the protection of human rights in the country.

The Council has before it a letter dated 30 January 2008 from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (A/HRC/7/G/3) to the Human Rights Council which states that as well known, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resolutely opposes and rejects the “Special Rapporteur”. The “Special Rapporteur” is a product of political confrontation. The existence of the “Special Rapporteur” has been consistent with unjust manipulations. Elimination of the “Special Rapporteur” really conforms to the current trend against politicization of human rights. With this in mind, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea believes that action-oriented measures should be taken towards termination of this politicized country-specific procedure at the seventh session of the Human Rights Council.

Presentation of Report by Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, presenting his report, said that his mandate had been established by the Human Rights Commission in 2004. It entailed the assessment of the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. During the last year he had also carried out visits to Mongolia, Japan and the Republic of Korea to analyse the impact of the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on these countries. His approach was to continue to invite the country to respond to the mandate, it was a window of opportunity to engage with the United Nations. It was regrettable that the authorities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had declined to cooperate with him and had not invited him. Recently the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had submitted a report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child and it was in the process of reforming its laws on narcotics control and money laundering; these were positive aspects. Pursuant to the 2007 floods, humanitarian agencies had now greater access to the country. However, the development process was faced with lack of equity due to the highly stratified political structure. Moreover, the country adhered to a “military first” policy, with millions involved in the machinery; this was depleting resources. There was a great disparity between access by the elite to food and the rest of the population. It was important to generate food security in the country, for which no foreign aid could be a substitute.

Mr. Muntarbhorn noted that civil and political rights were severely constrained in the country. The authorities tended to divide the population into three different groups: core mass, basic mass and complex mass. The third one was considered as an enemy of the state. Many landed in prisons with appalling conditions. There was an extensive use of torture and public executions. The population was not allowed to move freely and was unable to travel abroad without official permission. Also, in the process of exodus or flight, families were often dispersed. The access of women to key decision making positions was still limited. The situation of children should also be addressed, particularly children from political dissidents. Elderly persons were also increasingly vulnerable. The national authorities and the international community had to address the impunity factor which had enabled human rights violations. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should ensure a more equitable development process in the country and implement human rights effectively, bearing in mind its membership of some human rights treaties. It should also overcome the disparities in access to food and build food security. Prisons should be modernised and those who left the country should not be punished. The rights of women should be protected.

Response by Concerned Country

KIM YONG-HO (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking as a concerned country, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea denounced and resolutely rejected continued submission of the report of the Human Rights Council by the Special Rapporteur who was the product of the most undisguised and extreme politicization, selectivity and double standards prevalent in the Commission on Human Rights. There was no truth in the report. The Special Rapporteur served only as a tool representing these hostile forces in their pursuit of a political objective to overthrow the State and social system under the pretext of human rights. Now that the Council had been established, the mandate of this Special Rapporteur, which was an anachronistic legacy of the Commission, should also be terminated accordingly. The people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regarded sovereignty as a lifetime and valued more than anything else the socialist system of their own choice. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been maintaining the respect for and observance of the international human rights instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea also sought genuine cooperation in the area of human rights.

General Debate on Report of Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

WARREN TICHENOR (United States) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his very informative report and regretted that access by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was not granted to him. The reports on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea proved that credible information could be achieved without direct visits. Recent reports of executions in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, of citizens from that country trying to flee the country, were deeply distressing and the United States hoped that the situation would stabilize soon.

EVA TOMIC (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, expressed appreciation for the report of the Special Rapporteur. It was noted with deep regret that the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was still refusing to cooperate with the mandate. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was invited to respond to the mandate. The European Union was of the view that the human rights situation remained dire. Had there been any significant changes since the mandate had been established? How could the international community urge for cooperation with the Special Rapporteur?

CHANG DONG-HEE (Republic of Korea) commended the Special Rapporteur for his work. The Special Rapporteur had concluded that the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea remained unchanged. The Republic of Korea fully cooperated with the Special Rapporteur and rendered its full cooperation during his third visit to the Republic of Korea in January this year. The Republic of Korea was of the view that the Special Rapporteur could and should find a role to play in certain stages of the Universal Periodic Review for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Regarding the catalytic leverage mentioned in the report which the Republic of Korea may have on human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Special Rapporteur was asked for more elaboration on the catalytic leverage, including specific examples.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) said that the role of the Special Rapporteur was indispensable and he had made important conclusions, unfortunately having to resort to collecting information from nearby countries. Information collected during his most recent visit reflected the voices of the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Japan called for a resolution on the abductions and forced disappearances occurring in that country and also wished for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to show a sincere response to resolving regional tensions on its nuclear situation in a peaceful manner. The Council must rely on the Special Rapporteur’s work and the Government of Japan would continue to support his mandate.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that Cuba was not commenting on the integrity of the Special Rapporteur, as his reputation was known, but Cuba was concerned about the continuation of the mandate. This mandate had been marked by the Bush administration. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was suffering from the imperialistic polices of the United States. When the mandate was set up, the United States Congress had implemented a number of sanctions against the country. This had been a political and geo-strategical move. Cuba believed that the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should be submitted to the Universal Periodic Review and it should be there where the situation was studied. Unfortunately consensus could not be reached on this mandate. Cuba expressed its compassion to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and with the difficulties the country was dealing with.

