COMMISSION ESTABLISHES NEW MANDATES FOR EXPERTS ON MINORITY ISSUES, HUMAN RIGHTS AND COUNTERING TERRORISM AND THE SUDAN

Commission on Human Rights
MORNING

21 April 2005


Adopts Chairperson's Statements on Afghanistan and Haiti, Extends Mandate
of Expert on Somalia, Rejects Resolution on United States
Naval Base in Guantanamo


The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted resolutions in which it established new mandates for an Independent Expert on minority issues, a Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, and a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan.

As it continued to take action on remaining draft resolutions and decisions, the Commission, among other things, rejected a draft resolution on the question of detainees in the area of the United States naval base in Guantanamo. It also adopted two Chairperson's statements on Afghanistan and Haiti and extended the mandate of the Independent Expert on Somalia for one year.

In a resolution on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, the Commission urged all States to promote and protect the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities. It requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to appoint an Independent Expert on minority issues for a period of two years.

In a resolution on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Commission deeply deplored the suffering caused by terrorism to the victims and their families and expressed its profound solidarity with them. It decided to appoint, for a period of three years, a Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

And in a resolution on the human rights situation in the Sudan, the Commission condemned the continued, widespread and systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, by all parties. It decided to establish the mandate of a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan for one year.

In the Chairperson's statement on Afghanistan, the Commission welcomed the presidential elections of 9 October 2004 as an important signal of Afghanistan's commitment to democracy, and called upon the international community to support fully preparations for forthcoming elections September 2005. It urged the international community to continue to ensure support for peace and security, and encouraged Afghan authorities to develop a comprehensive plan on the rule of law, including law enforcement, prosecution, the judiciary and rehabilitation of the correctional system with specific regard to women's access to justice.

In the Chairperson's statement on Haiti, the Commission took note with pleasure of the measures progressively implemented by the Transition Authorities in Haiti to protect and promote human rights and recognized the economic difficulties faced by Haiti and the violence there. The international community was encouraged to continue to support the Transition Authorities in their efforts.

In a resolution on assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, the Commission invited all parties to support fully the new Transitional Federal Government, in order to move the peace and reconciliation processes forward. It also decided to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia for a further year.

The Commission also adopted a resolution on impunity in which it recognized that States must prosecute or extradite perpetrators, including accomplices, of international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture in accordance with their international obligations in order to bring them to justice. It also adopted a decision on enhancing and strengthening the effectiveness of the special procedures, by which it decided to organize an informal consultation between special procedure mandate holders and States, with participation from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and non-governmental organizations, on that issue.

Making general comments on the texts considered by the Commission today were the Representatives of Russian Federation, United States, Kenya, Indonesia, India, Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union and associated countries), Eritrea, Cuba, China, Pakistan, Sudan, Japan, Argentina, Australia and Brazil.

Making statements in an explanation of the vote during the Commission's consideration of the draft resolutions and decisions adopted today were the Representatives of Australia, United States, Mauritania, Honduras, Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union and associated countries), Indonesia, Peru, Costa Rica, India, Romania, Sudan and Malaysia.

Making statements in an explanation of the vote as the Commission concluded its consideration of agenda item 9 (the situation of human rights anywhere in the world) were the Representatives of Sri Lanka, Egypt, and Brazil (also on behalf of Argentina and Paraguay), while the Representative of China spoke in an explanation of the vote after the vote under agenda item 17 (the promotion and protection of human rights).

The Commission will meet again at 3 p.m. this afternoon to continue taking action on the remaining draft resolutions and decisions submitted for its consideration. The Commission will conclude its annual session on Friday, 22 April.

Action on Resolution on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Any Part of the World

Resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.33/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, was withdrawn.

ANNE GOEDERT (Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the European Union), said there was no need to present the resolution on the situation of human rights in Sudan, as the European Union and the co-sponsors were withdrawing the item. In the general statement under agenda item 9, the European Union had underlined that with regard to the situation of human rights in Sudan, the preferred option of the European Union was for close cooperation with the African Group. Today the European Union was able to congratulate itself that the cooperation with the African Group and the concerned country had resulted in an agreement which offered the best hopes for an end to the violations of human rights in Sudan, which were preoccupying and condemned. The European Union would return to the issue under item 19 of the agenda in the draft resolution E/CN.4/2005/L.36/Rev.3

Comments at the End of Taking Action on Resolutions on the Violation of Human Rights in Any Part of the World

SUGEESHWARA GUNARATNA (Sri Lanka), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote on the resolution on the human rights situation in Belarus, said Sri Lanka had an open commitment to cooperate with the Commission's special mechanisms, which was why Sri Lanka had voted for the resolution. However, the concerns expressed by several delegations that the Special Rapporteur had gone beyond his mandate had been carefully noted.

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said resolutions attacking individual countries under item 9 were rejected. The Commission had been composing resolutions that attacked countries, which was not the position of the Egyptian delegation.

CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote on behalf of Argentina and Paraguay, said that these countries had decided to abstain on the vote on L.31, as this resolution did not make any improvement with regard to the situation of human rights in Cuba. There was full support for the system of protection of human rights, and particularly for the activities of the Commission in improving the situation of human rights over the world. In this connection, there was concern that some member countries were using the Commission in order to criticise other countries and to avoid having their own countries criticised. This watered down the ability of the Commission to deal with human rights. It was essential for all States to guarantee human rights in agreement with the Convention on Human Rights. Within the context of dialogue with the Cuban Government, it would continue to stress the importance of human rights, and progress had been made in Cuba with regard to economic, social and cultural rights, and also regarding the recent decisions made in Cuba to free political prisoners.

