HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONTINUES GENERAL DEBATE ON HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS THAT REQUIRE ITS ATTENTION

The Human Rights Council this afternoon continued its general debate on human rights situations that require its attention, which was followed by a closed meeting to discuss issues under its complaint procedure.

Speaking on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention, speakers said the Council had the duty to act in cases of egregious human rights violations and to be specific about what violations were occurring and where. They spoke about alleged violations in a number of countries in regions around the world.

Speaking this afternoon were representatives of Israel, United Arab Emirates for the Arab Group, Sweden, Australia, Ireland, Sudan, Belgium, United States and Libya.

Also speaking were representatives of Society for Threatened Peoples, Amnesty International, Union of Arab Jurists, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, in a joint statement with Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and Europe-Third World Centre; International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Human Rights Watch, Franciscans International, in a joint statement with, Dominicans for Justice and Peace; General Federation of Iraqi Women, France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, Asian Legal Resource Centre, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, and United Nations Watch.

Speaking in right of reply were Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, Syria, Japan, Israel, and China.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 9 June, when it will conclude its general debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention, following which it will take up its agenda item on human rights bodies and mechanisms.

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

WALID ABU-HAYA (Israel) said human rights situations of concern arose not only during times of conflict, but also existed during times of peace. Some countries shielded themselves from global view with a modern day iron curtain behind which citizens were deprived of the most fundamental of their basic human rights and freedoms. There were States in which a single leader, party, or clan, particularly in the Middle East, remained fundamentally unchecked by effective constitutional limits to their power, who dictated the will of every individual. Syria systematically violated human rights through actions taken against the general population, which found expression in Syria's control over most sources of information, as well as the persecution of specific groups considered to be a threat to the State for expressing so-called "illegal expression". Iran continued to commit grave human rights violations unchecked by the international community - severe restrictions on freedom of expression and opinion, freedom of assembly, unprecedented discrimination against women and minorities, and vicious executions and draconic methods of punishment following unfair trials were the norm.

OBAID SALEM SAEED AL ZAABI (United Arab Emirates), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that the Arab Group was following with great attention the positive developments in Sudan and welcomed the efforts by the Government to improve the human rights situation throughout the country, including in Darfur. They also noted Sudan’s commitment to participate in all peace initiatives and its demonstration of total willingness to cooperate with the United Nations and its mechanisms. All resolutions of the Council had reaffirmed that truth. There were currently over 80 human rights personnel in Sudan to monitor human rights, which reaffirmed the good will of Sudan and the many peaceful means it was using to improve the situation in the country. The Council had to abide with the cooperation agreement with Sudan, and it was called on to support Sudan in those efforts.

CHRISTOFFER BERG (Sweden) said the world looked to the Council to address serious violations of human rights. Fulfilling this mandate was central to the credibility of the Council as the main human rights institution of the United Nations. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a number of serious issues continued to require the attention of this Council. The most pressing concern was the widespread use of sexual violence against women and children, and the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Sweden underlined the need to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan. There had been some positive developments in relation to the human rights situation in Sudan, but many issues remained deeply troubling. Military action caused startling loss of life and of displacement, attacks on women and children were frequent and impunity for human rights violations continued. Sweden was deeply concerned over the human rights situation in Somalia. Civilians were targeted in the reignited conflict, extrajudicial executions and arbitrary arrests were rampant, and journalists were in constant danger of attacks or harassment. Violence forced hundreds of thousands to flee their homes.

PHILIP KIMPTON (Australia) said the civilian toll in northern Sri Lanka had been and remained a matter of serous concern. For peace to flourish, reconciliation should also begin; allegations of human rights abuses, including those arising from recent fighting, needed to be dealt with. The basic democratic principle of freedom of speech should be restored and media allowed to operate freely and independently. Australia was gravely concerned at the deteriorating human rights situation in Fiji, and called on the Interim Government to uphold human rights for all citizens of Fiji including by ensuring an environment in which all citizens could publicly and freely express their political opinions without fear or retribution. Australia remained gravely concerned by Myanmar's systematic repression of its citizens for their political views, and called on Myanmar to start a genuine and inclusive process of political reform. Australia remained concerned at the human rights situation in Iran, including the appalling use of mass public executions and death by stoning, discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities, detentions of political and social activists, and ongoing suppression of the freedom of expression.