RANIA AL RIFAIY (Syria) said the late Commission on Human Rights was dissolved due to its politicization, one symptom of which was the plague of country mandates. Syria called for the termination of all country mandates, including the mandate for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Serious efforts were needed to overcome the negative approach of naming and shaming. There was also a need to provide developing countries with technical assistance to preserve the universal aim of promoting human rights worldwide.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) acknowledged the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Talks that occurred in Beijing had had a positive impact on that country. It was important to nurture dialogue and cooperation and efforts on behalf of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to pursue this path should be encouraged. Initiatives made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should be commended and all efforts to increase confidence building measures should be promoted.

WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) said that New Zealand remained deeply concerned with the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as reports of flagrant human rights violations continued to be received. The positive developments noted by the Special Rapporteur were noted, further specific comments were requested in this regard.

SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW (Thailand) said that when speaking of the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea one should take into consideration larger developments. Thailand was encouraged by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s cooperation with United Nations agencies and for welcoming humanitarian assistance. This should be a channel for positive engagement between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the international community. Thailand was considering providing more assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

REBECCA SAGAR (United Kingdom) said that the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were indeed worrying, describing serious and widespread abuses of human rights. The United Kingdom urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to cooperate fully with United Nations mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur, and to allow the Rapporteur and other international monitors to access the country in order to assess the situation of human rights. The United Kingdom was concerned about 15 persons who had travelled illegally from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to China and were shot dead upon their return. These types of atrocities were of particular concern.

ANNIGE BUWALDA (Jubilee Campaign) said that Jubilee Campaign welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s report. More than 200,000 people were imprisoned in political prison camps in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, where high death rates from malnutrition were rampant. These camps had been operating for decades. The Council should adopt all the recommendations contained within the report by the Special Rapporteur.

Concluding Remarks by Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said in concluding remarks that throughout his four years on the job, he had endeavored to be fair, independent and balanced to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and all concerned parties. His reports had been based on a plurality of sources from which it had been assessed that egregious human rights violations continued in the country. As to the evolution of human rights in the country, there had been slightly better cooperation with the United Nations on food access, although the political freedoms and rights angles were seriously constrained. Even if the Democratic People's Republic of Korea did not cooperate with the Special Rapporteur one must remember that the country was party to four international instruments.

As to the issue of technical cooperation from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur recalled that this issue had already been raised but that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had refused such cooperation. There was a need for capacity building in the area of human rights in the country and the country must fully respect the decisions of the human rights treaty bodies. As to the Universal Periodic Review, the Special Rapporteur urged that this mechanism would incorporate his recommendations, as well as those of others, into that process. As to catalytic leverage, there was a need to look at incentives through the United Nations and others. Through the six-party talks neighbours could have a great influence on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They should use that influence to help further promote human rights in the country. It was best for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to have someone who was independent and fair in assessing their situation.

Documents

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro (A/HRC/7/18), which covers the period February 2007 to February 2008. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he was not permitted to return to Myanmar for a follow-up mission, as requested by the Council. He continued to discharge his mandate to the best of his ability based on information on grave violations of human rights collected from a variety of independent and reliable sources. He acknowledges receipt of the responses concerning the situation of a number of detainees, but notes that the absence of substantive response to the majority of his and other Special Procedures mandate holders’ communications makes it difficult to discern a genuine commitment by the Government to address these human rights violations. The report contains chapters on the activities of the Special Rapporteur; recent developments; economic, social and cultural rights; rule of law; human rights and humanitarian situation. It also contains concluding remarks and recommendations, including calls on the Government to urgently release all political prisoners at risk, as a first step towards the release of all political prisoners; to resume, without further delay, dialogue with all political actors, including the National League for Democracy and representatives of ethnic groups, with a view to having their views included in the drafting of the Constitution. He also calls on the international community and the United Nations, among others, to build on existing programmes of humanitarian assistance and support for health, education and human rights, and to engage in a serious dialogue with the Government on an adequate response to the situation of conflict in eastern Myanmar.

