HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF KOREA

The Human Rights Council this morning held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Council also concluded its general debate on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.

Marzuki Darusman, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said the negative responses from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would not deter him from attempting to gain access to the country and he hoped that the Government would accept the conclusions and recommendations in the report and would work constructively with the international human rights mechanisms to address human rights concerns. Recent rain falls and floods had compounded the prevailing food scarcity in the country and the Government had experienced severe damages and losses that affected six out of twelve provinces. The country continued to suffer from chronic food insecurity, high malnutrition rates and economic problems and had great difficulties meeting the needs of its about 24 million people. He was deeply concerned by the tight restriction on the media and the absence of any form of association and expression that was deemed hostile towards the Government. Regarding the conditions in detention and correctional facilities, the Special Rapporteur had learned from various sources that human rights violations were committed in correctional centres throughout the country.

Mr. Darusman said there were some positive elements with regards to cooperation with the United Nations, for instance the fact that the Government was party to a number of human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 2009, the Government went through the Universal Periodic Review process and while the participation in the process was welcomed, the Government’s failure to make clear which recommendations it would accept questioned its commitment and undermined the purpose of the Universal Periodic review process. By failing to explicitly express its support for any of the 177 recommendations, the Government would be seen as failing to address the serious human rights violations occurring in the country.

Speaking as a concerned country, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reiterated its consistent position of categorical and resolute rejection of the Special Rapporteur and his report. The entire mandate of the Special Rapporteur was a conspiracy initiated and enforced by the United States, Japan and the European Union. The Special Rapporteur represented the interests of forces hostile to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and his report was therefore full of fabrications and slanders. The continued existence of country-specific mandates was the root cause of politicization, selectivity and double standards in the Human Rights Council and was contradictory to the efforts of the international community for the genuine promotion and protection of human rights. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should be eliminated once and for all.

In the interactive dialogue on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, some speakers said that in order to better promote the situation of human rights on the ground, it was imperative for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to engage with the international community, particularly with the human rights system. The resumption of the Six-Party Talks would help create a conducive environment for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to implement its human rights obligations. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was urged to allow access to the Special Rapporteur as soon as possible. It should also allow immediate access to humanitarian organizations. States were urged to support the extension of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. A number of speakers were concerned that the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not explicitly express its support for any of the recommendations given to it during its Universal Periodic Review in 2009. Several speakers supported the continued mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

Other speakers said there should be alternative mechanisms established by the Council in order for the mandate holders to deal with such cases and avoid politicization that undermined the prestige of the Human Rights Council in the world. The effort of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for its compliance with principles of the United Nations Charter to achieve international cooperation in promoting and protecting the respect for human rights was praised. Speakers were encouraged by the significant progress made by Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in cooperating with the Special Rapporteur and its efforts to overcome difficulties in the country and to guarantee stability and national security. Humanitarian and food assistance should not be use as a mean of political pressure on a sovereign State. The situation of human rights in the Democratic People’ Republic of Korea was already examined in the Working Group in the Universal Periodic Review and this was the place where such topics should be dealt with. The Council should remove double standards if it did not want to fail as the previous Commission did.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were Indonesia, France, Sudan, Japan, Thailand, European Union, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Syria, Slovakia, Switzerland, Slovenia, Brazil, Belarus, United States, Czech Republic, Cuba, China, Israel, Algeria, Canada, United Kingdom, Myanmar, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe, Australia and Norway.

Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: Connectas, Human Rights watch, Amnesty International and the Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”.

The Council at the beginning of the meeting concluded its general debate on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. In the debate, speakers raised human rights violations in a number of countries and regions.

Speaking in the general debate were the following non-governmental organizations: United Nations Watch, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Amnesty International, Centre for Inquiry, Indian Council of South America, Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy, International Institute for Peace, Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, International Association for Democracy in Africa, International Club for Peace Research, Indian Council of Education, European Union of Public Relations, Centre for Environmental and Management Studies, Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches, Liberation, International Committee for the Indians of the Americas, Centrist Democratic International, Action Internationale pour la Paix et le Développement dans la Région des Grands Lacs, North South XXI, and the International Association of Peace Messenger Cities.

The Council today is meeting from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. In the midday meeting, the Council will hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and will then consider follow-up of its Special Sessions on Côte d’Ivoire and on Libya.

Documentation

The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, (A/HRC/16/58), touches upon economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, and highlights the continued deterioration of the human rights situation in the country. The report might not have captured all violations of the human rights, but certainly provides an idea about the prevailing human rights and humanitarian situation in the country. A number of other issues that might not have been reflected in the report will be addressed in the Special Rapporteur’s future reports to the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council.