Action on Resolution on Specific Groups and Individuals

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.62) on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, adopted as amended and without a vote, the Commission urged all States to promote and protect the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities; and called upon States to give special attention to the promotion and protection of the human rights of children belonging to minorities, taking into account that girls and boys may face different types of risks. The Commission also requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to appoint an Independent Expert on minority issues for a period of two years, with the mandate to promote the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities; to identify best practices and possibilities for technical cooperation by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights at the request of Governments; and to take into account the views of non-governmental organizations on matters pertaining to his/her mandate, among other things.

MIKE SMITH (Australia), in a general comment, said Australia fully recognized that the international community should take action to protect and promote the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities. Australia had worked hard to protect the diversity in the society. Australia supported the adoption of the draft. The creation of new mechanisms was necessary when it was required and where it would be effective.

Action on Resolutions on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.88) on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, adopted as amended and without a vote, the Commission deeply deplored the suffering caused by terrorism to the victims and their families and expressed its profound solidarity with them; called upon States to raise awareness of the importance of these obligations among national authorities involved in combating terrorism; and encouraged States, while countering terrorism, to take into account relevant United Nations resolutions and decisions on human rights. The Commission requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights, making use of existing mechanisms, to continue to examine the question of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, taking into account reliable information from all sources; to make general recommendations concerning the obligation of States to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms while taking actions to counter terrorism; and to provide assistance and advice to States, upon their request, on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, as well as to relevant United Nations bodies.

The Commission decided to appoint, for a period of three years, a Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, with the following mandate: to make concrete recommendations on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; to gather, request, receive and exchange information and communications from and with all relevant sources, with special attention on areas not covered by existing mandate holders; to identify, exchange and promote best practices on measures to counter terrorism that respected human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to work in close coordination with other Special Rapporteurs, Special Representatives, Working Groups and Independent Experts of the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and other United Nations relevant bodies.

GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV (Russian Federation), speaking in a general comment on L.88, said it was with satisfaction that L.89 was being withdrawn. The Russian Federation fully agreed with the ideas put forward in the Mexican resolution, which made an important contribution to the war against terrorism. Terrorists and terrorist groups were one of the major threats to human rights, as could be seen by the Vienna Action Plan. The Vienna Conference had appealed to the international community to enhance cooperation to combat terrorism. This was a global threat, which involved all aspects of life without exclusion, including the protection of human rights. Terrorists and those who helped them were a threat to the most important human rights, the right to life. In light of this, it was necessary to deal with this threat, both by protecting all from the threat and by observing human rights standards in this fight. These two issues were at the core of the fight, and it was only through a balanced, comprehensive approach would the fight be successful and an end put to the impunity enjoyed by terrorists while avoiding any departures from human rights standards. The delegation of Mexico and other co-sponsors were thanked for their constructive approach.

EVELYN ASWAD (United States), in a general comment, said the delegation of the United States was pleased to co-sponsor the draft, and was pleased that while creating a new special mechanism, the draft requested the High Commissioner to assist the various special procedures to enhance their coordination and to avoid duplicative efforts. There was an imperative to protect and promote human rights while countering terrorism, and the United States strongly agreed with that goal. The United States remained committed to the protection and promotion of human freedoms while countering terrorism, and to combating radicalism with justice and dignity in order to build true peace and human freedom. This was not merely a slogan or a truism, but something that all countries must take into account at the most fundamental level and act upon, even while confronting those committed to destroying their society. All should look at what they had done to combat terrorism, and what more they could do. All States should ratify the international counter-terrorism instruments, and work with the United Nations unit on terrorism, including by seeking the assistance of the Organization's terrorism branch if necessary. Only through a collaborative effort would the global fight against terrorism be won.

PHILLIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya), in a general comment, said the delegation of Kenya found the text to be a balanced one. As a victim of terrorist attacks, Kenya had continued to fight that phenomenon by safeguarding the human rights of all individuals. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should continue its assistance to countries involved in the countering of terrorism to strengthen their human rights protection.

ADE PADMO SARWONO (Indonesia), in a general comment, said Indonesia attached great importance to the issue under consideration. The issue of terrorism was of utmost importance to the international community. The indiscriminate acts of violence committed by terrorists threatened human rights, and yet the fight against terrorism should be in full conformity with international law and human rights principles including the principles of religious tolerance and non-discrimination. It should be fought in the framework of the United Nations. Indonesia supported the resolution, as it could contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of the fight against terrorism.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India), in a general comment, said the discussion today marked an important juncture in the Commission's discussion of terrorism. The Commission would recall that the delegation of India had been at the forefront of pointing to the many different facets terrorism could adopt, and the urgent need to take action in that context. It was important to recall the Secretary-General's message that terrorism was a threat to all that the United Nations stood for, and that the strategy against terrorism must be comprehensive, deterring people from acts of terrorism, denying financing and support to terrorism, and protecting human rights. The issue of proliferating mechanisms had concerned the Commission in previous instances, and India had great sympathy for that position. Thus, while India joined the consensus on the draft, it appreciated the focus on rationalization of the special mechanisms of the Commission.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.93) on impunity, adopted without a vote, the Commission recognized that States must prosecute or extradite perpetrators, including accomplices, of international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture in accordance with their international obligations in order to bring them to justice, and urged all States to take effective measures to implement these obligations. It also acknowledged that under the Rome Statute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes were not subject to any statutes of limitations and prosecutions of persons accused of these crimes should not be subject to any immunity, and urged States, in accordance with their obligations under applicable international law, to remove remaining statutes of limitations on such crimes and to ensure, if provided for by their obligations under international law, that official immunities rationae materiae do not encompass them. The Commission also urged all States to ensure that all military commanders and other superiors were aware of the circumstances in which they may be criminally responsible under international law for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes; and to bring to justice those responsible for gender-related crimes and crimes of sexual violence, including those that constituted, in defined circumstances, genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.