The Council also has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, mandated by resolution 6/33 of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/7/24), in which the Special Rapporteur regrets that he has not been granted access to Myanmar for a follow-up mission as requested by the Council. While acknowledging the initial cooperation by the Government in November 2007 in providing information, the lack of information concerning the investigation of the events of September 2007 is a compelling example of the challenges to the promotion and protection of human rights in Myanmar. The continued denial of basic civil and political rights and the worsening living conditions of the population make a difficult human rights situation even more acute. The Government continues to restrict, among others, the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly, thereby jeopardizing the stable basis for a solid transition to democracy. The Special Rapporteur shared with the Government an updated list of 718 persons believed to be in detention as a result of the crackdown on the demonstrations held in September 2007, a list of 16 people reported killed (in addition to the list of 15 dead initially provided by the authorities), and a list of 75 people reported missing, for comments and information. Those lists only contained those incidents where the names of the people involved are cited, however, and they could not be seen as exhaustive. Among immediate measures recommended are to secure the physical and psychological integrity of all persons kept in custody; to reveal the whereabouts of people who are still detained or missing; and to bring the perpetrators of human rights violations to justice and to provide the victims and their families with effective remedies. Transitional measures are also suggested, including pursuing dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi through the Minister for Labour and the Liaison Minister and to repeal or amend existing laws and regulations in relation to the right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to freedom of movement.

The Council also has before it a note verbale dated 10 March 2008 from the Permanent Mission of Myanmar to the Council (A/HRC/7/G/8) which, in an annex, includes comments on the abovementioned reports of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. On the National Convention, the State Constitution and the National Referendum, the National Convention is a truly all-inclusive forum representing the whole cross-section of the country after successfully being completed in September 2007. The Commission for Drafting the State Constitution has successfully completed the draft in February 2008. The Government is proceeding to hold the National Referendum in May 2008 in which the people of Myanmar will express their wish on the draft State Constitution. Once it is approved, the multi-party democracy elections will be held in 2010. It also outlines the Government’s endeavours for economic and social development, health and education, forced labour, freedom of association and expression, sexual violence against women, and refugees and internally displaced persons. It states that allegations of forced evictions, relocations, resettlement and forced migrations are untrue. Resettlement of some local people in those areas was absolutely voluntary for the purpose of border area development and for their own welfare and benefits. Also, the Government has constantly been engaging in a dialogue with the International Committee of the Red Cross and it has agreed to receive and ICRC delegation in the near future. The allegation regarding the closure of the monasteries is also untrue. It concludes that the Government of Myanmar finds that both reports are neither balanced nor objective. They are intrusive, highly politicized and contain many unfounded allegations originated from insurgents and anti-government groups. The Government totally rejects all the allegations contained in the reports.

Presentation of Reports by Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said that the first “annual” report in his address was built on previous thematic reports and focused on the situation of human rights in Myanmar during the period of February 2007 to February 2008. The second report was a follow-up to the mission presented to the Council last December. His annual report highlighted signs of continuous deterioration in the economic and social sectors, which further aggravated the humanitarian and human rights situation in the country. The increased militarization in rural areas had contributed to the impoverishment of villagers and to the increase in the number of internally displaced persons. One in three children under the age of five suffered from malnutrition and less than 50 per cent of children were able to complete their primary education. He also noted that with the assistance of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, the public health sector had noted progress in combating malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. However, the delivery of disease control services, particularly in remote areas, remained a serious challenge. The latest estimates from the World Health Organization and UNAIDS noted that in 2007 a total of 242,000 people in Myanmar lived with HIV/AIDS. Despite the shortcomings of the Government’s social policies, humanitarian assistance should not be hostage of politics and the population of Myanmar had the right to the same level of assistance from the international community that other countries in the region received.

Mr. Pinheiro also welcomed the conclusion in February 2007 of a Supplementary Understanding between the International Labour Organization and the Government of Myanmar to establish a mechanism for victims of forced labour to seek redress and noted that some of the cases had been resolved successfully. Nevertheless, forced labour continued to be widely imposed by local authorities for public infrastructure and services work. Major obstacles to the elimination of forced labour included the apparent lack of political will to seriously address the problem or to develop acceptable alternatives, and the prevailing impunity for Government officials and army officers responsible. Moreover, land confiscation remained a crucial issue. In addition, severe restrictions on the freedom of movement, expression, association and assembly continued to be reported. The most worrisome of these allegations were the cases of arrest and harassment of individuals accused of communicating information to the foreign media or to organizations outside the country. He was also appalled that official reports commissioned by the Human Rights Council could be used as criminal evidence against human rights defenders and democracy advocates. The Unlawful Associations Act of 1908 prohibited unauthorized outdoor assemblies of more than five persons and was reportedly selectively enforced. According to reliable sources some 1,850 political prisoners were still behind bars.

Finally, Mr. Pinheiro added that for a democracy to be sustainable it had to be inclusive and representative of the views of all the people in Myanmar. No referendum or elections could be fair and no political transition to democracy could be effective without the release of political prisoners. Disappearances continued in the country and the number of detainees continued to grow. In conclusion, he sincerely hoped that the Human Rights Council would make Myanmar accountable for its flagrant neglect and disrespect of the Council’s decisions. Moreover, in the final words of his last address to the Council, he paid tribute to all those in Myanmar who had fought and continued to fight to restore democracy in their country, assuming extraordinary risks.