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

MARZUKI DARUSMAN, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said that he had relied on a number of sources to gather information in order to prepare a report that was as inclusive as possible in capturing diverse ideas. The Special Rapporteur had fielded two missions to the region, one to the Republic of Korea in November 2010 and the second to Japan in January 2011. In both countries he met with government officials, non-governmental organizations, United Nations offices and victims of human rights abuses from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Special Rapporteur’s decision to travel to the Republic of Korea and Japan was followed by a rejection to his request to enter the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Special Rapporteur had also requested meetings with Government officials based in New York and in Geneva which was denied. However, these negative responses would not deter the Special Rapporteur from attempting to gain access to the country and he hoped that the Government would accept the conclusions and recommendations in the report and would work constructively with the international human rights mechanisms to address human rights concerns.

Recent rain falls and floods had compounded the prevailing food scarcity in the country and the Government had experienced severe damages and losses that affected six out of twelve provinces. The Special Rapporteur focused his report on separated families which had affected thousands of families on both sides of the divide over many decades. He noted with regret that the talks between the Red Cross organizations of the two sides for further reunions had been on hold since November 2010, in the wake of the artillery firing on Yeonpyeong Isand. The Special Rapporteur urged the resumption of the family reunion process and called for more regular and frequent reunions in the months and years ahead.

An important concern highlighted in the report was the question of abduction affecting nationals of the Republic of Korea, Japan and several other countries. A total of 3,824 persons, a number of whom were fishermen, were reported to have been abducted since the ceasefire of the Korean War. The Special Rapporteur noted that the country continued to suffer from chronic food insecurity, high malnutrition rates and economic problems and had great difficulties meeting the needs of its about 24 million people. He was deeply concerned by the tight restriction on the media and the absence of any form of association and expression that was deemed hostile towards the Government. He called upon the Government to allow space for participation in government, freedom of expression, access to information, and freedom of association as provided and recognized in the constitution and related laws of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The conditions in detention and correctional facilities were also raised by the Special Rapporteur who had learned from various sources that human rights violations were committed in correctional centres throughout the country. Apart from the official correctional centres, the Government was reported to have been operating a number of political concentration camps, collection centres and labour training camps and the Special Rapporteur would, in future reports, continue to concentrate on correctional centres and other forms of detention facilities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to prompt the Government to take measures to improve the situation.

Asylum seekers from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea was an issue as the adverse human rights situation in the country had promoted an increasing number of people to seek refugee outside of the country. Until the late 1990s, fewer than 1,000 asylum seekers had made their way to the Republic of Korea, today there were 20,000 of them. The Special Rapporteur had stressed that protection, including shelter, should continue to be provided to persons leaving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. There were some positive elements with regards to cooperation with the United Nations, for instance the fact that the Government was party to a number of human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 2009, the Government went through the Universal Periodic Review process and while the participation in the process was welcomed, the Government’s failure to make clear which recommendations it would accept questioned its commitment and undermined the purpose of the Universal Periodic review process. By failing to explicitly express its support for any of the 177 recommendations the Government would be seen as failing to address the serious human rights violations occurring in the country.

Statement by Concerned Country

SO SE PYONG (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking as a concerned country, reiterated its consistent position of categorical and resolute rejection of the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and his report. The entire mandate of the Special Rapporteur was a conspiracy initiated and enforced by the United States, Japan and the European Union. The Special Rapporteur represented the interests of forces hostile to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and his report was therefore full of fabrications and slander.

The continued existence of country-specific mandates was the root cause of politicization, selectivity and double standards in the Human Rights Council and was contradictory to the efforts of the international community for the genuine promotion and protection of human rights. Furthermore, the Universal Periodic Review had been established to treat all countries equally and impartially and should replace a system that singled out specific countries with the aim of naming and shaming them based solely on political motives. The delegation also pointed out that all country-specific mandates were confined to developing countries and there was not a single mandate to monitor the gross human rights violations in Western countries. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would continue to attach importance to the realization of genuine dialogue and cooperation in the area of human rights, based on the principle of respect for sovereignty. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should be eliminated once and for all.

