COUNCIL CONCLUDES GENERAL DEBATE ON UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW AND HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS THAT REQUIRE THE COUNCIL’S ATTENTION

The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded its general debate on the Universal Periodic Review and its general debate on human rights situations which require the Council’s attention.

During the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review, delegations noted that the review process constituted one of the fundamental achievements of Council. One of the keys to its success was that its core principle was universality. It had shown it could be a forum for effective cooperation and democratic monitoring and remained the only forum in the United Nations where the human rights situation of all countries was considered on an equal footing and, according to the Council’s resolution 5/1, in an objective, transparent, non-selective and constructive way. Others pointed out that while no one could question the success of the Universal Periodic Review, it was a fact that the Council had not been able to eliminate selectivity and the politicization of human rights. Credibility required States to improve their human rights performance not only before the review but more importantly after it. As the Universal Periodic Review approached the second cycle, it was hoped that more countries would present mid-term reports.

Speakers said that the review not only created a unique opportunity to identify gaps in human rights protection systems but also allowed the sharing of best practices. This innovative procedure could serve as a catalyst and could improve the promotion and protection of human rights at a national level. The greatest challenge would be the implementation of commitments made in the first cycle. The High Commissioner should take steps to finalize the dates of the first session of the second cycle of the Review in order to provide clarity regarding timelines for government and non-governmental preparations. Commitment, constant engagement and transparency were essential for the effective improvement of any country’s human rights situation. The new arrangements of the speakers’ lists should allow all States to take the floor. The second cycle should in principle focus on implementation of recommendations that had been agreed to.

During the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review Poland, Austria, Spain, Republic of Moldova, Cuba, China, Romania and the Republic of Korea made statements.

Representatives from the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Amnesty International, and Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development also took the floor.

During the general debate on human rights situations which require the Council’s attention, non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions raised allegations of violations of human rights in a number of countries and regions. Representatives from Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Amnesty International, Tupaj Amaru, Arab Lawyers Union, Liberation, Human Rights Watch, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Verein Sudwind, Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development, International Education Development Inc, Comite International pour le Respect et l’Application de la Charte Africaine des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples, United Towns Agency for North-South Cooperation, Incomindios, International movement Against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, Agence International pour le Development, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Amnesty International, Human Rights House Foundation, Rancontre Africaine pour la defense des droits de l’homme, CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Union de l’action femenine, American Minorities, World Muslim Congress, Syriac Universal Alliance, Indian Council of South America, International Humanist and Ethical Union, United Nations Watch, International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, International Buddhists Relief Organization, Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy, International Association for Democracy in Africa, World Environment and Resources Council, Canners International Permanent Committee, Network of Women NGO in Iran, International Institute of Peace, Centrist Democratic International, Women Human Rights International Association, World Federation of Trade Unions, Tchad agir pour l’environment, Centre for Environmental and Management Studies, and Baha’l International Community took the floor.

At the end of the meeting representatives of Zimbabwe, Russian Federation, Egypt, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Algeria, Syria, China, Myanmar, Sudan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Sri Lanka, Iran, Morocco, Japan, and Algeria spoke in a right of reply.

The Council will resume its work at 9 a.m. on Monday, 23 September to hold its annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective in the work of the Council.

General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review

ALEKSANDRA WOJTYLAK (Poland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union considered the Universal Periodic Review as one the most important mechanisms of the United Nations systems, aiming at the promotion and protection of human rights. One of the keys to its success was its core principle was universality. The Universal Periodic Review not only created a unique opportunity to identify gaps in human rights protection systems but also allowed the sharing of best practices. Some of the modalities that required modification had been identified. The new solutions would be introduced in the second cycle. The European Union was looking forward to enhanced participation of the national human rights institutions and new arrangements with regard to the list of speakers, allowing all States that wished to take the floor to be able to do so. The greatest challenge would be implementing commitments made in the first cycle. The European Union strongly encouraged the High Commissioner for Human Rights to take steps to finalize the dates of the first session of the second cycle of the Review in order to provide clarity regarding timelines for government and non-governmental preparations.

GERALD VOLLMER (Austria) said the Universal Periodic Review was one of the fundamental achievements of the Human Rights Council. Austria had a high standard of human rights which was recognized during its Universal Periodic Review although the full realization of human rights for all remained by definition a goal and a constant challenge. At the national level in Austria, the Universal Periodic Review had injected renewed vigour into the national debate on human rights. Overall, Austria had accepted 131 recommendations and was committed to their successive implementation. Austria would submit an interim update on the implementation of the recommendations in due course. Specific thematic partnerships were being developed between the respective Ministries and relevant non-governmental organizations in order to effectively involve civil society in the implementation debate. Commitment, constant engagement and transparency were essential for the effective improvement of any country’s human rights situation.