MICHEAL TIERNEY (Ireland) said that Ireland continued to be deeply concerned by the human rights situation in Myanmar. Ireland deplored the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, her imprisonment in the notorious Insein prison and the current trial against her on completely spurious charges. Ireland was deeply concerned about the human rights and humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka and it greatly regretted that it had not been possible for the Council to achieve a meaningful or acceptable outcome to the recent special session on Sri Lanka, and continued to believe that an independent inquiry into alleged breaches of international human rights and humanitarian law in Sri Lanka had to be initiated as one element in the overall response of the international community to the restoration of sustainable peace and reconciliation in the country. Ireland was concerned about the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, and called on the inclusive government of Zimbabwe to redouble its efforts to make meaningful progress in restoring the rule of law and combating human rights abuses, in particular the arbitrary detention of prisoners for political reasons, inhumane prison conditions, the harassment and intimidation of human rights activists and issues of media reform. In Sudan, it was vital that those responsible for grave crimes committed in the context of the conflict in Darfur were held to account, and Ireland restated its support for the work of the International Criminal Court in that regard. Finally, despite encouraging political progress, Ireland utterly condemned the continuing grave human rights abuses perpetrated against civilians in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including gender-based violence against women and girls.

OMER DAHAB FADOL MOHAMED (Sudan) said that the Government had cooperated and negotiated with the groups that carried weapons in Sudan, which led to two peace agreements. In addition to the work of the African Union, Kenya and Nigeria played an important role to achieve a peaceful settlement to the problem. In accordance with the United Nations Charter, international partners and countries should abide by the implementation of these two agreements. However, some countries had not done so, and in fact helped armed groups by bringing weapons into the country. Africa did not manufacture weapons, they came from outside. The Forum for Human Rights in its last meeting agreed to verify the information received with regard to the situation in Darfur. He addressed the Members States and Observer Members, and said the Human Rights Council Resolution 9/17 of December 2008 extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur only for six months; the security situation in the country had improved and therefore the appeal for the renewal of this mandate was flagrantly political in nature. The Government of Sudan could not agree to it.

LIESBETH GOOSSENS (Belgium) said the situation of human rights was not perfect in any country in the world, and the Human Rights Council had the responsibility of defending and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms for all victims everywhere. Bearing in mind recent developments, Belgium wished to draw the Council's attention to, among others, the worsening situation in Iran. There were recent executions by stoning, and the authorities should put an end to this practice, and to the executions of minors or of those who were minors at the time of the crime. Belgium felt that the application of the death sentence was irreconcilable with human dignity, and a moratorium thereon would contribute to the progressive realisation of human rights, and regretted that it was applied in some States of the United States without due process. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, human rights defenders were often subject to constant intimidation and threats to their physical integrity. Civil society played a key role in the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

MARK STORELLA (United States) observed that the Council had the duty to act in cases of egregious human rights violations and to be specific about what violations were occurring and where. It had therefore been disappointed by the recent no-action motion to halt debate in the Council. It was extremely important and entirely appropriate that all sides had the opportunity to share their views on critically important human rights issues; if the Council became a body of no-action it would severely diminish its credibility and effectiveness. The United States was pleased that the Council was taking up the situation in Sudan. It remained gravely concerned for the people of Darfur, the three areas, and elsewhere in Sudan, and urged the Council to extend the Special Rapporteur's mandate for one year. Also of deep concern were the recent actions of Burmese authorities against Aung San Suu Kyi, including efforts to isolate and silence her. The charges against her were unjustified and the United States urged her immediate and unconditional release.

HASNIA MARKUS (Libya) welcomed the improvement of the human rights situation in Sudan, and welcomed the work done by peacekeeping forces in the region. The report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Sudan, though it was not published yet, highlighted the fact that the Government had taken positive measures, among others, to reintegrate child soldiers and internally displaced persons as well as the conception of a peace agreement. The Government of Libya and the President of Libya in particular had put forth efforts to re-establish peace in the region and to put an end to tension in Sudan.

TENZIN KAYTA, of Society for Threatened Peoples, said the recent Chinese think-tank report recommended that the Chinese authorities pay close attention to the living situation of young Tibetans, and resolve current education problems in Tibetan areas. This recommendation revealed that all was not well as far as the current education policy of the Chinese authorities, a policy which continued to deprive Tibetan children of the history and cultural heritage of their people. Local authorities were implementing a campaign of patriotic education and anti-separatism in schools, which was strongly focused on denouncing the Dalai Lama.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said the human rights situation in Gambia required the Council's attention. The Government had stifled civil protest and both the Government and the Army had committed gross human rights violations, including arbitrary arrest and torture. Journalists had been detained and unlawfully arrested. Journalists and opposition members were harassed and frequently killed. Foreigners were also targets of human rights violations. In July 2005, a group of over 50 foreigners were reportedly killed by Gambian security forces, but the Government had taken no steps to bring the perpetrators to justice. The Council had to act. In Sri Lanka, it was noted that the working group on arbitrary detention ruled that the arrest and detention of Aung San Suu Kyi was unlawful and violated her human rights. The Government should immediately release Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners.