Interactive Dialogue

DICKY KOMAR (Indonesia) said Indonesia maintained the view that in order to better promote the situation of human rights on the ground, it was imperative for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to engage with the international community, particularly with the human rights system. Indonesia noted in the report that the Special Rapporteur continued to call on the international community to provide humanitarian aid to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Indonesia asked the Special Rapporteur how best to sustain the flow of humanitarian aid in the country and to ensure that political conditions would not hinder the flow of aid, particularly to those in need. The report also highlighted the importance of the Six-Party Talks in efforts to create, among others, an environment for progress on human rights. Indonesia considered that the resumption of the Six-Party Talks would help create a conducive environment for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to implement its human rights obligations.

JEAN BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continued to refuse the Special Rapporteur access to its country and urged them to allow access as soon as possible. France would like to note with satisfaction the Special Rapporteur’s intention to work on the correctional and other detention centers in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and would like to know if there was information on the number of persons executed each year. Faced with the urgency of the situation, France called on the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to allow immediate access to humanitarian organizations and urged all States to support the extension of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.

HAMZA OMER HASSAN AHMED (Sudan) expressed condolences for the humanitarian disaster suffered by Japan. Sudan had read the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and said that the standards of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were not based from opinions on the ground but from points of views that could be politicized and this would affect the result and outcome that the Special Rapporteur had reached. There should be alternative mechanisms established by the Council in order for the mandate holders to deal with such cases and avoid politicization that undermined the prestige of the Human Rights Council in the world.

KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan) thanked the President and other members of the Human Rights Council for their support and solidarity in the aftermath of the recent earthquake and tsunami in the northeast of Japan. Since being appointed as Special Rapporteur of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mr. Darusman had tirelessly endeavored to highlight the systematic abuses of human rights occurring in that country. The abduction of Japanese nationals was of grave concern and an investigation into this issue needed to take place. Japan thanked the Special Rapporteur for his pledge to find a rapid resolution of this problem. Moreover, it was deeply regrettable that for the last six years, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had refused to invite the Special Rapporteur into its territory, continually dismissing the Special Rapporteur’s mandate as politicized. Japan concluded by saying the humanitarian aid had had little impact on the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

SEK WANNAMETHEE (Thailand) said Thailand encouraged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to address human rights and humanitarian concerns raised by the international community, particularly within the framework of the Human Rights Council. Thailand urged the Government to take concrete steps as recommend by various Council mechanisms, especially concerning the promotion and protection of such fundamental rights as access to information. The Council should remain engaged in constructive dialogue with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Thailand welcomed the Government’s 10-year State Strategy Plan for Economic Development and stood ready to continue to work with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on capacity building and human resources development. Thailand also supported the recommendation which urged all parties to reconvene the Six Party Talks in order to address regional peace and stability issues.

RADKA PATALOVA (European Union) said the European Union would welcome an increased engagement of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the international community. While acknowledging the attendance of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the Universal Periodic Review, they expressed concern at the refusal of the country to articulate by the time of the Council’s adoption of the outcome report of its Universal Period Review in March 2010 which recommendations enjoyed its support. They also regretted the lack of actions to date to implement the recommendations contained in that outcome. They took note of their wish to look into some of the Universal Periodic Review recommendations irrespective of the official stance of the Government. The European Union remained extremely concerned about the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, particularly the lack of freedom of opinion and expression, the punishments placed on journalists, the restricted access to the Internet and the non–existence of civil society.

YONG CHANTHALANGSY (Lao People’s Democratic Republic) welcomed the effort of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for its compliance with principles of the United Nations Charter to achieve international cooperation in promoting and protecting the respect for human rights. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic remained encouraged by the significant progress made by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in cooperating with the Special Rapporteur and its efforts to overcome difficulties in the country and to guarantee stability and national security.

WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) said New Zealand strongly supported the renewal of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and was concerned about arbitrary arrests and detentions and about the use of torture, political prison camps and collective punishments in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. New Zealand would like an update on the humanitarian situation and access for United Nation’s humanitarian organizations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
PARK SANG-KI (Republic of Korea) conveyed their deep sympathy for Japan and its people for the serious damages suffered from the recent earthquake and tsunami and expressed condolences for the victims and their families. The Republic of Korea expressed appreciation to the Special Rapporteur for his comprehensive report and said that it was deeply regrettable that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continued to deny the request by the Special Rapporteur to visit the country. They urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take cooperative measures necessary for carrying out his mandate. The Republic of Korea remained deeply concerned about the serious human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It was particularly disturbing that flagrant human rights abuses, such as deaths, torture and human trafficking were rampant. They called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to promptly take measures to improve the situation, and also requested the international community and the Special Rapporteur to give their continued attention, especially regarding the humane treatment of asylum seekers and respect for the principle of non-refoulement.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria) expressed Syria’s sympathy to the delegation of Japan as well as its sincere condolences to the families which had suffered in the earthquake. It was indeed very difficult to protect and promote human rights in the field, without giving priority to some rights over others. Developing countries needed to be more actively engaged on human rights and required further help with technical and financial assistance. In this regard, Syria said the Council should make greater efforts to engage the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in dialogue and to hear more from their perspective, which was perhaps more valuable than reports written from outside the country.