While recognizing the need to undertake a range of measures as part of a comprehensive approach towards combating impunity, the Commission urged States to consider institutional and legislative reform as necessary to ensure conformity with their international obligations. The Commission also encouraged States to strengthen training of police, investigative, prosecutorial and judicial personnel in human rights and international humanitarian law and to take appropriate measures that were in conformity with international law, in particular standards of justice, fairness and due process of law, to ensure that individuals who were personally responsible for gross violations of human rights did not remain in positions of public authority, as a guarantee of non-recurrence and to prevent future violations.

The Commission rejected the amendments to the draft resolution on impunity proposed by the United States by a recorded vote of one in favour to 36 against, with 15 abstentions.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (1): United States.

Against (36): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Congo, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (15): Bhutan, Burkina Faso, China, Egypt, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Togo.


LEONARD LEO (United States), in a general comment, introduced amendments to L.93 on impunity. In preambular paragraph 8, the insertion of "Noting the first referrals by States and the Security Council of situations to the Court and the ongoing investigations by the Prosecutor". In preambular paragraph 10, he introduced the following amendment: "Welcoming appropriate cooperation between international criminal tribunals, including sharing lessons learned and devising effective approaches to meet challenges faced, to advance the common goal of strengthening the international legal system in situations where national systems are unable or unwilling to take". Paragraph 9: "Recognizes the entry into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 1 July 2002, including that to date 98 States have ratified or acceded to the Rome Stature". Paragraph 10: "Recognizes the fundamental importance of the principle of complementarity..".

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union and the co-sponsors) in response to the amendments proposed by the United States, said the European Union attached great importance to the paragraphs referring to the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the language used was that of other agreed resolutions. It was clear that the ICC was making an important contribution to ending impunity where States required assistance in bringing perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity to account. The primary role of States in bringing the perpetrators of serious crimes was recognised, the ICC could only deal with this if the States brought them to it. These paragraphs were neutral, and were directly relevant to the resolution, which dealt for the most part with domestic efforts. None of the amendments put forward had been raised during the informal consultations. A vote was called on by the United States on the proposed amendments, and all were called upon to vote against them.

LEONARD LEO (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States shared the importance of combating impunity. However, the United States position on the Rome Statute was well known. The United States could not join in any positive statements about the International Criminal Court, or encourage other States to join the Rome Statute. Moreover, States that were not signatories to the Rome Statute had no obligations under that treaty unless the Security Council decided otherwise. The draft failed to recognize the importance of national law and domestic courts in dealing with criminal offences and fighting impunity. The United States maintained that the creation of national judicial systems with the independence and impartiality necessary to bring criminals to justice and to end impunity was the best way to achieve justice. Ignoring or turning a blind eye to that fact made it harder for States that truly cared about ending impunity to recruit a broad international coalition to pool resources and help countries build capacity to address human rights violations through domestic courts. Moreover, the draft attempted to impose absolute requirements that were not appropriate to a common law system with an independent prosecutor and judiciary.

These were important features of a criminal justice system, which had the capacity to promote and defend human rights. Also, the term "international crimes" was misleading and incorrect, in that the offences in question were simply crimes that were prosecuted in domestic courts or in international courts established by treaty or United Nations direction. The United States had a vast array of national, state and local laws that directed law enforcement to carry out their responsibility humanely, and when abused occurred, United States courts acted with speed. The United States could not support the escalating enthusiasm for making euphoric prognostications about the International Criminal Court. The United States joined the consensus with the expectation that Member States would respect the spirit of multilateral cooperation by forging future resolutions that did not create controversy and divisiveness where none needed to exist.

Comments at the End of Taking Action on Resolutions on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the delegation of China had joined the consensus in adopting the resolution on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The international community should protect the human rights of all people. Terrorists killed innocent people without distinction. Human rights should be protected as the fight against terrorism was engaged. The existing instruments on human rights should be respected while fighting terrorism. He was worried about the proliferation of special mechanisms. The special mechanism to be established under L.88 should not go against the existing mechanisms. It would be a duplication of the work of other special mechanisms.

Action on Resolutions on Advisory Services and Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.36/Rev.3) on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, adopted without a vote, the Commission condemned the continued, widespread and systematic violations, by all parties, of human rights and international humanitarian law as reflected in the findings of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur; the violence against civilians and sexual violence against women and girls, destruction of villages, widespread displacement and other violations in Darfur and urged all parties to take necessary steps to prevent further violations; the prevailing situation in the Darfur region of the Sudan, in particular the humanitarian crisis and the continued reported violations of human rights, including attacks against civilians committed by all parties, particularly the Janjaweed and other armed militias, and reiterated the need to control, disarm and disband these militias and bring to justice all those responsible for human rights violations in Darfur; violations of the Ceasefire Agreement concluded in N'Djamena on 8 April 2004 and the Abuja Protocols of 9 November 2004 by all parties to the conflict in Darfur and the impact this has had on humanitarian efforts; and violations of human rights anywhere in the Sudan.

The Commission called upon the parties to the conflict to resume immediately the Abuja talks with a view to arriving at a lasting and durable negotiated settlement; to observe the humanitarian ceasefire and grant immediate, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to Darfur and elsewhere in the Sudan; to cease all acts of violence immediately, and protect women and girls from sexual and other forms of violence; to respect the rights of refugees and internally displaced persons and their right of voluntary return in safety and dignity; to prevent the recruitment of children as soldiers and combatants; and to stop immediately the abduction and murdering of relief workers by the armed groups. It also called upon the Government of the Sudan to stop and investigate violations of human rights and to bring the perpetrators to justice and end impunity for crimes committed in Darfur; to disarm the Janjaweed militias; to promote the respect for human rights and international humanitarian law throughout the country, and protect the human rights of all persons, in particular those of internally displaced persons and refugees; to improve security in and around the internally displaced persons' camps; and to exert maximum efforts for promoting the social peaceful coexistence between different tribes in Darfur, among other things.