PABLO GOMEZ DE OLEA BUSTINZA (Spain) said that Spain valued the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. It had shown it could be a forum for effective cooperation and democratic monitoring. It remained the only forum in the United Nations where the human rights situation of all countries was considered on an equal footing and, according to the Council’s resolution 5/1, in an objective, transparent, non-selective and constructive way. Spain had undertaken the review process in 2010 and it had been an enlightening experience; consultations had led to a fluid cooperation with civil society and the relevant ministerial offices. Most of the recommendations were now being implemented and Spain would report on this in its follow-up report. On September 6 and 7 a seminar on the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review was held in cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with the objective to inform about the changes that would begin to be applied during the second cycle. The seminar had included representatives of human rights institutions and civil society. It provided an important opportunity to exchange lessons learnt, and Spain would continue to organize events like this.

VLADIMIR CHIRINCIUC (Republic of Moldova) said the Republic of Moldova attached great importance to the Universal Periodic Review process. This innovative procedure could serve as a catalyst and could improve the promotion and protection of human rights at a national level. The new arrangements of the speakers’ lists should allow all States to take the floor. The second cycle should in principle focus on implementation of recommendations that had been agreed to. The Republic of Moldova was in favour of an increased role of civil society and non-governmental organizations in the Universal Periodic Review process. From 4 to 5 November, the Republic of Moldova would host a conference entitled “Reacting to the challenges of the Universal Periodic Review: challenges, innovation and leadership”. The conference would consider the various roles to be played by each stakeholder to ensure greater independence and legitimacy to the process.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA ROMAN (Cuba) said no one could question the success of the Universal Periodic Review although it was a fact that the Council had not been able to eliminate selectivity and the politicalization of human rights. In the process of review, the Universal Periodic Review had received few amendments which had shown it was the perfect mechanism for setting aside discriminatory practices in human rights. Cuba urged all Member States to support the Universal Periodic Review mechanism in the Council for the promotion and protection of human rights.

HON QUENG (China) congratulated all the countries whose Universal Periodic Review reports had been adopted. They had demonstrated sincerity and seriousness with regards to the review and a cooperative attitude with the Council. This mechanism had become an important forum through which all countries had accepted international monitoring on an equal basis. China was committed to improving the work of the Council and believed that after readjustment the Universal Periodic Review would be more firmly committed to the principles of objectivity, non-selectivity and non-politicization; would promote cooperation over confrontation; and would contribute to the advancement of goals along their national objectives. China had endeavoured to improve its economy, and also the rule of law to promote economic, social and cultural rights of its people; and, in this context, an action plan had been developed. After two years of hard work, the action plan had been implemented and the targets met. As the most populous developing country in the world, China faced significant challenges in the promotion its peoples’ rights. China looked forward to working with other countries on human rights issues on the basis of equality and mutual respect.

RAZVANE RATUNDU (Romania) said the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review was close to completion. No country was spared critical remarks and Romania’s own exercise offered the opportunity to show progress achieved and areas still in need of improvement. Credibility required States to improve their human rights performance not only before the review but more importantly after it. As the Universal Periodic Review approached the second cycle, Romania hoped more countries would present mid-term reports.

JO KIM DONG (Republic of Korea) said the success of the Universal Periodic Review process depended on the sincerity with which States responded to the recommendations put forward. Participating States spent great time and effort making recommendations with the expectation that they would be considered in a serious and meaningful way. It was therefore crucial that the State under review carefully study the recommendations and respond in a clear, transparent and constructive manner. Acceptance of the numerous recommendations by the States under review should be followed by concrete actions and tangible measures to implement them. The Republic of Korea was pleased to see improvements had been made to the modality and procedures of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group, including the newly established rationalized modality for deciding the Universal Periodic Review speakers’ list which would take effect at the beginning of the second cycle next year.

MME KATHARINA ROSE, of Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, said that several steps had been followed to monitor the implementation of Malaysia’s accepted Universal Periodic Review recommendations through the establishment of an internal review process follow-up and monitoring committee; awareness raising on the importance of the review mechanism and Malaysia’s human rights obligations; engagement with Government agencies and other stakeholders; and capacity building programmes and sharing of good practices. The Human Rights Commissioner of Malaysia also called upon the Government to enhance its engagement with various stakeholders through more regular dialogue and sharing of expertise in the review process follow-up as well as in the next cycle.

MARIANNE LILLIEBJERG, of Amnesty International, said that the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review had yielded much good practices that contributed to making the review process effective. It was essential that the practice of consultations was further developed in the second cycle. The high level participation had contributed to giving the Universal Periodic Review a higher profile in countries under review and enabled substantive discussion in the working group and on the fringes. A clear implementation plan for the review outcome would be helpful - not only for the implementation of recommendations - it could also serve as a platform for coordinating national efforts and recommendations from other human rights mechanisms and international commitments.

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, said the United Nations under the hegemony of the United States had returned to the politicization of human rights. The reduction in speaking time for non-governmental organizations to two minutes was a stifling of freedom of expression and an attempt to stifle civil society.