FEDOR ROSOCHA (Slovakia) said Slovakia deplored the fact that requests to facilitate a visit of the Special Rapporteur to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been consistently denied by the country’s authorities in general and the overall non-cooperation with international human rights mechanisms. Slovakia was alarmed by the chronic food insecurity, high malnutrition rates and deep structural economic problems in the country. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was ranked 177 out of 178 in The Reporters Without Borders 2010 Press Freedom Index and this showed what the Government stood for. Slovakia would like to know what further steps should be envisaged within the international or regional human rights frameworks or in practical terms to create room for an engagement with the authorities towards advancing the country’s human rights record in line with established international human rights standards.

DANTE MARTINELLI (Switzerland) said Switzerland had learnt with alarm the dramatic consequences of the earthquake in Japan and expressed deep condolences to the Government of Japan and its population. Switzerland welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, wished him success in his work and thanked him for his very complete first report. The open and cooperative attitude of the Special Rapporteur towards the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were elements that enhanced the credibility of his mandate, however, Switzerland regretted the fact, that despite this open attitude, the Government had refused to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur. Switzerland expressed concern for the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and asked the Special Rapporteur what was the possibility of judicial reforms that could improve the situation. The Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea needed to improve the economic structure and the system of food distribution. Therefore, Switzerland called upon the Government to initiate substantive reforms in these areas.

MARKO HAM (Slovenia) said that Slovenia was very alarmed by the current human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which had become even more difficult to address due to the increasing humanitarian needs. While Slovenia acknowledged some positive developments in the country, the delegation remained particularly concerned that the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not explicitly express its support for any of the recommendations given to it during its Universal Periodic Review in 2009. Finally, Slovenia asked the Special Rapporteur to give a short assessment of how the general human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea affected children, as they represented the most vulnerable part of society.

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil) said Brazil understood that decades of conflict and mistrust might had instilled the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with a suspicious attitude towards international mechanisms whose aim was to monitor its human rights situation on the ground. Brazil called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to review its commitment to the Universal Periodic Review process. Brazil committed itself to providing humanitarian assistance to the Government and to share its agricultural expertise in the area of soybean production. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would have much to gain from integrating a consistent human rights approach to their national interests and external relations and Brazil would like to seek the views of the Special Rapporteur on mutually reinforcing ways to integrate that approach into the discharging of his mandate.

LARISH BELSKAYA (Belarus) said Belarus expressed deep sympathy to the people of Japan after this disaster. The Special Rapporteur did not take sufficient account of the information from the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Belarus hoped that the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would take into account the recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review in 2009. Humanitarian and food assistance should not be use as a mean of political pressure on a sovereign State. Belarus supported the renewal of bilateral negotiations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and thought that they should be conducted in an open and transparent manner.

ROBERT KING (United States) said that it was regrettable that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continued to exclude the Special Rapporteur from visiting the country to fulfil his mandate to objectively observe and assess the human rights situation there. While the United States recognized the participation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the Universal Periodic Review, they echoed the Special Rapporteur’s disappointment that the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had rejected the 117 recommendations emanating from this process. In his report, the Special Rapporteur highlighted the critical humanitarian situation and specifically recommended that the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea increase its annual budget allocation to ameliorate the critical humanitarian situation. The Special Rapporteur also noted that human rights violations were committed in all correctional centres and living conditions in prison facilities were dire. In conclusion, the United States welcomed any suggestions from the Special Rapporteur on how the international community could better assist the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in improving its human rights situation.

PATRICK RUMLAR (Czech Republic) said the Czech Republic commended the Special Rapporteur’s efforts to prepare the report as inclusively as possible while taking into account the denial on the part of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to grant access to the country. What suggestions were there for the international community to assist to ensure the cooperation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the mandate? The predecessor to the Special Rapporteur had mentioned in his final report the possibility of the Security Council to establish a Commission of Inquiry on crimes against humanity with regard to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. How much support had this proposal gained so far and did the current Special Rapporteur support it?