ASMA TOUNAKTI, of Union of Arab Jurists, said the human rights situation in Iraq needed to be a priority in the Council as well as being at the head of the agenda, which was at the center of discussion amongst non-governmental organizations in order to support the rights of the Iraqi people. A range of reports had been submitted in the United Nations on illegal treatment of civilians and treatment of women, children. It was surprising that there was no Special Rapporteur to report back on the human rights situation in Iraq. The Union of Arab Jurists appealed to the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a summary of these reports, to be submitted to the Human Rights Council, and only then would there be a real thinking on the enjoyment of economic, civil, cultural and political rights in Iraq.

DEKYI DOLKAR, of Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, said for the past decades, the Chinese authorities had placed severe limitations on the freedom of speech in Tibetan areas, applying to all expressions of Tibetan national identity, including the practice of Tibetan Buddhism, calling for the Dalai Lama's return to Tibet, or opposing the Government's policies. There was also a climate of campaigns against reactionary cultural activity and Tibetans who openly participated in speech not approved by the Government faced re-education through labour, detention without trial, and lengthy prison sentences.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, in a joint statement with Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and Europe-Third World Centre, said that continual violations of norms protecting the status of refugees required the Council's full attention. The Spanish police had arrested, on 24 and 26 March respectively, Remzi Kartal, a former deputy of the Turkish Assembly, who had been given refugee status in Belgium, as well as Eyyp Doru who had the status of political refugee in France. Turkish authorities had issued international arrest warrants against those individuals for crimes of opinion. The Spanish authorities, unlike the other European authorities, had decided to go ahead with the extradition procedure requested by Turkey. The organization called on the Spanish authorities to scrupulously respect the refugee status of Mr. Kartal and Mr. Doru. It welcomed the activities of the Belgian authorities in favour of Mr. Kartal, and called on the French authorities to intervene in Mr. Doru's favour. It also called on the United States to intercede with the Turkish authorities on behalf of these individuals.

JULIE GROMELLON, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, expressed serious regret about the resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council in relation to the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. Also of concern was the situation in Darfur where there was a conflict between the Government and armed rebels. The International Federation of Human Rights Leagues called on the Council to renew the mandate for the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Sudan for another year. In addition, of concern was the situation of the detention and arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi by the Burmese authorities and her transfer to a prison on 14 May 2009. Moreover, the situation of human rights in Iran was also of great concern, and in particular within the context of a free and transparent election.

JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said the Council had evaded taking meaningful action on Sri Lanka despite credible allegations of human rights violations. The Council's mandate was to address serious human rights violations, and this was discredited by Sri Lanka, which considered that this constituted interference in its domestic affairs. Disappearances of internally displaced persons were being reported. The Government was reportedly taking action against journalists and activists who were critical of the Government's action during the war; they were being increasingly threatened. There was also concern for doctors who had complained of shelling in the so-called no-fire zone. Sri Lanka did not need a witch-hunt, but the Government needed to realise that responding to the needs of all civilians would have long-term effects on the country's future.

GOTZON ONANDIA-ZARRABE, of Franciscans International, in a joint statement with, Dominicans for Justice and Peace, observed that the Council had adopted, with no clear consensus, a resolution tabled by Sri Lanka during its eleventh Special Session which did not focus on the plight of the civilian population or on the respect of international human rights obligations by all parties. The Government of Sri Lanka had to effectively address the issue of internally displaced persons. It had the primary duty and responsibility to protect all of its citizens, and in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, it should ensure the right of the displaced to liberty of movement, as well as to have family members remain together, which was not the case now. The human rights violations committed against the civilian population, particularly those who had borne the brunt of the conflict, should be promptly investigated and redressed.

Turning to the situation in West Papua, Indonesia, Franciscans International said that the number of violent events that had ensued from the initial provincial elections of 9 April raised concerns over the protection afforded to the population during the election process. It was worrying that additional mobile brigade police troops had been sent to West Papua. As a result of a shooting by those troops on election day, two individuals had been killed and a number of others injured. The Government had to take steps to ensure that no violations of human rights of indigenous Papuans took place during the general election, in particular by ensuring that the Security Services respected their human rights.