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

M. NAJI HARAJ, of Arab Lawyers Union, in a joint statement with severals NGOs1, said that in Iraq over a million people had been killed and there were thousands of cases of forced disappearances. Iraqis also suffered from a lack of basic services and a high level of corruption. Such human rights abuses required that the Council shoulder its responsibilities to put an end to such practices, including extra judicial killings and violations to the right to life. It would be advisable to send a group to investigate these issues and appoint a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iraq.

ANEZKA PALKOVA, of Liberation, said there had been systematic efforts to take the land of indigenous peoples in India due to large scale projects such as dams. Among the indigenous people of India there existed lower levels of literacy rates and other challenges that put them at a disadvantage to the main population. The Government of India should seek prior consent of indigenous people before embarking on infrastructure projects.

PHILIPPE DAM, of Human Rights Watch, said that the Council should act on the recommendations contained in the United Nations Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts report which detailed grave abuses during the final months of Sri Lanka’s armed conflict. The scale of reported deaths over a five-month period made this among the most serious human rights crises to have been brought to the attention of the Council since its creation. The Council should respond by ordering a full international investigation into these allegations, anything less would be a shameful abdication of responsibility. The Sri Lankan Government’s continually misleading representation of the human rights situation in the country should be a matter of concern for the Council.

AMAL BASHA, of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, called on the Council to hold a Special Session on the situation of human rights in Yemen to prevent further human rights abuses and realize the rule of law in the absence of a transparent judiciary. The Government had been given every opportunity to heed the peaceful demands of its citizens for democratic transition and had instead chosen a path that would escalate the existing human rights and humanitarian crises in the Council. The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies called for the continuation of the Independent Expert on Sudan and the establishment of an Independent Expert on South Sudan. The newly established State in South Sudan faced large challenges in the promotion and protection of human rights and required United Nations assistance in this regard.

HASSAN NAYEB HASHEM, of Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, said Sudwind was deeply concerned about the alarming number of executions during the past few months in Iran. Hundreds of citizens had been charged and imprisoned on political and ideological grounds, often without access to due process of law. Amongst them were the two presidential candidates Karroubi and Moussavi along with their wives. Sudwind recommended the establishment of a Special Procedure on the right to free and fair elections.

TOM GANIATSOS, of Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights, said the International Criminal Court should take charge of the trials of Gaddafi if he was captured but should hold them in Tripoli rather than The Hague. The International Community would need to earmark additional finances including for security. For Libyans the trial by the International Criminal Court should be a bridge toward taking ownership of their future.

KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development Inc., said International Educational Development wished to draw the attention of the Council to a statement made by the Tamil National Alliance that denied the claims that the Government of Sri Lanka was building trust and amity between the Tamil and Sinhala communities in Sri Lanka. In fact the Government had not pursued policies to reconcile the two parties and instead was bullying the messengers by attacks on the Secretary-General, the current High Commissioner and past High Commissioners. Lying about the situation on the ground would not resolve the ethnic conflicts that Sri Lanka faced. The verbal attack on the Chair of the Panel of Experts made last week was unacceptable.

SEMTALI AABADILE, of Comite international pour le respect et l'application de la Charte africaine des droits de l'homme et des peuples, said it would like to draw the Human Rights Council’s attention to the many victims in the Polisario camps in Algeria. The Polisario militia attacked individuals who supported the Algerian Government and were kept hostage by this militia in camps. The Council should immediately address the denial of human rights experienced by prisoners kept illegally by the Polisario militia.

MEHRAM BALUCH, of United Towns Agency for North-South Cooperation, said that the world had seen what was now called the Arab Spring but Baluchistan in Southwest Asia was chained to a wintry night and bodies of human rights defenders, students, lawyers, editors and writers kept on being pilled up and dumped in rivers. Human Rights Watch reported the killing of at least 150 people across Baluchistan since January in kill and dump operations. Pakistan had not taken any corrective steps to end the secret, dirty war in Baluchistan in spite of urgent requests of the United Nations Special Rapporteurs.

LEON SUI, of International Committee for the Indians of the Americas (Incomindios Switzerland), said the situation of human rights in Alaska and Hawaii were examples of how the United States violated the right to self-determination by instituting and maintaining what could only be described as illegal occupation. The occupation amounted to denial of self-determination. In Hawaii the United States had committed numerous ongoing human rights violations including the confiscation of native lands and forced eviction and displacement of its inhabitants, the consignment of native peoples to poverty and the destruction of language and culture. Incomindios called upon the Council to investigate desecrations of sacred sites and to put a stop to dehumanizing, genocidal policies and to end the illegal occupation of Hawaii and Alaska.

NIMALKA FERNANDO, of International Movement against all Forms of Racism and Discrimination. and Lawyer Watch Canada, said the human rights situation in Sri Lanka required further attention. The Government of Sri Lanka was obliged to share the modalities of its investigation into human rights violations. The issues at stake related to accountability and compliance. An interactive dialogue was called for. After the side event of the United States, a prominent human rights activist had come under continued attack. This had led to a life threatening situation to close associates residing in Sri Lanka.