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba) said Cuba expressed their solidarity with the people of Japan for the natural disaster they experienced. Cuba said that the Special Rapporteur’s mandate on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was something left over from the agenda item 9 of the Commission on Human Rights and this triggered the discredit of this Council. This exercise against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was marked by the decision of the Bush Administration to call this country an “axis of evil” and this exercise was incompatible with the spirit of dialogue and genuine cooperation that prevailed in the Council. The situation of human rights in the Democratic People’ Republic of Korea was already examined in the Working Group in the Universal Periodic Review and this was the place where such topics should be dealt with. The Council should remove double standards if it did not want to fail as the previous Commission did. Cuba would vote against the draft resolution regarding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

JIANG YINFENG (China) said China noted the report and presentation of the Special Rapporteur. In recent years, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had made significant efforts to improve the quality of life and livelihood of its citizens. However, due to natural disasters and a variety of other factors, growth and development in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea remained a challenge. China reiterated its stanch opposition to the practice of naming and shaming nations. China made an appeal to Members of the Council and the international community to place greater focus on the difficulties facing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Finally, China hoped that greater efforts would be made to engage the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and to work more closely with the country to improve their human rights situation.

WALID ABU-HAYA (Israel) said Israel remained gravely concerned about the denial of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Government was party to the main human rights treaties and it should adhere to its obligations under international law. Israel supported the Special Rapporteur’s call to reform the Penal Code in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to abolish public executions and the proposals to end the use of labour camps and amend legislation to ensure adherence with international standards. Israel supported the continuation of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said Algeria extended their sincere condolences to the people of Japan. Algeria took note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Their position of principle concerning country mandates was that without the cooperation of the country concerned it was not possible to obtain the improvement of the human rights situation. The Special Rapporteur should reflect on innovative means to look for the cooperation of the country concerned and should seek channels of dialogue. There was the impact of the crisis and also the fact that there should be unconditional protection of the right to food. The interactive dialogue in which the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was involved in the Universal Periodic Review was a first step of cooperation and Algeria asked the Special Rapporteur to explore avenues of cooperation which could improve the human rights situation.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) said that Canada remained gravely concerned by the ongoing human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In particular, Canada was disturbed by the occurrence of public executions, torture and the harsh treatment of asylum seekers and migrant workers. Canada also welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s focus on defectors to the Republic of Korea. In this respect, Canada asked the Special Rapporteur if he could provide more information on how the international community could more effectively support the growing community of defectors from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Canada concluded by saying that it was disappointed that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had yet to implement even one of recommendations made during its Universal Periodic Review.

PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom was disappointed to note that there had been no significant progress on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea since this mandate last came before the Council and would be interested to hear the Special Rapporteur’s assessment on the realistic prospects for an improvement in the human rights situation in the country. What were the Special Rapporteur’s thoughts on the role the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could take to advance human rights policies and programmes in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? The United Kingdom supported the Universal Periodic Review and welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s intention to use these recommendations and would like to know how they would inform his work over the next 12 months. The United Kingdom supported the renewal of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.

HTIN LYNN (Myanmar) said Myanmar shared the view that the Council needed to explore all possible ways to ensure cooperation with the country concerned. On the other hand, the Council should avoid pursuing coercive ways which would not only be counterproductive but would also lead to distrust and confrontation. Cooperation in a non-politicized manner was the best way to achieve their common goal of promoting and protecting human rights anywhere in the world. Myanmar continued to believe that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was the appropriate tool to address the long-term human rights situations of each country in a constructive and effective manner.

VU ANH QUANG (Viet Nam) expressed its sympathy and condolences to the families and victims of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Viet Nam said that it had been closely watching the explosive situation currently reigning in the Korean peninsula. Viet Nam believed that the main priority at the moment was to reinitiate talks to ensure that peace and stability could be established in the region. It was obvious that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was going through difficult times, due in part to natural disasters that had occurred. As such, humanitarian action and assistance from the international community needed to be stepped up in order to deal with the critical situation on the ground in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

JAMES MANZOU (Zimbabwe) said Zimbabwe did not subscribe to country specific mandates except where such mandates had the consent of the State concerned. This position was informed by the full knowledge that such country-specific mandate holders should work constructively with the State concerned, if they were to fulfill their mandate. Regrettably this was not the case with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and others. This country specific mandate was foisted on the country in a politicised and selective manner and tended to be prosecutorial in its approach. Consequently the mandate holder was unable to objectively fulfill his mandate. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had already demonstrated its commitment to promote and protect human rights as well as to cooperate with the Human Rights Council through its participation in the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. Zimbabwe stated that the country specific mandate for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should be terminated.