Statement by Concerned Country

WUNNA MAUNG LWIN (Myanmar), speaking as a concerned country, after citing a series of developments which had taken place in the country, including the visit of the Special Adviser of the United Nations Secretary-General to Myanmar from 6 to 10 March this year and the meeting between Aung San Suu Kyi with members of the Executive Committee of the National Leagues for Democracy, said these positive developments and significant political developments vividly demonstrated the commitment of the Government of Myanmar to transform the country into a democratic State. Myanmar found the Special Rapporteur’s report completely lacking in important attributes such as objectivity and impartiality. The report was very intrusive and attempted to intrude into the internal domestic policies of Myanmar. The Special Rapporteur was not able to visit Myanmar after December 2007. The Government would have liked to accommodate his mission but the timing was not convenient for the authorities as they had been engaged in preparatory work for the holding of the National Referendum. During the previous visits by the Special Rapporteur, the Government had extended the fullest possible cooperation to the Special Rapporteur and had furnished first-hand detailed information on the country.

The Special Rapporteur had made a non-objective criticism and voiced allegations against the seven-step road map for national reconciliation and democratic transition. Myanmar regarded the Special Rapporteur’s criticism as an attempt to interfere with the internal affairs of Myanmar. With respect to allegations on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly contained in the reports, the Government of Myanmar totally rejected them. There were no political prisoners in Myanmar. The individuals who were serving the prison terms were those who had broken the established laws of Myanmar. Regarding the allegations of forced labor, the Government of Myanmar had been seriously taking measures in cooperation with the International Labor Organization on this issue. The allegations regarding the intensified military campaign in ethnic areas and the description about the humanitarian situation, forced eviction, forced migration and displacement of ethnic people were totally untrue and blown out of proportion. Peace and stability had been restored in Myanmar since October 2007 and the Government of Myanmar had provided all information regarding the death, detention and disappearances of people during the September event.

General Debate on Reports by Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar

SHEN YONGXIANG (China) said that China hoped to see stability return to Myanmar. It hoped that the dialogue taking place between parties inside the country would bring back peace and stability. Myanmar had taken a number of steps towards improving the situation, and general elections were scheduled in 2010. There had been progress on the Road Map. The invitation extended to the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy had shown Myanmar’s willingness. The challenges the country was facing in this difficult situation were noted. China hoped that the Government would give serious consideration to the international community’s concerns. A peaceful and prosperous Myanmar was the wish of every country in the region.

WARREN TICHENOR (United States) expressed the concern of the United States for the ongoing human rights situation in Burma. It was regrettable that the Burmese regime had not responded to Mr. Pinheiro’s requests for the names and numbers of those under detention. There was a pervasive fear in that country. Moreover, the upcoming referendum on the Constitution was to be viewed with suspicion, as the draft was written by a selected group of people, excluding the full voice and plurality of the country. The United States continued to call for the release of political prisoners and opposition leaders. The Burmese Junta must be held accountable and it was incumbent among the Council to offer support for the Special Rapporteur’s mandate in order for him to make further recommendations on this situation and provide greater hope for the people of Burma.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that while the European Union welcomed the visit of Ibrahim Gambari to Myanmar, it deeply regretted that the Special Rapporteur was not able to visit the country in accordance with the decision of the Council of December 2007. It was regrettable that the Special Rapporteur could not carry out his mission in full; however, the European Union welcomed his two reports presented to the current session of the Human Rights Council. The European Union noted with concern that authorities in Myanmar continued to impose severe restrictions on the freedom of movement, expression, assembly and association. The report indicated that the Government was involved in crackdowns on several initiatives, even for non-political purposes such as fighting HIV/AIDS. The report also noted that a culture of impunity remained the main obstacle for securing respect for human rights and creating a favourable environment for their realization.

The European Union asked the Special Rapporteur if there was any indication that the authorities of Myanmar were willing to comply with his recommendations. He was also asked to elaborate on the needed conditions for the referendum and the elections to be participatory and legitimate. Moreover, the European Union wanted him to elaborate on the guarantees provided in the texts for fundamental freedoms and basic human rights recognized under international conventions that Myanmar had ratified. Lastly, the Special Rapporteur was asked to comment on the possibility to get due process in Myanmar in light of political prisoners such as Ms. Suu Kyi.

IMRAN AHMED SIDDIQUI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the Special Rapporteur had rightly pointed out that a constructive dialogue with the Government of Myanmar would contribute to new dynamics to improve the situation. The ongoing dialogue between United Nations Special Procedures and Myanmar was welcomed. The OIC appreciated the ongoing constructive engagement. The OIC supported efforts to ensure stability and harmony in Myanmar. It was important to seek a peaceful solution and to avoid any steps that would imperil the integrity of the country.