HAMDI CHERIFI, of Agence Internationale pour le Developpement (Aide-Federation), said human rights stood at the heart of all they did. Agence interational pour le Development drew attention to continuing violations of human rights in the Polisario camps. The Sahrawi population which was taken hostage continued to be the exception in matters of fundamental human and refugees rights as they were deprived of the rights to identification, movement, assembly and freedom of expression. Morocco had put on the table an autonomy proposal that could serve as a working framework that could guarantee to Sahrawis the full enjoyment of their fundamental rights.

POOJA PATEL, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), said that there was a gross violation of human rights ongoing along the eastern border of Myanmar including land confiscation, forcible recruitment of child soldiers, sexual violence against women and girls as well as the killing of ethnic civilians in conflict zones. The Government of Myanmar should take concrete efforts to ensure that the national human rights commission was fully compliant with the Paris Principles and to raise awareness on its mandates and functions throughout the country. The Council should ensure that the Government of Sri Lanka must guarantee full involvement of the local population in Special Economic Zones in any development planning and implementation process based on the principles of free, prior and informed consent to ensure that they were the core beneficiaries.

IRTAXE ARDANZA FERNANDEZ, of France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, in a join statement with Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peuples (MRAP), said that long pre-trial imprisonment of those awaiting trial should not be a normal occurrence as any person detained or imprisoned because of a criminal offense must be brought before a judge. However those detained in the Sahraouian camps in Morocco had not enjoyed such principles. There should be a rapid and fair trial for these prisoners according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said that lawyers were in the front line of the struggle against human rights violations. Sometimes their licenses were threatened or revoked; when these measures failed they were often exposed to violence. China had made efforts to build a legal system. However, in recent years, laws and efforts to impose the Communist party’s controls on the practice of the legal profession had undermined these efforts. Control over lawyers often took place in three ways, through party ideology, through administrative procedures, and through violent acts against people who persisted. An independent legal profession was important for the protection of human rights.

KAREN BLANC, of Human Rights House Foundation, said that in Azerbaijan the authorities had cracked down on all kinds of civil protests and had limited the space for indoor gatherings since the Arab Spring. Authorizations for demonstration in the city centers were relentlessly turned down and those who called for peaceful demonstrations were arrested ahead. In Georgia, the Law on Assemblies and Manifestation had excessively restricted the right to freedom of assembly. Human Rights House Foundation was also worried about the security of those who in Kenya were witnesses and provided information to the International Criminal Court as well as other human rights defenders. Human Rights House Foundation called on the Council to exercise its influence in order for such cases to be investigated by national authorities.

PIERRE KAREMERA, of Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l'homme, expressed its concern at the massive human rights violations that continued to worsen in Sudan. A new war in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile foreshadowed new massacres and new human rights violations. The human rights situation in Darfur was getting worse and worse. The peace agreement signed in Doha between the Movement for Equality and Justice and the Government could not solve the conflict. It did not bring in other parties to the table and did not address the root causes of the conflict. Sudan must assure and guarantee full cooperation with all mandate holders.

RENATE BLOEM, of CIVICUS - World Alliance for Citizen Participation, said the Arab Non-Governmental Organization Network condemned the growing death toll in Syria. In Uzbekistan human rights activists were subject to arbitrary arrest on trumped up charges. The latest was the son of Tatiana Dovlatoav and relatives of activist Abdullo Tojiboy og’li. Turkmenistan was grossly violating freedoms of assembly and expression. CIVICUS called for an international independent investigation into human rights violations in Yemen.

ROWAIDA MROUE, of Union de l'action féminine, said human rights and refugee rights were abused by the Polisario in the Tindouf Camps in Southwest Algeria. Polisario warehoused Moroccan Sahrawis in these camps by not allowing them to engage in gainful employment on Algerian soil or to move to settle in a country of their choice. Freedom of expression was non-existent in the Tindouf camps and the Sahrawi youth could not protest peacefully. The Council for Human Rights should give urgent attention to the plight of Moroccan Sahrawis held against their will in Tindouf on Algerian territory.
HASNA BOUJERFAOUI, of Organisation pour la communication en Afrique et de promotion de la coopération économique internationale (Ocaproce International), said that Moroccan Sahrawis had been held in Polisario camps for 35 years in the Tindouf region of southwest Algeria. Young people in these camps were recruited by the Polisario militia to work in the army in Libya, fighting against the Libyan people. These unemployed young people should not be manipulated by armed gangs and Algeria should assume its responsibility to protect human rights for all people living in its territory.

ISHTIYAQ HAMEED, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said the people of occupied Kashmir called upon the Council to seek justice in cases of human rights violations where time had elapsed but justice had yet to be delivered. All human rights enshrined in the international covenants had been flagrantly violated by Indian occupation forces since 1989 when more than 90,000 innocent Kashmiris had been killed, thousands had disappeared and thousands had been sent to jail without recourse to seek justice. The Council was qualified to play a proactive role in unknotting the Kashmir situation.