The Commission also called on the international community to expand its support for the efforts and activities of the African Union aimed at bringing about peace in the Sudan; and requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to increase and speed up the deployment of human rights monitors in Darfur to complement the African Union mission in the Sudan. The Commission also requested the High Commissioner to extend technical assistance and advisory services to the Government of the Sudan with a view to enhancing the national capacity in the field of human rights. Lastly, it decided to establish the mandate of a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan for one year and requested the Special Rapporteur to monitor the situation of human rights in the Sudan and to submit an interim report to the General Assembly at its sixtieth session, and to report to the Commission at its sixty-second session.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union), said the European Union was pleased to note the adoption of the resolution on the situation of human rights in the Sudan introduced under this agenda item, and in particular with the commitment of the African Group in drafting the resolution, which was well-balanced and respected the concerns of the European Union with regard to the situation in the Sudan and in particular Darfur. Access for human rights observers to those detained because of the situation in Darfur should be ensured. The good guidance that had been given by the Ambassador of Ethiopia in this process was also greatly appreciated.

RUDOLPH E. BOSCHWITZ (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, noted that the world had taken action with regard to the Sudan during the past five weeks of the Commission's session. The Security Council had welcomed the comprehensive North-South peace agreement and had established a peacekeeping mission to help consolidate those developments. Donor nations had met in Oslo, Norway, and had pledged $4.5 billion to reconstruction, development and humanitarian aid in the country. Those positive expressions of concern underscored the will of the international community to aid Sudan in the establishment of peace, national reconstruction and respect for human rights.

The Security Council had also taken action on Darfur, he added, including by imposing measures to compel the authorities to comply with their obligations to end violence and ensure respect for human rights. It had also laid out a framework for ending impunity. And yet, the terrible tragedy continued in Darfur, where violence, atrocities, and crimes against humanity regularly occurred. Attacks on humanitarian workers continued, and displaced people, especially women, remained vulnerable to murder, rape and abuse. While the African Union had done a commendable job of reducing violence in areas it patrolled, the security situation remained precarious in large portions of the region. Moreover, the United States continued to be outraged by reports of the 7 April attack on the village of Khor Abeche by 350 tribal militia members, which had been one of the most severe violations of the ceasefire agreement to date. The Government of Sudan must implement its obligation to control Government-supported tribal militias, and to disarm and disband the Janjaweed.

Throughout the course of the Commission, the United States had insisted on dealing with human rights abuses in Sudan in a factual and realistic fashion. The United Nations must lend its weight to ensure that abusers of human rights, whether Government or rebel, were held accountable for their actions. The present draft had been subjected to a series of intense discussions and negotiations. Commending those who had worked hard on the negotiations, the United States observed that the draft now met the standard required for a credible Commission on Human Rights position, and reflected the facts regarding egregious abuses in Darfur, in that it condemned those responsible for the atrocities, including the Government of Sudan, and provided for a strong mechanism for investigating ongoing human rights abuses. The United States would thus join the consensus on the draft.

SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation), in a general comment, said that in the statement that the delegation of the Russian Federation had made on agenda item 10, it had stressed the importance of involving the country concerned in the discussions on a country resolution. The work of the African Union was greatly appreciated. The State Members of the European Union and the African Union had been successful in agreeing on a generally agreeable text that reflected the situation on the ground, and in creating a real model for such situations. This strategy should be used more in the future.

AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea), in a general comment, said Eritrea had had great reservations about the text. However, those concerns had been addressed in the revised text, and Eritrea could now join the consensus and support the draft's adoption.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a general comment, said it was quite pleased that it had been possible to reach consensus on the draft resolution, even if this was due to the flexibility of one of the parties. Countries of the North had maintained an inflexible position on the text, and this was nothing new, including on a certain number of elements which ought to have been put in a resolution under item 9. There were reservations on some parts of the resolution, which seemed to have more to do with the activities of the Security Council, rather than the Commission. The determination of the Sudanese delegation to collaborate had not been sufficiently taken into account. Cuba would go along with consensus, but would like its reservations taken into account.

PHILLIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya), in a general comment, said that Kenya supported the statement made by Ethiopia on behalf of the African Group. The text's adoption by consensus was a clear indication that the Commission could indeed address the situation of human rights anywhere in the world in a manner that would make a difference on the ground. The Member States had adopted a constructive approach and an attitude of engagement instead of condemnation. Kenya appreciated the capacity of the Government of Sudan to cooperate in a constructive and pragmatic manner to address this grave situation, and had been happy to take part in the negotiations. The international community should demonstrate a similar attitude to enable the Government to meet the commitments enumerated in the resolution. The international community owed this to the people of the Sudan, and to the people of Darfur in particular, and must not let them down.

SHA ZUKANG (China), in a general comment, said the problem in Darfur dated back a long time, and the resolution required a proper process. In the view of the Chinese delegation, the starting point for resolving the situation lay in resolving the humanitarian situation in Darfur, restoring peace and economic development and promoting national reconciliation. The practice of peace between the North and South showed that political means were the sole means for solving the situation and were a precondition for solving the humanitarian situation. The international community should stress the importance of encouraging the Government to continue to make efforts in this respect instead of constantly addressing criticism and condemnation. The Government and the rebels should be encouraged to find a speedy political settlement.