JAN KAMINEK (Czech Republic) asked two questions to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. The first related to the drastic rise of commodity prices that started several months ago and led to the massive protests last year. How big a role did this factor play in rising tensions in society? Secondly, with regards to the continuing lack of access of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Czech Government supported the Special Rapporteur’s call on Myanmar to grant this access and wondered whether there had been any positive developments on this issue.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said that after the Special Rapporteur was allowed to visit Myanmar in November, there was a glimmer of hope that there would be some change and constructive engagement. But that was not the case. It was urgent that the Myanmar regime opened up its political engagement. A process of national reconciliation would not be credible unless the regime allowed the people to freely express their views during the upcoming referendum. A process of liberalization must include the political opponents being released, including Aung Suu Kyi. The exclusion of certain groups from the political process failed to meet international demands and exacerbated the situation in Myanmar. The Special Rapporteur was asked if he had any further information on those who remained in detention.

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said that Myanmar was a close friend and neighbour with whom they shared many aspects. Myanmar’s Foreign Minister had visited India earlier this year. In their interactions the two countries had stressed the need for greater urgency to bring about political reforms and national reconciliation. The recent announcement concerning the holding of elections in 2010 was positively noted. India believed that consideration of the situation in the Human Rights Council should be undertaken in a manner that supported the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy’s ongoing dialogue with Myanmar.

PHAT PHANTHAVONE (People’s Democratic Republic of Laos) said that the People’s Democratic Republic of Laos was an immediate neighbour of Myanmar. The situation there was complex, sensitive and fragile. The stability and unity of Myanmar was vital for peace and security in South East Asia and other regions. The Government of the People’s Democratic Republic of Laos had always upheld the ASEAN fundamental principles of non-interference into internal affairs of other countries and the peaceful settlement of disputes in addressing the Myanmar issue. Furthermore, it expressed its confidence that the upcoming National Referendum in 2008 and the holding of a general election in 2010 would pave the way to national reconciliation in the near future.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said Canada remained appalled by the deteriorating situation of human rights in Myanmar since last fall. Canada was deeply concerned about a number of the Special Rapporteur’s findings, including the imposition of severe restrictions on the freedoms of movement, expression, association and assembly. The acceleration of unlawful arrest and spread of widespread and systematic violations was worrying. Myanmar’s draft Constitution must be representative of the views of all persons in the country. The Special Rapporteur was asked what could be done by the international community to ensure that the regime in Myanmar entered into a genuine dialogue with members of Myanmar’s democratic movement, including with Ms. Suu Kyi.

SVEIN A. MICHELSEN (Norway) said that the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Myanmar had been a positive development but it was sad that he had been unable to return to the country since then. The systematic human rights violations in Myanmar had to stop and Ms. Suu Kyi had to be released. The plight of prisoners was of concern. The many cases of enforced disappearances were worrying. How was the Special Rapporteur assessing the situation of political prisoners and to what extent was torture being used?

SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW (Thailand) said that various serious and genuine concerns had been raised in this Council with regard to the situation in Myanmar. All countries wanted to see further progress achieved, especially Thailand as an immediate neighbour. Looking at the events in the past few months, recent developments had to be taken into consideration, particularly the Government’s announcement of a specific timeframe to hold a National Referendum and general elections. Thailand hoped that the process would be all inclusive, since national reconciliation could only be effective if it embraced and reached out to all sides. Finally, Thailand announced that the Prime Minister of Thailand would be visiting Myanmar this week and that the country remained committed to supporting a path to peaceful development in Myanmar.

VLADIMIR ZHEGLOV (Russian Federation) said the reports by the Special Rapporteur did not reflect all the positive steps taken by the Government of Myanmar. The Russian Federation considered that the human rights situation in Myanmar was not simple, but it was far from being dramatic. The Government was undertaking efforts to implement recommendations passed down from the Human Rights Council. The Russian Federation expected that the existing restrictions on civil and political rights would be lifted following the adoption of the new Constitution, which would be put before a national referendum in May this year. The Russian Federation also expected that the Myanmar leadership would adopt a road map to a democratic change. The international community must give Myanmar the necessary assistance to implement the programme of democratic reforms and improve the system of human rights.

MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan) said Japan regretted that the Special Rapporteur’s follow-up mission had not taken place. The steps towards a national reconciliation were welcomed. It was important that others, like Ms. Suu Kyi, were also included in a genuine dialogue. Japan strongly hoped that Myanmar would make progresses in its democratisation process. The involvement of the international community, including the United Nations, was very much needed in this context.

JAE-BOK CHANG (Republic of Korea) said that the Republic of Korea regretted that Myanmar had not granted access to the Special Rapporteur to enable him to conduct his follow-up visit pursuant to Council resolution 6/33. Indeed, it was a cause of concern to see the lack of significant improvement in the human rights situation in Myanmar. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur had yet to receive clarification and information from the Government regarding people who had been detained, killed or who had disappeared. The Republic of Korea noted with satisfaction the recent visit of Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari and the access granted to him with different interlocutors. Additionally, the Republic of Korea welcomed the planned holding of a referendum on a new Constitution for the country, as part of the Seven-Step Road Map.