SYED FAIZ NAQSHBANDI, of World Muslim Congress, said that the Government of India had enacted a series of laws in violation of international humanitarian laws. Human rights violations had drastically increased in Indian-held Kashmir. Shoot to kill orders were granted to the Indian soldiers with impunity under the Armed Forces Jammu and Kashmir Special Powers section 4 and 7. Women living in Indian-occupied Kashmir were the most unfortunate victims of violence. Organized attacks on human rights defenders were carried out by the State to silence their voices. The World Muslim Congress urged the Council to send a fact-finding mission to assess the human rights situation in Indian-occupied Kashmir.

SYED FAIZ NAQSHBANDI, of Syriac Universal Alliance, drew the attention of the Human Rights Council to the Arameans, also known as the Syreac people of Turkey, Syria and Iraq. No more than 3,000 Aramean Christians continued to survive in South East Turkey. Their numbers had halved in Iraq to 50,000. In Syria the remaining hundreds of thousands of Arameans were afraid for their future. The Government of Turkey should start appreciating and supporting its threatened indigenous Aramean, Armenian and Greek peoples at home.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, said they had issued a diplomatic protest on the illegal occupation of Alaska and Hawaii against the United States. The Indian Council of South America made reference to historical cases of indigenous peoples suffering atrocities and deprivation of land. Discrimination continued as indigenous peoples had not been granted the right to be considered independent of States by the United Nations mechanisms.

CATHY BUCHS, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, said it was a fundamental principle of human rights that there should be equality for all but the Holy See had treated its canonical law above civil law, especially in dealing with child abuse. The withholding of information on child abuse cases by the Holy See and a failure to cooperate with civil authorities were abuses of human rights. The Vatican had claimed to recognize the supremacy of civil law but in practice Catholic dioceses had continued to shield numerous priests from authorities and had not disclosed all their files on child abuse cases. The Human Rights Council must make it clear that canonical law should never be above civil law.

MATTIE ZANAZZI, of United Nations Watch, said that in 1997 political dissidents in Belarus came together to establish Charter 97 calling for political freedoms and rights. Since then the Charter 97 news organization had been harassed and young students in Belarus had been particularly targeted by the police during campaigns that exposed them to pressure and even being expelled from university. Last June students were informed that they were being monitored by officials. A message should be sent to the Government of Belarus that as long as students were targets of prosecution, the Human Rights Council would not stand by in silence.

ALTAF HUSSAIN WANI, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said that the human rights situation in Indian-occupied Kashmir required the Council’s special attention. People in Kashmir had been on the streets for the last three years, protesting against the violent occupation by India and gross systematic violations. The Council and other international human rights organizations should take note of this and ask India to allow impartial forensic experts to investigate unmarked graves.

MOHINI DHARJLE, of Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, brought to the attention of the Council the human rights situation in Pakistan. Minority communities suffered from discrimination and had been victims of violent attacks. Many people felt they did not have access to justice. The Commission to Study the Organization of Peace urged the Council to call on the Government of Pakistan to do more for human rights in line with its international obligations.

CATHERINE ESTILLORE ACASO, of International Buddhists Relief Organization, related an example of a self immolation related to the person’s abuse at the hands of her in-laws. Official statistics showed the steady rise in dowry related deaths. Approximately 9,500 women were killed over dowries.

ACOATAR SINGH SEKHON, of Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy, said constitutionally enshrined secularism in India had failed. The situation had become more difficult for minorities. The growing extremism mirrored the rise of Nazism. The mission of extremist Hindus was to create a dominance and rule by a theocracy with domination of Brahmans over non Brahmans. Indian civil society had attempted to combat this rise. The emergence of the extremist Hindu group was the greatest threat to India.

SONALI JOHNSON, of International Association for Democracy in Africa, said killings in the name of honour were carried out in Pakistan and mostly in the cases where women had threatened the position of men in society. Several positions in the Women’s Protection Act had been reduced and girls had been the victims of acid attacks because they had left the home without a man. Such attacks against women, including the burning down of 200 girls’ schools, was increasing which demonstrated the deplorable conditions of human rights in Pakistan that merited the immediate attention of the Human Rights Council.

SULTAN SHAHIN, of World Environment and Resources Council, said there was a growing danger of Islamist extremists sharing or coming to power in several countries in the Middle East. A supposedly democratic Iraq had come under radical Islamist Iranian influence so that it was now supporting the violent suppression of dissidents in Syria. Muslims continued to be in complete denial of the situation in their countries. All Muslim countries in the Council should take the war within Islam seriously by devising strategies to win this war for mainstream peaceful Islam.

VIPIN RAVINDRAN, of Canners International Permanent Committee, said that the right to development, particularly of peoples who had suffered decades of violence, could only be preserved if each and every citizen was given a stake in the building of the nation. The rules, regulations, conditions and institutions in Afghanistan needed to be created; they must train a future generation in the ethos of respect for all, irrespective of their faith or cultural or linguistic identities. Developmental and political systems in Afghanistan must focus upon the creation of a sense of national identity that could overcome differences on account of religion or clan or tribal loyalties. The support of civil society from around the world would be required.