MIRANDA BROWN (Australia) said Australia continued to strongly support the important mandate of the Special Rapporteur and congratulated him on the completion of his first report in office on the current human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Australia remained deeply concerned about the appalling state of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and would continue to raise this issue directly with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea authorities. Australia strongly supported the recommendation in paragraph 67 of the Special’s Rapporteur’s report. They noted the Special Rapporteur’s recent visit to the Republic of Korea and Japan to ascertain views on alleged human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. They were disappointed, however, that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not approve the Special Rapporteur’s request of October last year to visit the country.

HELGA FASTRUP ERVIK (Norway) said Norway fully associated itself with the Special Rapporteur’s conclusions and recommendations and appreciated that he would continue to attempt to gain access and to engage with the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the future. In this regard, Norway urged the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and to provide him with unrestricted access to the country. The violation of human rights, as described by the Special Rapporteur, was of great concern for Norway. The food shortage and severe humanitarian situation continued to be a source of serious concern. Norway concluded by calling on donor countries to resume and continue their valuable humanitarian contributions, including food, medical and other urgent humanitarian needs.

MARIANA DUARTE, of Connectas, in a joint statement, said Connectas urged the international community to pay attention to the repatriation of persons to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea since there were cases illustrating that the Government had already provided information not in compliance with the reality regarding the well being of such persons. Connectas requested that the international community and the Special Rapporteur should continue their efforts related with abductees and prisoners of war remaining in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said the Special Rapporteur had correctly focused his attention on the horrendous human rights violations taking place in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in detention facilities and prisons and his vow to make this an important part of his continuing work. Human Rights Watch would like to ask the Special Rapporteur what concrete steps the United Nation’s human rights mechanisms and specialized agencies should take to ensure Member States recognized the principle of refugees sur place with regard to the citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea fleeing their country and in no cases commit refoulement of these groups.
PATRIZIA SCANELLA, of Amnesty International, welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation that ”Provisions of humanitarian aid, including for food medical and other urgent humanitarian needs subject to « no access, no aid », should not be contingent upon any political conditions”. This was in the context of extreme food shortages since the mid-1990s in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea which had reportedly resulted in nearly a million deaths and millions more suffering from chronic malnutrition. Amnesty International was happy to note that the Special Rapporteur had indicated that he would continue attempting to gain access to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or engaging with the authorities in the future. Amnesty International shared the Special Rapporteur’s concerns that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had so far not shown any commitment to implementing the Universal Periodic Review recommendations. They urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to keep the Universal Periodic Review recommendations under consideration with a view to giving effect to them in due course.

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continued to be a victim of selectivity and double standards by western powers as happened in the case of Cuba. The resolution sponsored by the European Union, Japan, the United States and their allies and imposed on the Human Rights Commission was the result of a political confrontation and the return to inquisitorial methods at the time of colonialism. The Special Rapporteur’s report was not based on reliable sources and provided no proof of human rights violations on the peninsula. The question of the succession of high ranking officials was a matter of people’s sovereignty and not a matter of concern of the Special Rapporteur. The Universal Periodic Review should replace the country mandates and politicized resolutions. Dual standards and selectivity which were a feature of the former Commission, with this being re-imposed, meant a violation of the principles of universality, objectivity and impartiality as established in the Council’s resolution. They called upon the Council to eliminate country mandates.

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

MARZUKI DARUSMAN, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in concluding remarks, thanked the Council members and observers and non-governmental organizations for their interventions. The Special Rapporteur said that the situation remained critical in the Korean peninsula and he would continue to interact with the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and hoped that he would receive an invitation to visit that country soon.

Participation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the Universal Periodic Review was a positive step but was not sufficient. As such, the involvement, help and collaboration with the Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights would be essential in going forward. The Special Rapporteur also thanked Brazil for rightly pointing out that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was clearly in need of international assistance and should not be isolated. Regarding the question raised by Japan, Mr. Darusman confirmed that the International Criminal Court was looking into the alleged abduction of Japanese nationals in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and further investigations were under way.

The Special Rapporteur said that for his mandate to be truly effective, a visit to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was essential. Moreover, he asked for the participation of other countries to help foster the necessary dialogue and cooperation for an official invitation to occur. The “no access, no aid” principle was not necessarily an effective strategy in trying to create change in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In this regard, a new strategy needed to be considered by United Nations agencies and donor countries, which linked a human rights-based approach to their development and humanitarian assistance.