China believed that it was necessary to increase humanitarian assistance to the population of Darfur rather than artificially create obstacles to the efforts of finding assistance. The positive efforts and the tireless work of the Secretary-General and his Special Representative to mitigate tensions in the region were appreciated. African countries were best placed to understand African countries and best placed to give their views on matters concerning African States. China appreciated the support by the African Union, which had played an important role in resolving the problems, and the contributions made by them in this respect. The Sudanese Government had also displayed good will and willingness to resolve the problem and had adopted various measures in this respect. China had observed that various parties had already arrived at consensus, and China would join this, however, it also considered that this draft resolution could be more balanced, more specifically, the draft resolution should give a positive and objective assessment of the efforts made by the Government of the Sudan. The Chinese Government attached great importance to the situation in Darfur, and was concerned for the humanitarian situation there, and was working actively for an appropriate resolution to the problem, and in order to do so had and would continue to provide assistance to the Sudan and the African Union.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), in a general comment, said Pakistan was pleased to note that consensus had been achieved on the draft resolution. Painful concessions had been made by both the European Union and the Sudan. Yet cooperation had led to consensus, and the Commission did not face another painful vote. The Sudanese Government's establishment of the national Commission of Inquiry and the commitment to prosecute violators of human rights were welcomed, and would hopefully improve the situation. She also commended the Government's efforts to engage with the international community, and to work with it. The establishment of the Government of national unity was a positive development.

ELSADIG ALMAGLY (Sudan), in a general comment, thanked all those who had supported the efforts of the Sudan in establishing peace in the region. Following several rounds of negotiations with groups and delegations, it became increasingly evident that the negotiations his delegation went through especially with the European Union delegation was nothing but an exercise of establishing yet a new trend in the Commission by which those delegations tended to transfer the language and phraseology usually utilized in resolutions under agenda item 9 to resolutions under agenda item 19. The delegation of the Sudan had joined the consensus on the adoption of draft resolution L.36 Rev. 3 on the issue of human rights in the Sudan, on the understanding that cooperation was the best means for accomplishing the Commission objective of promoting and protecting human rights in all parts of the world. The Sudan strongly believed that the negotiations with the Europe Union were marred with inflexibility. The expected spirit of cooperation, transparency and good will was evidently lacking in view of the Union tabling a draft resolution under item 9 parallel to the African text, and their insistence to proceed on "two tracks" as such. The pre-determined attitude of condemning, shaming and naming unfortunately prevailed.

The African unified position vis-à-vis human rights issues was the best way to address human rights violations with a solid view to indefinitely preventing those violations and addressing their root causes, including poverty and economic underdevelopment. Dissemination of inaccurate and unverified information was an impediment to efforts genuinely exerted to address human rights issues. Based on such grounds, the Union had chosen to follow the convenience of addressing domestic groups and pleasing public opinion in view of upcoming elections in some of those countries, thereby escaping forward instead of joining the good will to cooperate. The Government of the Sudan was expressing strong reservations regarding the following references injected by the Union in the draft resolution casting doubts on the willingness, partiality and independence of the Sudanese judiciary; approval, acquiescence or otherwise accepting or participation of the Government in acts of violations of human rights; tolerance of impunity; and the linkage between the Government of the Sudan and out law militias.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.75) on assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission invited all parties, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and African Union Member States to support fully the new Transitional Federal Government in Somalia to move the peace and reconciliation processes forward; expressed deep concern at the reported cases of rape, arbitrary and summary executions, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and violence, including domestic violence, in particular against women and children, and at the absence of an effective judicial system, essential to ensure the right to a fair trial in accordance with international standards; at the practice of asiwalid, whereby parents send their disobedient children to be kept in prison until they ordered them to be released, which continued to prevail with all the negative human rights implications this entailed; and the continued and protracted flow of refugees and the displacement of an estimated 400,000 internally displaced persons in Somalia as a result, among other things, of drought and intermittent clan conflicts.

The Commission called upon the Transitional Federal Government to establish an independent national commission on human rights, in accordance with the Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles); and to support appropriate investigations throughout Somalia in order to combat impunity, to bring perpetrators to justice, and to establish an effective, efficient and non-gender-biased justice system, including the juvenile justice system. Moreover, the Commission firmly condemned the serious violations of the commitment undertaken by the parties on 27 October 2002, which included acts of violence such as hostage-taking, abduction and murder, including of humanitarian relief workers and United Nations agency personnel; the ongoing widespread violations and abuse of human rights and humanitarian law against internally displaced persons, refugees, minorities, vulnerable groups, women and children, including the nearly universal practice of female genital mutilation, particularly the practice of infibulation; and the forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict, the use of these children in armed conflict by militias, the practice of child labour, particularly domestic labour, and the involvement of children in exploitative and hazardous labour, and a juvenile justice system not in accordance with international standards.

The Commission also called upon the parties throughout Somalia to strengthen their commitment to the establishment and functioning of Transitional Federal Institutions; upon all States to commit themselves to the long-term objective of regional stability; upon all stakeholders to support the establishment of a stronger field presence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Somalia; upon the United Nations, non-governmental organizations and the Bretton Woods institutions to speed up the implementation of their projects, in particular in the fields of human rights; and also upon the United Nations and its Member States to support the Somali-led efforts, as well as those of the African Union, to improve the security situation in Somalia. The Commission further called upon all parties to stop all acts of violence, to abstain from engaging in hostilities and to prevent any act likely to increase tension and insecurity; and upon all Member States to provide political support to the Somali National Reconciliation Process within the framework and under the aegis of the Coordination and Monitoring Committee. Lastly, the Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia for a further year.