HAMIDREZA AFRASHTEH, of Network of Women Non-governmental Organizations in Iran, said that Western powers had manipulated international institutions and they served the economic interests of the biggest countries. The United States and its allies in Europe sanctioned developing countries which did not surrender to imperial dictates. While the Council had discussed the situation in Yemen and Bahrain, people who lived in occupied Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan suffered from the occupation but their situation was not discussed. It was necessary to object to this situation which permitted powers this duality of standards. The Network was also concerned about what was happening in Guantanamo.

SONIA RANI, of International Institute for Peace, said Pakistan held prisoners incommunicado and refused to disclose their location. Around 190 individuals were missing in the country. Baluch people were disappearing. As a result of campaigning on behalf of Baluchistan, the Human Rights Council had noted new cases of Baluch people disappearing over the year. Security forces abused and tortured those in custody. Some 2,300 cases of torture had occurred, mostly in the Punjab.

EL HAMI AHL AHMED BRAHIM, of Centrist Democratic International, said Centrist Democratic International commended the Human Rights Council for its work to promote and protect human rights. Centrist Democratic International was particularly alarmed by violence inflicted on the inhabitants of the Polisario camps. It also regretted the plight of Sahrawi people. The international community said the appropriate bodies should take up this issue. The violation of the rights of children, the embezzlement of money, the humanitarian situation, and the violation of the respect for the right for people to be returned to their homeland of Morocco, were all mentioned.

HANIFER KHAYYEN, of Women’s Human Rights International Association, said six months after the April 2011 massacre at Camp Ashraf which resulted in the killing of 36 of its residents, including 8 women, and despite condemnation of this Iraqi raid by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Union and various Parliaments throughout the world, no inquiry had yet been made to investigate this crime. A monitoring team would be the only mechanism to prevent any future attacks and aggression by Iraqi forces and to ensure that residents would have access to lawyers and medical services.

JEAN-PIERRE PAGE, of World Federation of Trade Unions, said there was a certain type of archaic way of looking at the world that was based on the old imperialist racist viewpoint. The objective of this dogma was to set up protected areas, such as what was occurring in Libya, with an air bombing which had led to the killing of over 60,000 Libyans, and to the situation in Iraq where 1.2 million persons had died since 2003. In the case of Sri Lanka, some had tried to use the Council as a coercive unit against individual Member States for their own political objectives which would only undermine the credibility and independence of the Human Rights Council and this could not be accepted.

ALI ABDOALAYE YAYA, of Tchad Agir pour l’Environment, addressed fears of massive violations against the black populations in Libya, which had been confirmed on a daily basis. Tchad agir pour l’environment called on the Council, the African Union and the international community to investigate these allegations. They were saddened to see the Security Council paralyzed and unable to address the issue of Palestine and called upon powers to respect the letter of the resolution of the Security Council rather than allowing the deadlock to continue and reiterated its appeal for a two-State solution to the conflict between Palestine and Israel.

PRAVEEN GAJJALA, of Centre for Environmental and Management Studies, said that Baluchistan was Pakistan’s largest province, comprising approximately 43 per cent of the country’s land; it was rich in mineral resources and was the second major supplier of natural gas in the country. Control over these resources and the extent of provincial authority had remained contentious issues. The rights to life and freedom from arbitrary detentions were violated with impunity. The people’s overriding concern about missing persons and displaced people should be addressed.

DIANE ALAI, of Baha’i International Community, said Shohreh Rowhani was turned away from university for being Baha’i. The Iranian Government aimed at turning against the entire Baha’is. Nearly 100 Baha’is were in prison as a result of their belief. The eight longest sentences of prisoners of conscience held in Iran were being served by Baha’is. The Baha’is hoped the international community would be relentless in demanding that Iran fulfilled its international human rights obligations.


Right of Reply

ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, said that Zimbabwe would continue to enhance human rights despite the illegal sanctions imposed on it and which continued to grossly violate the human rights of Zimbabwe’s people. This Council should understand British bitterness. Zimbabwe fought for its human rights, justice and dignity, and Zimbabwe would be coming to the British for reparations for past injustices. The Government of Zimbabwe urged the British to leave Afghanistan and suggested that this Council should consider having the Independent Expert investigate human rights abuses in the August protests which occurred in Britain.

SERGEY KONDRAIEV (Russian Federation), speaking in a right of reply in respect of the comments made by Austria, said Russia answered all questions that were asked to it through international mechanisms. Russia considered references to last year’s report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression to be unjustified and inappropriate. Russia cooperated with all the human rights mechanisms. Concerning the case of attacks against a journalist, Russia had provided information on this subject.