ENTESOR ARIABAI, of General Federation Of Iraqi Women, said that the President of the Human Rights Council on 27 May 2009 said during the Special Session on Sri Lanka that if the Council received information or rumours about human rights violations anywhere in the world, then it was its duty to discuss these violations. By this, the President of the Council was emphasizing a fundamental duty of this Council. Widespread and systematic human rights violations were taking place in Iraq since the American occupation of 2003, but why did the Council not discuss and investigate any of these violations? The General Federation of Iraqi Women urged the Council to put the human rights situation in Iraq on its agenda and to assign a Special Rapporteur to this situation.

ORETTA BENDETTINI DI POGGIO, of France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, said the right of peoples to self-determination was included in the Charter, and the United Nations did not recognise Occupied Territories as part of territorial integrity. The Western Sahara, despite any geo-strategic changes, continued to be a non-autonomous territory, one of the last, and Morocco did not figure on the list of administrative powers. It would be useful to have total light shed on this situation-not just with regards to the right to self-determination of these people, but to determine who exactly held the real administrative power.

MALIK OZDEN, of Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that for about two months now the indigenous people of the Peruvian Amazon had been carrying out a peaceful general strike in reaction to decrees by the Peruvian Government favourable to a Free Trade Agreement with the United States and to the detriment of their rights and the environment. The Peruvian Government had responded to that situation by declaring a state of emergency and, on 5 June, had launched military and police operations against the protestors. The police had dropped tear bombs and shot at protestors from helicopters. The Government not only had not entered into dialogue with the protestors, it was trying to criminalize them. An arrest warrant had been issued against all protestors for behaving like criminals. Behind this was a drive to exploit the mining and other resources of the Amazon Rain Forest without the consent of the indigenous peoples. Centre Europe-Tiers Monde called on the Council to use its human rights protection mechanism to ensure the rights for these indigenous peoples.

MICHAEL ANTHONY, of Asian Legal Resource Centre, said it was regrettable that non-governmental organizations’ speaking time in the most substantive section of discussions was again sacrificed due to suspiciously poor time management. The Asian Legal Resource Centre was gravely concerned that the Human Rights Council was abdicating its mandate to protect individuals’ human rights, notably by failing to address impunity. A prime example was Sri Lanka. At present any voices critical of the Government’s many past and present human rights violations were being silenced through an intense climate of fear and threats. Radio broadcasts had in recent days branded human rights defenders and journalists as traitors, calling for them and their families to be killed. Continued inaction on this and other such situations in Asia and around the world would continue to discredit this Council and its members.

SYED FAIZ NAQSHBANDI, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said the right to life was the most fundamental and basic of human rights, the fountain from which all other rights sprang, and it therefore deserved the greatest respect. By claiming that they were terrorists, a systematic repressive campaign had been launched against the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and the Government of India had enacted a series of laws that facilitated human rights violations with complete protection against prosecution. The situation had gravely increased the number of human rights violations in Indian-held Kashmir. People were held in detention not because they had committed any offence under law, but on the purported presumption that they may in future commit an act that was harmful to the maintenance of public order to the security of the State.

DINA MANSOUR, of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, drew the attention of the Council to the systematic and widespread repression and persecution of ethnic and religious minority groups throughout the Arab region. Almost all Arab Governments had long been and still were unwilling to take tangible steps towards the realization of an integration of the different cultural, ethnic and religious minorities in their countries. Suffering from repressive and discriminatory polices as well as practices, minority groups were often excluded and denied the most basic of their human rights. Throughout many parts of the region, especially within Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, Shiites were denied access to senior positions in government and government-owned institutions and were regularly marginalized in the economic, educational and political realms. In Egypt, restriction of religious freedoms was not only limited to believers in unrecognised religions or creeds, but extended to groups who held different interpretations from the State's official Sunni interpretation. In many Arab countries, converting or reconverting to Christianity continued to be seen as an act of "apostasy" – an event that was punishable by death in a number of those countries.

HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said in addressing human rights the world stood at a cross roads. President Obama made a recent call for the United States to join the Council, which presented a new opportunity. It had previously been noted that the Human Rights Council was inactive on some issues. However, the root problem was the logic that prevailed among the dominant majority and as was just heard at the recent Special Session on Sri Lanka. Sir Lanka with 20,000 dead civilians and 300,000 internally displaced persons in camps, was it logical to wait to discuss these issues until a Special Session on Iraq or other affected areas was convened, and did this justify inaction? This old prevailing logic said human rights was a political weapon, he said there should be a move towards a new logic and new way forward.