HIDENOBU SOBASHIMA (Japan) in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said with respect to the political and diplomatic support to the transitional Government mentioned in the resolution, Japan would like to mention the support provided by various countries in this respect.

Chairperson's Statement on Afghanistan

The Commission adopted a Chairperson's statement by which it welcomed the presidential elections undertaken by the Afghan Transitional Authority and the United Nations which took place on 9 October 2004 as an important signal of Afghanistan's commitment to democracy, and called upon the international community to fully support the preparation for forthcoming elections being undertaken by the Afghan Government and the United Nations in September 2005. It called upon all relevant actors to work towards free and fair elections and to bear in mind the equal right of women to vote and be elected, and in this regard welcomed that on the occasion of the presidential elections 40 per cent of voters were women. The Commission emphasized that the new Afghan Constitution committed the Afghan people to the creation of a society free from oppression, discrimination and violence and based on social justice, democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Commission also expressed concern for the continuing and serious incidence of violence and abuse against women and girls, as well as reports of children abduction and smuggling, in particular in rural areas, and called for the adoption of comprehensive anti-trafficking legislation.

The Commission stressed that the security situation remained fragile due to extremist violence, factionalism and drug trafficking and increasing criminality related to it, and strongly emphasized that an environment free from violence, discrimination and abuse, for all Afghans, was essential for a viable and sustainable recovery and reconstruction process and the concomitant protection and promotion of human rights. In this regard, it also emphasized the importance of the safety of returning refugees and internally displaced persons and also the need for safety, security and free movement of all United Nations personnel and associated personnel involved in humanitarian and reconstruction work. The Commission strongly urged the international community to continue to ensure support for peace and security. It also encouraged Afghan authorities to develop a comprehensive plan on the rule of law, including law enforcement, prosecution, the judiciary and rehabilitation of the correctional system with specific regard to women's access to justice. Lastly, the Commission welcomed recent development towards a long-term and multi-faceted strategy for transitional justice, including the report "A Call for Justice" of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, submitted to President Karzai on 29 January 2005, and its recommendations, and underlined the importance of a credible process of transitional justice for national reconciliation and confidence building, led by the Government of Afghanistan with the support of the international community.

Chairperson's Statement on Haiti

The Commission adopted a Chairperson's statement on Haiti in which it took note with pleasure of the measures progressively implemented by the Transition Authorities in Haiti to protect and promote human rights and recognized the economic difficulties faced by Haiti, and the violence there. The international community was encouraged to continue to support the Transition Authorities in their efforts. The Commission noted with concern the difficulties in the functioning of the judiciary system with regard to time periods of preventive detention. The Transition Authorities were encouraged to continue their action for a more rapid process of justice and were invited to put all in favour of a better functioning of the services of legal medicine and scientific police. They were called upon to respect more rigorously the rules of police conduct. Furthermore, the Commission welcomed the creation of a National Commission of Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration as an important contribution to the re-establishment of security in the long term in Haiti. The Commission thanked the Independent Expert for his report (E/CN.4/2005/123) and invited him to continue his mission. The Transition Authorities were encouraged to continue their cooperation with the Independent Expert and to continue the implementation of his recommendations.

Action on Decision on Rationalization of the Work of the Commission

In a decision (E/CN.4/2005/L.98) on enhancing and strengthening the effectiveness of the special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission, taking note of the initial discussion paper entitled "Enhancing the effectiveness of the special mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights" prepared by the experts of the Asian Group on human rights at the request of the Asian Group ambassadors, as well as written responses to it, and bearing in mind the report contained in document E/CN.4/2000/112 and its decision 2000/109 of 26 April 2000, as well as Action 4 as contained in the report of the Secretary-General entitled "Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change" (A/57/387 and Corr.1) decided to request the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to transmit the initial discussion paper and the responses to it to the special procedures mandate holders and to solicit their views, including on any additional contributions from all relevant stakeholders; to organize an informal consultation between the special procedures mandate holders and States, with the participation of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, devoted to an exchange of views on the issues contained therein for enhancing and strengthening the effectiveness of the special procedures of the Commission at their annual meeting in 2005; to study the issues raised in the initial discussion paper and contributions to it in light of Commission decision 2000/109 as well as of Action 4 and identify the practical steps taken by her Office to address these issues; to organize an open-ended seminar during 2005, from within existing resources, in consultation with the Expanded Bureau of the Commission, as part of the effort to enhance and strengthen the effectiveness of the special procedures; and to submit a report on the implementation of the present decision to the Commission at its sixty-second session.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union), said the European Union had been committed to further improving, enhancing and strengthening the effectiveness of the special procedures of the Commission, and had engaged in achieving a consensual decision that would facilitate inter-sessional discussions to further improve the valuable system of special procedures providing the Commission with precious analysis on thematic and country situations. The European Union appreciated the efforts of the Asian regional group to contribute to the inter-sessional process and its active role when drafting the decision.

The European Union believed that it would be advisable that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights took stock of the current status of the special procedures before any further enhancement and strengthening of the system took place. Furthermore, the European Union looked forward to participating in an inter-sessional process which would reflect on all the inputs and would provide for equal standing of all stakeholders. The European Union supported the draft decision, and therefore encouraged its consensual adoption.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India), in a general comment, said it had not been the intention of India to make a substantive comment on the programme budget implication of the draft resolution, but stressed that the seriousness of the proliferation issue had been underlined by the amount needed to finance all of the conference services for the seminars mandated, and for the 45 special mechanism mandate holders. There was a blind proliferation of issues and special mechanisms before the Commission, which added special mechanisms without wrapping up the mandates of existing ones. Moreover, amid the carnival atmosphere of the Commission, no one even accorded these Special Rapporteurs the courtesy of listening to them.