MAHMOUD AFIFI (Egypt), speaking in a right of reply, expressed surprise concerning the statement of the European Union regarding the human rights situation in Egypt. While Egypt considered that the European Union should be aware of the developments, it considered it necessary to recall and remind the Council of some important steps taken in recent months. First the popular referendum on the constitution in March 2011 and the constitutional declaration constituted a quantitative leap in the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedom, including the judiciary, accountability and preventing impunity, releasing prisoners, combating discrimination, promoting the rights of workers, and the revision of obligations in the field of human rights. Only people who faced criminal charges had been referred to military courts, and this responded to the need to restore security while taking into account the demand that civilians did not appear in military courts except in limited cases. The claim that thousands of civilians had been referred to military courts was incorrect and there was in fact only one blogger who had been condemned and the judicial process was not over. The authorities were working to normalize life and hoped that the European Union be understanding in this period of transition. The Egyptian people were the ones who started the revolution and were the ones who would ensure that its objectives were realized.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA ROMAN (Cuba), speaking in a right of reply, said neither the United States, the Czech Republic nor Sweden had the moral authority to speak about others’ human rights violations. The United States had kept silent about the five Cubans unjustly imprisoned in the United States as terrorists. Nor had the United States said when it would close Guantanamo and return the territory which it illegally occupied to Cuba. It had not spoken about the economic blockade that had and continued to hurt the Cuban people despite appeals by the international community to have the blockade lifted. Sweden should work on protecting the right of its own citizens especially since it had assisted in secret flights where suspects were taken to locations to be tortured. The Czech Republic should consider its own human rights challenges before pointing a finger at Cuba.

KIM YONG HO (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply concerning the comments of Japan, Canada, Sweden and Slovakia, rejected the unsubstantiated allegations made by Japan against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Japanese abduction case was resolved in faithful compliance with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea - Pyongyang deceleration. The only outstanding issue was the whereabouts of the millions of Koreans used by the Japanese war machine 40 years ago. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea denounced the politically motivated allegations of Canada, Sweden and Slovakia. They were guilty of racial and religious hatred as well as invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in which they acted in support of their super power ally. This could be construed only as double standards and hypocrisy.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking in a right of reply, said that in its statement Morocco referred to the territory of the Western Sahara as if it were part of the Moroccan territory. Algeria recalled resolution 25/26 concerning the notion of an occupied territory and indicated that Morocco had repeated its allegations concerning the position of Algeria in the Western Sahara and the Tindouf refugee camp. Given the different views expressed concerning the human rights situation in this area, Algeria had proposed the deployment of a mission of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Algeria did not understand why Morocco objected to the determination of truth this way to be reported to the Council. Concerning the response by Morocco this morning concerning the human rights situation in Algeria, this reflected the tension arising from the attempt by Morocco to annex this area into its territory.

DANY BA'AJ (Syria), speaking in a right of reply, said the delegation of Canada had dealt with the human rights situation in Syria in a way that went against the working methods of the Council for it was selective and political. Canada had its own human rights violations, including the treatment of its indigenous peoples.
Last July Canada had suppressed peaceful demonstrators protesting in Toronto against the G20 meeting by using electrical stun guns with police in civilian clothes. Canada could not speak on behalf of the Syrian people.

HON QUENG (China), speaking in a right of reply, said China categorically rejected the allegations of violations of human rights in China. China had sought to bring about fairness and development of economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights. Writers were protected in terms of freedom of expression. If one used freedom of expression to incite the succession of a State, China had to deal with them under the criminal law. China protected the rights of lawyers in civil practice and provided full protection to lawyers. Amended laws on lawyers guaranteed the rights of lawyers to meet clients and to be immune from accusations as a result of their statements. In this way lawyers could represent the rights of their clients.

MAUNG WAI (Myanmar), speaking in a right of reply, responded to some of the comments made in the Council yesterday by the delegations of the United Kingdom and Canada. It had been indicated that there were about 2,000 political prisoners in Myanmar. There were no political prisoners or prisoners or conscience in Myanmar and no action could be taken against citizens on religious grounds. Those under detention were individuals who had violated existing laws. The authorities were able to identify only about 500 prisoners from the list, but none of them were political prisoners, rather they were accused of common crimes. While some of them might belong to political parties, they were not imprisoned for that reason.

MOHAMED ELMURTADA MUBARAK ISMAIL (Sudan), speaking in a right of reply, said that Sudan would like to respond to criticism made by the Cairo Human Rights Institute and other non-governmental organizations. The referendum conducted in Sudan was fair and open and had been verified by independent observers. There were some problems in provinces bordering Sudan, notably the Blue Nile and South Kordofan, where military movements rejected the results of the local elections, results which had been certified by the Carter Foundation. Furthermore, many humanitarian non-governmental organizations had been given access to these provinces and all internally displaced persons had returned home and security had been restored. The situation in Darfur had normalized as evidenced by recent statements by Ibrahim Gambari, the United Nations mission leader in Darfur, who said 70 per cent of internally displaced persons had returned home.

MAUNG WAI (Azerbaijan), speaking in a right of reply concerning the comments of Human Rights House Foundation, said Azerbaijan provided cooperation in the field of human rights and was ready to cooperate with international organizations in this regard. Azerbaijan had cooperated with the Council of Europe and the Office for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Democracy building was a difficult process. Criticism should be constructive. Everyone in Azerbaijani enjoyed freedom of expression. According to the law on freedom of assembly, certain locations in all the regions were offered for protest organizers. Protesters knew that unauthorized protests would be dealt with as a breach of public order. With regard to the specific case mentioned, replies of the Government of Azerbaijan had been circulated to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. When commenting on the situation in Azerbaijan, the fact of the more than 1 million persons living as refugees as a result of occupation by a neighbouring country should be taken into account.