NGUYEN THI XUAN HUONG (Viet Nam) said Viet Nam followed closely the developments in Myanmar and encouraged efforts to promote national reconciliation and dialogue and enhance democracy in Myanmar. In this connection, together with other countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, Viet Nam welcomed the announcement by the Government of Myanmar that it would hold a national referendum on the country’s Constitution in May 2008 to implement the Seven-Step Road Map towards democracy. Viet Nam also supported the cooperation between the Government of Myanmar and the United Nations to advance the process of national reconciliation. Viet Nam appreciated that the Government of Myanmar had invited Mr. Gambari, whose latest visit was in March 2008. Viet Nam had been engaged in dialogue with the Government of Myanmar and other international partners in various ways regarding the issue, but Viet Nam was of the view that the final decision had to be made by the people of Myanmar.

WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) reiterated the call that New Zealand made during the special session on Myanmar for the Government to put an end to the human rights violations. New Zealand regretted that the Special Rapporteur had not been able to make a follow-up visit to the country. Myanmar should respect its international engagements. New Zealand welcomed the recent visit of the United Nations Special Envoy to Myanmar.

BENNY YAN PIETER SIAHAAN (Indonesia) noted that several encouraging developments and initiatives by the Government of Myanmar had taken place since December 2007, and they should be acknowledged by the Council. In addition to the announcement of a national referendum and the holding of general elections, meetings were also held on several occasions with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. These moves were heartening and were a first step in the direction of national reconciliation and democratization. The Council had a positive role to play in giving the Government of Myanmar all the support it needed to fulfil its obligations and to sustain the current opening of dialogue with the international community.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said Brazil continued to express its concern over the human rights situation in Myanmar. While the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General was able to visit the country, cases of human rights violations continued to occur in Myanmar. There was an absence of a constructive engagement on part of the Government. Forced labor practices continued and there was a lack of political will, all of which were reasons for concern. It was Brazil’s expectation that concrete results to realize civil, political, and economic, social and cultural rights would be made. Countries of the region, as well as regional organizations, were important players in this regard.

ERLINDA F. BASILIO (Philippines) said that a significant step had been taken by Myanmar when the Government had invited the Special Rapporteur in November. Constructive dialogue and cooperation between the Government and the Human Rights Council was encouraged. Some positive developments were observed since the Special Session. The Government had agreed to a visit of the International Committee of the Red Cross. This was encouraging. The Philippines supported the Seven-Step Road Map. The shared goal should be to help Myanmar to empower its people. The Philippines called on Myanmar to continue its cooperation with the Human Rights Council.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that Myanmar had shown positive steps forward with regards to general elections and national reconciliation. Cuba welcomed any and all accompanying efforts of countries like China and India, and even regional institutions like the Association of South East Asian Nations, to help Myanmar achieve its goals and objectives.

TANTY EDAURA ABDULLAH (Malaysia) said Malaysia continued to believe that national reconciliation and consolidation of democratic efforts was fundamental to ensuring peace, stability and socio-economic development in Myanmar. Malaysia encouraged the Government of Myanmar to continue on the path towards democratic reforms, by engaging the relevant stakeholders in the country through a meaningful, substantive, inclusive and time-bound political process. Malaysia also welcomed the contacts between the Government and Aung San Suu Kyi. Malaysia recognized the many and complex challenges that Myanmar needed to address, including those cited in the report of the Special Rapporteur. The Council could play a meaningful role to assist Myanmar through a forward-looking, constructive and consensus approach.

RAFENDI DJAMIN, of International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, said that the visit of the Special Rapporteur to Myanmar last November had been a positive sign. However, it was disturbing that he had not been able to conduct a follow-up visit. People were continuing to suffer from arbitrary arrests and killing in Myanmar. Perpetrators of human rights violations should be tried. The Human Rights Council was called on to focus on the human rights situation and to avoid any politicization of the situation. The Special Rapporteur should be allowed to carry out his follow-up visit. China and India were urged to take the lead and collaborate with the Council on the situation in Myanmar.

LUKAS MACHON, of International Commission of Jurists, said that according to estimates there were currently 1,850 political prisoners detained in Myanmar, with a further 75 individuals whose whereabouts the Government had failed to clarify and were presumed to be victims of enforced disappearances. Illegal and political persecution to silence peaceful political opposition and journalists remained widespread. The International Commission of Jurists supported the position of the Special Rapporteur, who, in his report, regretted the lack of information regarding the allegations of the killing of 16 additional individuals and the accounted burning of a number of bodies at the Ye Way crematorium. Finally, the International Commission of Jurists urged the Myanmar Government to release all prisoners of conscience, political prisoners, as well as detainees who had not been duly convicted of a crime and to reveal the whereabouts of all persons detained or missing.

JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said in the aftermath of last year’s violent crackdown on peaceful protests, the situation of human rights in Myanmar remained dire. The Government had failed to act on any of the recommendations contained in the last report of the Special Rapporteur and had ignored the Council’s demand to allow him access to further investigate the events. Myanmar’s prisons were the site of routine torture and inhumane conditions. An estimated 1,800 political prisoners remained in prison. The Government was staging a sham referendum on a draft Constitution in May. The referendum should be an opportunity to shine a spotlight on the state of basic rights in Myanmar. Human rights abuses continued in ethnic areas, especially in northern Karen State, where over 40,000 civilians had been displaced in a brutal offensive since 2006. It was the responsibility of the Human Rights Council to make sure the successor of the Special Rapporteur was not treated the same way that Mr. Pinheiro had been treated and that the long suffering of the people of Myanmar came to an end with the realization of their fundamental rights.

ANDREW HUDSON, of Human Rights First, said that Human Rights First had recently returned from a visit to Myanmar. In recent months, the release of a number of people had been publicized. None of those were political activists. Arrests of real activists were still ongoing. Grave concern was expressed about atrocities committed by the army against ethnic groups. Violations of humanitarian law and crimes against humanity were still being committed. This was representing only a part of the picture. The Council was urged to fully support the work of the Special Rapporteur.

MICHAEL ANTHONY, of Asian Legal Resource Centre, said that the Centre remained deeply concerned about the situation of human rights in Myanmar in the aftermath of the Government crackdown on the nationwide uprising last September. Large numbers of ordinary persons, as well as forcibly disrobed monks and nuns, remained in illegal detention and were facing concocted charges, or had been disappeared. Very few, if any, had been treated in accordance with any law, domestic or international. There were also many reports that detainees were suffering from ill-health but were not getting access to treatment. Finally, the Asian Legal Resource Centre remained convinced that the efforts of the Special Rapporteur, his staff, and that of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General had proved insufficient to generate change in Myanmar.

THAUNG HTUN, of Worldview International Foundation, in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), recalled that on 5 February the Special Rapporteur stated that “political and human rights activists continue to be arrested, detained and sentenced to prison terms under the security laws”. Recent arrests on the same day of two journalists demonstrated once more the total denial of freedom of expression in Myanmar. While the United Nations Special Adviser was in Myanmar, the Army of Myanmar launched fresh attacks on civilians in northern Karen State, causing the displacement of over 2,100 villagers. In addition the regime had yet to respond to the recommendations of the Human Rights Council as outlined in resolution S-5/1 and resolution 6/33. This constituted a blatant lack of cooperation with the United Nations mechanisms. Worldview International Foundation called on the Council to adopt a resolution requesting the Government of Myanmar to create conditions for a genuine dialogue and to accept permanent offices of the United Nations Special Advisor in Yangon, among other things.

GEORGE GORDON-LENNOX, of Reporters without Borders - International, said that repression of free media was still ongoing in Burma. Increased Government monitoring of the Internet and the continuing detention of a blogger were condemned by Reports without Borders. Police had also arrested two journalists after finding that they had downloaded forbidden documents from the Internet. Didn’t the imprisonment of journalists at the same time as there were promises for elections in 2010 show that promises for a democratic evolution could not be taken seriously?

CHRISTIANE DEHOY, of Anti-Slavery International, said that Anti Slavery International was gravely concerned by systematic discrimination and human rights violations against the Rohingya, a Muslim minority of North Arakan State. This group had been rendered stateless by the provisions of the 1982 Citizenship Law. Their freedom of movement was severely restricted and forced labour was consistently practised. Another harsh form of discrimination on this particular community was the restriction on marriages, ostensibly aimed at limiting population growth. As a result, backstreet abortions had dramatically increased and many young Rohingya couples were fleeing to Bangladesh to marry. In a question to Mr. Pinheiro, what initiatives could the Council undertake to address this predicament?

Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, in concluding remarks, said he did not invent his mandate. It was a very longstanding mandate in the United Nations which had included a number of important principles. He also noted that the resolutions adopted by the Council were the product of the Council and not his own. When the Human Rights Council drafted and adopted resolutions and proposed recommendation, these must be followed up, he added.

The Special Rapporteur noted that he had two reports, one of a thematic nature, addressing issues such as economic, social and cultural rights and the judicial system, and a second report that was a follow-up to the recommendations of the Council’s resolutions. If the Human Rights Council wanted to be relevant it had to follow up on its resolutions. It was time to verify what was implemented and what was not implemented.

The Special Rapporteur said he was happy that there was a Seven-Step Road Map as well as a plan by the Government to hold a referendum in May. But he asked how this could take place when there were 1,800 political prisoners and a lack of freedom of assembly. The Human Rights Council and the Special Rapporteur had the duty to verify what was being proposed. If the Constitution had plenty of human rights provisions and if the referendum was held in the usual etiquette of elections throughout the world, he would be the first to praise Myanmar. Looking at the crackdown in September 2007 and the continuous crackdowns, it would be difficult to imagine that the referendum would take place with the usual etiquette used in other democracy processes. There were several rules that were not yet in place. He hoped that these conditions could soon be in place.