LA YIFAN (China), in a general comment, referring to the project budget implications with the organization of the seminar, said 45 special procedures mandate-holders would be invited. But it did not mention the venue and the duration of the seminar. The expense had been estimated to be US$246,400; on what basis was the expense for the seminar established?

The Secretariat of the Commission, responding to the statements made by India and China, said regarding the project budget implications, the most contentious part appeared to be in the fifth paragraph of the oral statement on this topic. This related to the organization of an open-ended seminar, and the figures had been based on an assumption that included travel costs and subsistence for a 5-day meeting in Geneva. This was preliminary, and would be refined depending on the number of mandate holders that would be invited. A final document would be prepared for the Economic and Social Council, and the modalities would be approved by them.

HIDENOBU SOBASHIMA (Japan), in a general comment, said the delegation of Japan shared the general sentiments expressed. However, Japan would like to point to the provision, in paragraph D of the text, that the seminar to be organized should be financed from within existing resources. It was on that understanding that Japan had co-sponsored the draft.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), in a general comment, said the Asian proposition should not be the only basis for the draft. With regard to the seminar, Argentina had not yet responded to paragraph A an D. The issue should also include decision 2000/109, not only the Asian proposition.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), in a general comment, said the Indian Ambassador had raised a pertinent point. The Secretariat was thinking of a 5-day meeting, but this could be shorted, and would save on costs. The funding of this meeting should not come from existing budgetary funds, but from existing voluntary funds. When thinking of inviting 40-odd Special Rapporteurs, this was in the hands of the High Commissioner, who might like to invite a more limited of Special Rapporteurs, and this would be a good reflection of her thinking. A smaller number would also save on costs.

MIKE SMITH (Australia), in a general comment, said Australia agreed with most of the observations made by India, particularly with the need to review the mandates of special mechanisms that had continued for some time. Australia also agreed that the costs looked like an awful lot of money. Holding the annual meeting of the Special Rapporteurs and the seminar to be convened at the same time would substantially reduce the cost. Perhaps the annual meeting of the Special Rapporteurs could be delayed to coincide with the seminar.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA GONGORA (Mexico), in a general comment, said the delegation of Mexico was concerned that no substantive discussion had been carried out on the issue presented by the Asian Group. There was a regional difference that could be resolved through discussion. The views of the non-governmental organization should be taken into considerations.

CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil), in a general comment, said the delegation of Brazil would join consensus if there existed a consensus on the draft text that was just submitted by the Republic of Korea on behalf of the Asian Group. The concerns of the Ambassador of India were fully shared with regard to the utilisation of funds and resources for this kind of meeting. When Brazil was discussing with delegations the idea of the proposal of a global report, it had tried to explore a number of different ideas, one of which was to have a feasibility study, a number of delegations that were now urging the use of voluntary funds, said that there were no funds for this, and this was a valid point regarding politicisation of the Commission. Funding was an important issue, not just an administrative one, and it was directly related to political decisions. If funds were used, it had to be utterly clear what these funds were used for.
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), in a general comment, said that Cuba unequivocally supported the current text, which was absolutely balanced and sought a framework for debate of a collective nature, which was increasingly rare. The draft sought to convene a seminar for comments, oral and in writing, and Cuba supported the draft submitted by the Asian Group.

Action on Resolution on Organization of the Work of the Commission

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.94/Rev.1) on the question of detainees in the area of the United States naval base in Guantanamo, rejected by a roll-call vote of eight in favour to 22 against, with 23 abstentions, the Commission would have requested the Government of the United States to authorize an impartial and independent fact-finding mission by the relevant special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of detainees at its naval base in Guantanamo.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (8): China, Cuba, Guatemala, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Against (22): Armenia, Australia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Finland, France, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mauritania, Netherlands, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (23): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Indonesia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Togo and Ukraine.


MOHAMED SALECK OULD MOHAMED LEMINE (Mauritania), in a general comment, said the draft resolution should have been treated under item 11, invoking civil and political rights. The delegation of Mauritania could not support the draft. He urged all States to cooperate with the Working Group on arbitrary detention and the Commission to see that detentions were made in keeping in line with the international standard on detention.

LINO PIEDRA (United States) in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States opposed and would call for a vote on the resolution. It was a blatant retaliatory act for the adoption of L.31 and had nothing to do with human rights. It was a mirror highlighting the contrast between a country like the United States, and a country like Cuba. It was ironic that the country sponsoring the resolution had denied access to Special Rapporteurs and the Red Cross. Cuba had long lost the high ground when it came to Commission mechanisms. Countries should reject this resolution, which called for an impartial investigation in Guantanamo. This was already occurring, and was being done by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which had had repeated and regular access to the detainees, monitoring that they were being treated acceptably, and had met with officials of the United States Government at the highest levels. The issue raised difficult issues that could raise passions and criticisms, but the international community had been witness to unimaginable situations in Cuba, including it refusing access to detainees to monitor their situation. Both American and international media continued to provide comprehensive coverage and analysis of this issue.

Regarding the substance of the resolution, the United States had maintained a dialogue with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Rapporteurs on this issue, and had provided written information and responses, and provided briefings. The question of access was one that continued to be under serious consideration and review. The resolution was based upon a false premise. Even the totality of these factual considerations did not justify this resolution, which was out of order, out of place, and unworthy of consideration by the Commission, and it should be rejected.

J. BENJAMIN ZAPATA (Honduras), speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the draft presently in front of the Commission did not take a balanced and comprehensive approach to the question of Guantanamo Bay. There had been ample opportunity to discuss this issue in a careful and analytical manner for a long time now. The 1503 procedure had considered this matter in order to determine what kind of communications could be received, and thousands of communications had already been received on this subject. He was struck by the fact that the Working Group under 1503 had decided not to proceed with consideration of the matter. Why had that Working Group not made a recommendation on the matter? Could it be because of dissatisfaction with the kind of information received from the country concerned?