Right of Reply

MOHAN PEIRIS (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply, said Sri Lanka had taken serious note of the observations made during the debate, and was encouraged by the fact that the majority of the Member States had commended its commitment to post-conflict nation-building. There was, however, no room for triumph. Some States saw a whole license of interference, by way of a plethora of powerful pressurising tactics, at which even the hardest of critics might want to blush. Deliberate targeting of civilians never formed part of the military strategy of Sri Lankan forces. Military strategies ensured that the civilian population and civilian establishments were never made the target of deliberate attack. Sri Lanka's priority was now reconstruction, reintegration and rehabilitation in the post-conflict phase, and what was therefore required was the constructive engagement by the international community. Sri Lanka was currently engaged in a programme to restore its displaced population to their original habitats and livelihoods with the assistance of the international community. It was therefore regrettable that the principle of majority inter-Governmental decision-making process did not appear to be fully appreciated by the European Union. Sri Lanka should be given space to continue with the on-going reconciliation process, and not be overcome by the agenda of some States.

KYAW MYO HTUT (Myanmar), speaking in a right of reply, informed the Council that the mention by several delegations of the case of Aung San Suu Kyi was not an appropriate issue to be addressed in this forum. Myanmar had its own judicial structure, based on its own system. The decision on Aung San Suu Kyi relied only on the decision by the court and was not something that had to do with the Government. The trial would be carried out in accordance with accepted principles of justice. Those internal problems could only be solved by Myanmar's own people. Myanmar reminded members that non-interference in internal affairs was one of the cornerstones of the United Nations. Myanmar was in the process of implementing the seven-step road map to democracy and was currently preparing to hold free and fair general elections, the fifth step, by enacting an election and a registration law. The international community should assist Myanmar in implementing its seven-step road map to a democratic society.

ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, said that the full understanding and sole interpretation and implementation of the Global Political Agreement rested first and foremost with Zimbabweans, the Southern African Development Community and the African Union, and not the European Union, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Why were the Europeans, as usual, the only ones who remained concerned on issues that were sub judice. Zimbabwe’s conclusion was that the same double standards, selectivity, and politicization were the hallmarks of their perpetual attitudes. The European Union, Canada and their allies would be tested soon when it came to the implementation of the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference. Only then would one be able to know how serious they were about the promotion and protection of human rights. There were no land invasions in Zimbabwe. The constitutional amendments number 17, a product of all political parties and article 4 of the Global Political Agreement were clear as to who owned land in Zimbabwe. The challenges Zimbabwe faced were a result of illegal sanctions and the inclusive Government was calling for the lifting of these sanctions. The delegation welcomed the offer by the United Kingdom to engage bilaterally- the Government for Zimbabwe had always called for the building of bridges and not burning them.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said the Democratic People's Republic of Korea categorically rejected the allegations of the United Kingdom and of Japan, the former of which always referred to situations in developing countries, but did not refer to its own problems of as racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia, including the United States-led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. This was double standards. Japan was not qualified to refer to other situations; it had huge human rights problems, including genocidal killings and sexual slavery, as well as systematic discrimination against Koreans in Japan. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had done its best to resolve the abduction case. In spite of this, it was and had been abused by the Japanese Government for political reasons. The Japanese authorities should immediately address all past and present violations rather than resorting to futile aggression against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran), speaking in a right of reply, while strongly rejecting the baseless allegations made today by the European Union, Canada and Australia, said it was ridiculous that a representative of a regime borne of occupation and which was associated with aggression, repression and racism was addressing the Council on this agenda item. Suffice it to stress that these were despicable tactics in an attempt to distract the international community's attention from atrocities being committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. If the European Union was really concerned to address human rights violations, it would look at such violations being committed in the Czech Republic itself with respect to its Roma population. Moreover, the situation of violence against women and children was widespread in the Czech Republic and required the Council's attention. Violations taking place in other areas of the world were ignored by the European Union given its biased and double standard approach. Aggressive and pre-emptive attitudes of some States to attack the human rights situations in other countries, rather than trying to address their own problems, smacked of the approach taken by the previous Human Rights Commission and damaged the credibility of this institution.