General Debate on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development

HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said that this Council was charged with helping victims worldwide by promoting and protecting human rights. United Nations Watch asked why this session of the Council chose to ignore the human rights abuses and violations in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Cuba, China, Syria and Nicaragua.

LAILA MATAR, of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, welcomed the report submitted by the Working Group on arbitrary detention and said it was concerned about the cases of arbitrary detention across the Arab region as a means of suppressing the mounting calls for freedom and democracy. The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies cited cases in Libya, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt and other countries. The members of the Human Rights Council had an obligation to stand for the protection of peaceful protesters from threats of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance.

PATRIZIA SCANELLA, of Amnesty International, said in connection with the extension of the mandate of the Special Procedure on water and sanitation, Amnesty International encouraged all States to co-sponsor and support a resolution that referred to the rights to water and sanitation in the plural which would be more legally accurate and would draw needed attention to the right to sanitation. The resolution should re-affirm that rights to water and sanitation were derived from the right to an adequate standard of living and were inextricably related to the rights to life and health.

GEORGE HUTCHINSON, of Centre for Inquiry, said that the Centre for Inquiry welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and noted that violence in the name of religion was growing in many countries, including in Pakistan, and that these countries faced problems in confronting extremism. The Centre for Inquiry stated that all blasphemy laws should be reviewed and all States had an obligation to bring their legislation into line with international law. Religious dissidents, religious minorities and non-believers should not face persecution or death under blasphemy laws.

ANDREA MARIFIL, of Indian Council of South America, condemned the Chilean Government for not implementing the Optional Protocol on the Convention of the Rights of the Child. Moreover, police repression was still rampant in Chile. The Indian Council of South America also requested that the United States allow the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples to visit Alaska and Hawaii as both States were prime examples of the violation of human rights and the prevention of self-determination.

SAGAR CHANDRAKANT ZENDE, of Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy, said that the oppression of the 168 million Dalits was one of the most repelling, but enduring, realities in India. The majority of Dalits led a sub-human, degrading, insecure life and their rights to education, health, housing, property, freedom of religion and equal treatment before the law was violated every day. The Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy urged the Government of India to abolish manual scavenging and the Devdasi tradition.

Mr. R. JOSHI, of International Institute for Peace, said that arbitrary detention was a violation of the very basis of human rights and the focus on this issue had so far been limited to the activities of State authorities and functionaries. The past decade, however, had seen the emergence of armed groups that replicated legitimate States in terms of the power they exercised over ordinary citizens. The women of Afghanistan had known a form of arbitrary detention based on gender during the rule of the Taliban. The practices of virtual house arrests that women were subjected to were also prevalent in Pakistan.

PRAVEEN GAJJALA, of Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, said that all great religions of the world taught compassion and tolerance and it was only recently that they played destructive roles in politics of States. Religious extremism was increasing at a time when global education and information were expanding considerably. The problem was most acute in States that sought to define identity in the name of one religion or another, which provided foundations for setting up constitutional and legal structures that worked in favour of majority and to the detriment of minority religious groups.

VISHAL SHAH, of Foundation for Democracy in Africa, said the International Association for Democracy in Africa believed that in countering terrorism effective steps should be taken to ensure that the ideals and principles of democracy were respected. It was important to keep in mind that contemporary terrorism was marked by international dimensions with terrorist violence supported financially and materially by neighboring States as was the case in the Punjab. No excuses should be made for the oppression of any group or community and wherever State functionaries were found responsible for the violation of human rights they should be punished.

JOSEPH ANAND, of International Club for Peace Research, said that protecting the lives and property of citizens was among the most fundamental duties of government, however in many cases the State appeared to have been unsuccessful on this count. A Human Rights Council survey estimated that there were over 43,500 internally displaced persons in Islamabad and Rawalpindi alone due to threats posed by militants and security forces. No refugee camp or aid centre was set up and the internally displaced persons had been left to defend for themselves. The International Club called for the Council to take appropriate action to protect the human rights of these internally displaced persons.

ARBINDER SINGH KOHLI, of Indian Council of Education, said that children who had been taught to hate and kill could only mature into adults who were, at best, misfits in normal society. In many countries, children were stripped of their innocence and witnessed increasing social aberrations, criminal activities and the ever present scourge of narcotics addiction. The recent reports of child abuse in religious schools and establishments was a call to the international community and human rights activists that considerable care at home needed to be taken to ensure that there was ongoing communication between parents and their children so that incidents of abuse were not overlooked.