BADRIDDIN OBIDOV (Uzbekistan), speaking in a right of reply in reply to a statement by CIVICUS, drew the attention of the Council to the fact that the statement had no justification. CIVICUS had made a politically motivated statement which cast doubt on the work of the Council. The establishment of a reconciliation institution, the abolition of the death penalty, and the creation of an ombudsman for human rights and an institute for monitoring public opinion and legislation, attested to the efforts of the Government. Furthermore, Uzbekistan was developing civil society organizations. At the moment there were over 1,000 non-governmental organizations working in different spheres. National non-governmental organizations were an important factor in defending the heritage and legitimate interests of the people and mobilizing their potential. Uzbekistan appealed to CIVICUS to refrain from making politically motivated statements and to take into account the information presented.
TAMARA KUNANAYAKAM (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply, said to those who questioned the credibility and independence of Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, it was not possible to make judgments on the country’s domestic mechanism before it had the chance to complete its work and make its findings public. The report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts was neither the product of a request of the Human Rights Council nor of any other inter-governmental body and could be viewed as an attempt to legitimize a document which was based on undisclosed sources and which had no evidentiary value, more so because of the categorical declaration in the document itself that was premised upon unproven facts. Sri Lanka was committed to extend its utmost cooperation to this Council and had always shared its experiences and even failings in a spirit of constructive dialogue. Sri Lanka had been steadfastly committed to the protection and promotion of human rights. It was only fitting and proper that Sri Lanka should be allowed to continue its reconciliation process unimpeded, without the machination of some States aiming to undermine the authority of this Council by reopening a decision that was already taken in 2008.

ASGAR SADRKHAN (Iran), speaking in a right of reply, said the judiciary in Iran had been flexible on the cases of criminals under 18 years of age. By virtue of Islamic canon law retributive justice was permitted but not in cases of minors. For adults extensive efforts were made to obtain consent of blood owners and obtaining of blood money. Support had been provided to families unable to pay the blood money. Citizens both men and women enjoyed the protection of the law in conformity with international humanitarian law. The constitution of Iran confirmed that all were under the protection of the law and none may be arrested on account of their beliefs, provided that those beliefs did not breach the laws of the country. The Baha’i organization was primarily a political organization based in occupied Palestine.

ABDERRAZZAK LAASSEL (Morocco), speaking in a right of reply, noted that the comments made by Algeria indicated it remained hostile to Morocco. Its discourse had neither credibility nor impact on Morocco. Democratic changes in Northern Africa showed the contradictory and opportunistic use given to the principle invoked by Algeria. Referring to the resolution, Algeria forgot to mention the international responsibility for violations of the 1951 Convention on refugees. Algeria was trying to get the attention of the Council and the international community to divert the attention from the critical situation in Algeria and a refugee camp closed to non-governmental organizations and the international press. Algeria got bogged down in its contradictions, affirming that the Western Sahara area was closed and at the same time noting that the Special Procedure mandate holder had recently visited Morocco, including this area. Algeria should address its domestic situation to ensure the recognition and respect of different cultures.

OSAMU SAKASHITA (Japan), speaking in a right of reply, said that the assertion by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that the abduction case had been settled was false. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had changed its position on the abduction issue and Japan urged the Government to establish an investigation in accordance with the original agreement to respond to the international community on the abduction issue. For the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to claim that the abduction issue was a political one was not fair because abductions were fundamentally human rights issues that tore apart families by separating children from their parents.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking in a second right of reply, said the Western Sahara was not recognized as part of Morocco. The human right to be considered was the right of self-determination of the Western Sahara. The comments of Morocco were aimed at distorting a human rights issue. Algeria had extended invitations to the Special Rapporteur to come to Algeria. Algeria would like him to go to Morocco. Algeria believed that speaking in favour of self-determination was an offence in Morocco.

KIM YONG HO (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea categorically rejected Japan’s claims. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reiterated that the Japanese abduction case had been resolved once and for all. The survivors had returned to Japan and their situation had been clarified. The consistent declarations of Japan on this case were only a consequence of a political agenda with regards to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Crimes committed by Japan in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were not even recognized by Japan, which raised the concerns of the international community concerning their possible repetition.

ABDERRAZZAK LAASSEL (Morocco), speaking in a second right of reply, said (in French)

OSAMU SAKASHITA (Japan), in a second right of reply, said there were five abductees that were freed and 12 cases were still pending and Japan affirmed that the abduction issue was therefore not resolved. The figures that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea mentioned on the issues of the past were groundless.
_________


1Joint statement: Arab Lawyers Union, International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), Union of Arab Jurists, United Towns Agency for North-South Cooperation, General Arab Women Federation, and International Educational Development.



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC11/126E