The position of Honduras was that the draft disregarded the facts of the situation at Guantanamo. For instance, the International Committee of the Red Cross had visited the base, which was something to which other countries had not agreed. The United States had also held discussions with the special mechanisms on the mandates they might have to visit Guantanamo Bay on future occasions. It was unusual to see a text being used to appeal to a country to do something that it was already doing. One could see the internal debate in the United States society from the media coverage of it. Legal and juridical mechanisms were also considering this issue. Within the context of reform, the issue of loss of credibility had been referred to, primarily as a result of the politicization of the Commission. This was an example of that politicization, the priorities of the draft were not the protection and promotion of human rights, and Honduras would vote against it for that reason.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, in a general comment on behalf of the European Union), said the European Union condemned all acts of terrorism. The resolution on the fight to combat terrorism had been already submitted to the Commission and had been was adopted. The Union was satisfied that the United States had taken the initiative to allow visits to the place of detention in Guantanamo. Some countries might not allow others to visit their prisons. The Union could not support the draft resolution.

EDDI HARIYADHI (Indonesia), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said this resolution related to terrorism which was of importance to Indonesia. Being a non-traditional threat, this had been dealt with by special measures, some of which could be called non-traditional means. It was important for the international community to enhance cooperation in many fields, as this provided the best opportunity to address terrorism efficiently. Effective measures to combat it should be done in the framework of the United Nations. The promotion and protection of human rights should be conducted through dialogue and cooperation. Any measure in the context of combating terrorism should be in conformity with international laws as well as protect human rights. With regard to the draft resolution, Indonesia was of the view that the matter should be treated by enhancing dialogue and cooperation between the two concerned countries, and this was why Indonesia would abstain from the vote.

ELIZABETH ASTETE RODRIGUEZ (Peru), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the situation of those being held in Guantanamo was a matter of legitimate concern for the international human rights system. At the level of this Commission, a number of special procedures had referred to the situation during the current session, including those mandated to consider torture, arbitrary detention, independence of the judiciary, and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The matter had also been addressed under the 1503 procedure. The United States had informed the Commission of measures being taken to improve the human rights situation of those in detention. Senior officials of the Government had come to meet with these special mechanisms on the possibility of a future visit to Guantanamo, which Peru hoped would soon take place. From the outset, the United States had allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit the premise. Moreover, a number of judicial bodies within the United States had called for clarification of the detainees, and for improvement of the human rights situation there. These various activities should result in the speedy improvement of the human rights situation of those being held at Guantanamo. Various procedures of the Commission had already addressed the issue, and the United States had cooperated with them, which state of affairs was not reflected in the draft, which prompted Peru to vote against it. The special mechanisms of the Commission already addressing this issue should continue to do so.

LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Costa Rica), in a general comment, said that in 2004, four special procedures had expressed concern about the situation in Guantanamo and had requested visits. The United States was one of those countries that encouraged visits in many places. The special procedures should be encouraged to conduct investigations. The delegation of Costa Rica would not support the draft resolution.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said India had often felt unhappiness at country-specific resolutions. Whilst the Commission had succeeded this year to a limited extent at reducing resolutions under agenda item 9, country-specific resolutions were now being submitted under agenda items 19 and 3 as well. It was for this reason, and without prejudice for India's views on detention, that India had decided to vote against this resolution.

IAN FERGUSON (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of Canada had carefully reviewed the contents of the draft resolution, including its merits and in light of the concerns expressed about the legal situation of detainees, and assurances made by authorities of the United States Government in that respect. Also noting the ongoing dialogue between the United States and concerned special procedures of the Commission, as well as the United States' expressed interest to permit a visit of those special procedures, Canada had doubts about whether the draft would be necessary or helpful to such a visit, and would abstain on the vote. The United States should cooperate fully with the relevant special procedures of the Commission.

DORU COSTEA (Romania), in a general comment, said the delegation of Romania endorsed the statement made by the European Union and would not support the draft resolution.

ELSADIG ALMAGLY (Sudan), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it was the first time a country in the free world was being put to the question. This was perhaps a step forwards, irrespective of the content of the resolution. There was a matter of double standards here regarding resolutions and their content. The United States was shedding light on this matter through the constructive interactive dialogue it had held with a number of geographical groups, and this had taken place for the first time. The American delegation had been unable to answer two very important questions posed by the participants in the dialogue: on the ambiguity and fluid nature of the situation of the detainees in Guantanamo and whether they would ever leave there, even after the end of the war; and on the definition of the term of prisoners of war and enemy combatants, as the American delegation had been unable to define these and make a clear distinction between the two. This resolution was probably out of place, but each State had the right to present a resolution, and to vote for or against a resolution.

HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) said the Commission was about to take action on one of the fundamental aspects of its mandate, consideration of the situation of human rights anywhere in the world. Consideration of the draft resolution constituted part of these efforts, as it presented the opportunity to address the concern and anxiety expressed by international society on the question of the human rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The consideration would allow the Commission to demonstrate whether it would live up to its commitments to address human rights situations anywhere in the world in a fair and balanced manner. The text addressed a specific question, not the situation of human rights in a specific country. It did not target any specific country in a negative and censorious manner, as was often seen under agenda item 9. It constituted an attempt to address a specific human rights question to dispel worries about it. It was in the best interest of the international community for these questions to be addressed through the machinery of the Commission. The draft would do much to revitalize the international fight against terrorism. For these reasons, Malaysia would support the draft resolution.

* *** *
For use of information only; not an official record