BULBUL DHAR JAMES, of European Union of Public Relations, congratulated the Human Rights Council for considering the issue of internally displaced persons. However, the speaker drew the attention of the Council to the gross violation of human rights of the Kashmiri Pandits by “jehadi” terrorist groups operating in the state of Jammu and Kashmir in India. The relentless practice of Islamo-fascism and the related issue of ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus was a matter of extreme anxiety. According to some estimates, almost 12,000 Kashmiri Pandits had been killed since the insurgency began in Kashmir and 450,000 had been displaced. Finally, the European Union of Public Relations cautioned the Council about the propaganda campaign unleashed to camouflage the atrocities committed by Islamo-fascists in non-Muslim minorities in Kashmir.

POLINA LUKASHOVA, of Centre for Environmental and Management Studies, welcomed the work for persons belonging to minorities and the report by the High Commissioner on this issue. The Centre for Environmental and Management Studies renounced the status of minorities in Pakistan which represented less that five per cent of the population and had no power. The Governor of Punjab province spoke in defence of religious minorities and paid the price by being assassinated by his bodyguards. The Council should protect the rights of minorities and protect them from discrimination.

FELIXBERTO CALANG, of Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches, spoke of the violation of human rights defenders in the Philippines, who suffered extra-judicial killings, particularly in Mindanao. The incidents were continuing and the attacks on human rights defenders took different forms and the human rights defenders were subjected to systematic campaigns by the authorities. The Council should monitor the situation of human rights defenders in Mindanao.

DIPMONI GAYAN, of Liberation, said the space for human rights defenders had shrunk in India in the recent past and today human rights defenders in India were subject to torture, ill-treatment, threats, arbitrary arrest and detention. Liberation welcomed the recent visit of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders to India, who said she was troubled by the branding and stigmatization of human rights defenders who were labeled as naxalites (Maoists), terrorists, militants, insurgents, anti-nationalists and members of the underground. Liberation urged the Government of India to ensure the promotion and protection of the human rights of its citizens, including human rights defenders.

LEON SIU, of International Committee for the Indians of the Americas (Incomindios Switzerland), said that human rights groups in Hawaii had enumerated violations committed by the United States since the 1893 unprovoked and unjustified invasion of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States. Of particular concern to the Human Rights Council should be the violation of Article 73 of the United Nations Charter and the denial of the right to self determination by the fraudulent imposition of a foreign government. The people of Hawaii appealed to the Human Rights Council to dispatch to Hawaii the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders to examine and respond to the situation of human rights violations in the Hawaiian Islands.

ELBACHIR ED-DAHY, of Centrist Democratic International, said that Centrist Democratic International had a firm commitment to the universality of human rights. They condemned the biased manipulation of certain States to prevent the peaceful self determination of their citizens. Last week, many peaceful demonstrators were arrested in the Polisario camps in Tindouf for speaking out against the embezzlement of humanitarian aid in the refugee camps. Centrist Democratic International called on the international community to help protect this particularly vulnerable minority group.

HAMDI CHERIFI, of Action internationale pour la paix et le développement dans la région des Grands Lacs (AIPD), expressed its steadfast belief that communities should be liberated from the subjugation of totalitarianism, torture, injustice and persecution. They were also deeply concerned with the shameful conditions of numerous communities in conflict situations. Serious violations of civil and political rights, including arbitrary arrests and detention, selective assassinations, violence and sexual abuse of women and children continued to take place daily in conflict zones. These people were denied the most basic political, economic, social and cultural rights and the international community had an obligation to break the siege imposed on them, so that these individuals could regain their dignity.

GALA MARIC, of North South XXI, said North South XXI welcomed the reports of several new mandate holders, and in particular the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons and welcomed his intention to consider the challenges that climate change posed for combating forced displacement. North South XXI also welcomed the report of the Working Groups on arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances and expressed its concern that they maintained neutrality and treated all States equally. North South XXI urged the Special Rapporteurs on the right to food and on adequate housing to explore the relationship between the realisation of those vital social and economic rights and the international financial and economic system and its institutions.

OLIVER RIZZI CARLSON, of United Network of Young Peacebuilders (UNOY Peacebuilders), said that the meeting held in Santiago in the context of the Social Forum had approved two important declarations, including one on the right to peace. Consolidation of the right to peace needed to be included as a more substantive item in the next declaration, and it should also be linked with the right to life, right to freedom and security of persons. Also, the realisation of economic, social, cultural and linguistic rights should be emphasized, while women should be better integrated in peace processes and should participate in all levels of decision making.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC11/032E