General Debate on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that there was no country fully beyond reproach and each and every country could work to improve its human rights situation. However, the European Union continued to be extremely concerned about a number of grave violations in several countries, including the situation in Sudan. Humanitarian agencies were unable to deliver basic necessities. Of concern was the situation in Myanmar. The European Union would continue to insist that the authorities respect international human rights obligations. The very serious and deteriorating situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was also noted. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should start cooperating with the Special Rapporteur. Deeply shocking were the events in Kenya following the elections. The report of the Office of the High Commissioner on the human rights mission to Kenya was keenly awaited. The worsening human rights situation in Sudan was also of concern. The developments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo towards improved stability were closely followed, but the grave violations of rights were of concern as well as the recruitment of child soldiers. The ongoing deterioration on the human rights situation in Iran and the increasing use of the death penalty in the country were also of concern. The European Union was also concerned about the human rights situations in Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Belarus and China.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) recognized that no country, including Canada, had a prefect human rights record. Through cooperation with Special Procedures and through reports on a regular and timely basis to the treaty bodies, it was critical that the Council discuss difficult issues. Implementation of human rights norms at the national level remained a critical priority. Canada once again saluted those countries that had memoranda of understanding with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for this tangible sign of their commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights.

Canada asserted Zimbabwe continued to require the Council’s urgent attention in view of the very serious human rights violations occurring in that country. The United Nations Children’s Fund recently launched a campaign against child abuse in Zimbabwe in light of an increase of 40 per cent in the last three years of reported cases of children being raped. The state of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea also remained a serious source of concern. Reports of egregious violations of basic human rights were continuing, including the disregard for individual rights and freedoms and the lack of due process under the rule of law.

In Burma, Canada underlined the need for all concerned parties, including members of the democratic movement and ethnic minorities, to be included in the constitutional and electoral process. He also called for the release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi. Finally, Canada remained very concerned by Iran’s deteriorating human rights situation and called upon the country to address its human rights obligations, including the confirmed instances of torture, the execution and persecution of minors, inhuman or degrading treatment, and arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) said Italy continued to express its profound concern with regard to the human rights situation in Myanmar. Italy was of the view that the situation of human rights in Myanmar should remain a high priority on the agenda of the Human Rights Council and called for the mandate of the Special Rapporteur to be renewed and strengthened. The situation of the victims of the conflict in Darfur continued to cause concern, above all in the Western Darfur region. The implementation of the recommendations of the Council represented a basic step to improve the human rights situation and conditions for the people of the region. At the same time, the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea continued to be very grave. Among the many violations of basic rights in the country, Italy was deeply concerned about the continuation of the death penalty. With regard to Somalia, Italy was of the view that the country’s national reconciliation should lead to free and fair elections in 2009 and urged the authorities of Somalia to implement their plan of action, which included the promotion and protection of human rights. Italy welcomed the extension of the mandate of the Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Somalia.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) stressed the importance of the current debate, where the diverse situations in the world could be discussed. The Universal Periodic Review would have a lot to do to fulfil these considerations. But it was known that this would not be enough for situations that were asking for concrete and urgent attention. The Human Rights Council was putting its credibility at stake. France remained greatly concerned about the restrictions imposed in Myanmar. France urged the authorities in Myanmar to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur and the Council. The situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was of particular concern; violations of the most fundamental rights were taking place. The rejection of dialogue was not a solution. The situation in Iran and the restrictions of freedom of expression were worrying. Also an end should be put to all forms of discrimination against women in the country. The situation in Sri Lanka was also mentioned. The Government had to put in place an investigation mechanism and it should facilitate the work of the High Commissioner. No country was exempt from criticism, but discernment had to be exercised. The Human Rights Council had to reaffirm its confidence in the Special Procedures mechanisms.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said that the United Kingdom shared the concerns by many colleagues in the Council about the situation in Sudan and looked forward to the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Monday. In this regard, the United Kingdom called on all sides to the conflict in Darfur to end the violence. There could be no impunity for the crimes committed. This applied not only to Darfur but the whole country. The United Kingdom remained seriously concerned about the ongoing situation in Somalia. The Government supported the efforts of the Transitional Federal Government to rebuild the country and promote and protect human rights of the Somali people.

The United Kingdom asserted that millions of people were suffering in Zimbabwe. Many had fled the country in desperation and those who remained faced hunger, repression and little hope of improvement under the current regime. The Government of Zimbabwe was responsible for the terrible economic and humanitarian crisis bringing misery to its people. The people of Zimbabwe remained unable to exercise their right to freedom of expression, assembly and association, which was particularly concerning in the run up to the elections later this month.

The United Kingdom also called upon the Government of Iran to do more to promote and protect the human rights of its citizens. This issue, along with the dire situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, discussed today, needed to be addressed.

1Joint statement on behalf of: International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development ; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA); Center for Organization Research and Education; People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy; and Ain O Salish Kendro (Ask) Law and Mediation Centre.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08026E