RANIA AL RIFAIY (Syria), speaking in a right of reply, said it was with great astonishment that the delegation listened to the statement made by Israel, which was one of the gravest violators of human rights in the world. With the recent example, among many, she said the Council dedicated a Special Session to the 1,500 victims of such violations in Gaza. The Israeli delegation could not deny its barbaric and cruel violations of human rights. Its records were clear and it could not make the world forget this. This Council had met in more than five Special Sessions to discuss the bloodbaths Israel continued to commit with total impunity. It was ready to intimate, terrify or discredit any person who called for these violations to come to an end. If only it spent time to deliberate on or make proposals for resolutions; however this was wishful thinking as such a move would never materialize.

OSAMU YAMANAKA (Japan), speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the statement by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the numbers that the delegation had mentioned were entirely groundless, and basing human rights investigations on these groundless figures was impossible. Japan strove to implement international human rights law without discrimination. Regarding the abduction issue, last summer the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had changed its long-held stance that the issue was resolved, and both sides had agreed to a resolution of the situation. Last September, a representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had said that the country was ready to reopen the issue - the country should live up to this commitment. There was concern for the lack of the country's respect of the right to life of its citizens, and the country should pay attention to the concerns of the international community, and take concrete measures to improve the situation within the country.

WALID ABU-HAYA (Israel), speaking in a right of reply, said that human rights was the birthright of all peoples regardless of borders that might surround them. The past 60 years had seen many States committing human rights violations against their citizens with impunity. In Syria, that country had been led by a dictatorship for the past 60 years now, and only two leaders had guided that nation. Citizens were stripped of their freedom of opinion and those who tried to raise their voices were tried and arrested. Those prisoners were subjected to torture, including electric shocks to the most sensitive parts of their bodies, rape and starvation. When it came to human rights reform in Syria, in the words of the President Bashir, "maybe we are wrong 100 per cent and you are right 100 per cent, but because you are outside of Syria what you say does not count". In Iran, Israel noted that Iranians were subjected to harsh punishments, with stoning, flogging, amputation and eye gouging a reality for Iranians. The right to peaceful assembly and other human rights were denied. Apostasy and homosexuality were given a mandatory death sentence. Those were truly human rights situations of concern.

QIAN BO (China), speaking in a right of reply, expressed regret with regard to the unjustified accusations made by the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union and some non-governmental organizations. In China there was steady progress to ensure the realization of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for its people. The Government of China continued to promote democratic legal development. China’s human rights were on the track of rapid development. Like many other countries, any individual irrespective of position or belief was subject under the law equally. Additionally, all China’s nationalities, including ethnic Tibetans, enjoyed completely equal rights, democratic participation, access to public health and economic rights.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a second right of reply, said with regards to the statement of Japan, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea rejected Japanese allegations, and the figures were well-known historic facts. Constant Japanese distortion of the facts of the Abduction Case were merely part of their attempts against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Japan had committed crimes against humanity in Korea with sexual slavery and a large number of people forcibly abducted. Koreans in Japan today were subject to harsh repression and discrimination daily. Japan denied its past crimes, and refused to acknowledge these wrongdoings. The authorities should address all crimes, past and present, and bring perpetrators to justice and compensation to the victims.

RANIA AL RIFAIY (Syria), speaking in a second right of reply, totally rejected the allegations of the Israeli delegation, which was trying to cover up its atrocities, as usual. One only had to listen to Israel's own statements to hear how they were trying to drive the Palestinians into the sea. There was the nuclear terror that had been practised by Israel in the region with a build up of 200 warheads, which were known to exist, but there might be more. The international community was fed up and had not even been able to follow-up or at least document Israeli atrocities. No language was accepted by Israel but subjection or excessively brutal force against all opposition.

ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran), speaking in a second right of reply, reminded the Council that numerous important and specific United Nations resolutions including resolutions of the Human Rights Council had condemned the policies and practices of the Israeli regime, despite this it continued to perpetuate massive violations of human rights and international law. In fact non compliance, refusal to accept the Special Rapporteur and to cooperate with special procedures and country visits further enforced this point. The killing of thousands of innocent children, women, men and elderly in acts that of recent constituted and were recognized as war crimes and acts of genocide was another fresh account of such atrocities. No amount of slander and deception by the Israeli regime would detract from the fact that this regime posed the most urgent threat posed to the world today and should be countered immediately.

OSAMU YAMANAKA, (Japan), speaking in a second right of reply, said with regards to the statement made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Japan had explained its position on the issues raised by the latter, but wished to stress that the Government remained committed to normalising its relationship with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea through comprehensively resolving the outstanding issues of concern, including the unfortunate past, the missile issue, and the abduction issue. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea should pay attention to the issues raised by the international community, including the human rights situation in the country.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC09077E