COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS REJECTS MOTION TO HOLD SPECIAL SITTING ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN SITUATION IN IRAQ

Commission on Human Rights
59th session
27 March 2003
Morning




Hears Statements by Foreign Minister of Ireland
and Director-General of Human Rights of Council of Europe



The Commission on Human Rights this morning rejected a motion to hold a special sitting on the human rights and humanitarian situation in Iraq during its current session.
The proposal was defeated by a vote of 18 in favour to 25 against, with 7 abstentions. The motion, if accepted, would have been entitled "Special sitting of the fifty-ninth session of the Commission on Human Rights on human rights and humanitarian situation in Iraq as consequences of the war".
In explanations of votes before the vote, several delegations expressed the view that the Commission was not the appropriate forum to discuss the human rights and humanitarian situation of Iraq, saying that the Security Council was currently debating the issue.
Speakers in favour of the proposal underlined that the war against Iraq was unilateral and illegal, without any justification. The war had inflicted a heavy loss of human life among Iraqis, besides the material damage it was causing.
Following the vote, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello stated that the human rights of the Iraqi people had been violated for many years, and that in the current crisis, humanitarian law and fundamental human rights should be protected on the ground by the parties to the conflict.
Also this morning, the Commission was addressed by two high-level officials from Ireland and the Council of Europe.
Brian Cowen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, said that recent events had shown that it was more important than ever that the international community should aim at creating a more humane world where people could live in security and dignity, free from want and fear, and with equal opportunities to fully develop their human potential. Threats to, and violations of, human rights were the greatest source of insecurity in the world today, he added.
Mr. Cowen also said that the world looked with deep concern at the situation in Iraq; lives had been lost, including those of innocent civilians; the Iraqi people had suffered enormously over the years and one should hope that the suffering would soon end. He urged all parties to the conflict to do their utmost to spare the civilian population.
Pierre-Henri Imbert, the Director-General of Human Rights of the Council of Europe, said that the responses to the terrorist acts on 11 September 2001 and the current international crisis had seriously challenged the international community's belief in the strength of human rights, and its ambition to continue to ensure that they progressed throughout the world. But it was precisely in times like this, when human rights values were threatened even more than usual, that one should redouble efforts and be particularly attentive to the risks of their being violated, he added.
National representatives from Cuba, Saudi Africa, Algeria, Libya, Zimbabwe, Syria, Pakistan and Malaysia made general statements on the holding of the special sitting on Iraq.
The representatives of the following countries spoke in explanation of their votes before the vote: Ireland (on behalf of the European Union), Japan, Bahrain, Brazil, Sri Lanka, Australia, Canada, Viet Nam, Republic of Korea, Venezuela, India, Thailand, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Chile, China and Kenya. Explanations after the vote were given by Mexico, South Africa and the United States.
Iraq made a right of reply.
The Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to hear statements from non-governmental organizations on the right to development before starting its agenda item on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine.

Statements by High-Level Officials
BRIAN COWEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, said he believed in the requirement for a new concept of security, centred on human beings, as distinguished from the more traditional approach of state security. That concept was central to the Human Security Network, of which Ireland was a member. As such, Ireland was committed to moving that people-centred approach to the forefront of the debate in the international arena. The elements that made up the concept of human security -- the promotion of human rights, the advancement of human safety, the protection of human lives -- were also among the guiding principles that should inform all in their work in the Commission. Human security would begin with human rights. Advancing the human security agenda was essential both because of the moral imperative to uphold fundamental values and also because it enabled the international community to make a practical and effective contribution to peace and justice throughout the world.
Mr. Cowen said that recent events had shown that it was more important than ever that the international community should aim at creating a more humane world where people could live in security and dignity, free from want and fear, and with equal opportunities to fully develop their human potential. Threats to, and violations of, human rights were the greatest source of insecurity in the world today. The primary responsibility for the protection of human rights rested with individual States. Where a State threatened human rights, it threatened not only the security of its own people but the security of the international community. The whole international community was legitimately and rightly concerned about situations where human rights and human security were threatened or violated. A country which was not prepared to embrace a strong domestic human rights policy was unlikely to be a credible advocate for the promotion and protection of human rights in its external relations.
The world looked in deep concern at the situation in Iraq, the Minister said. Lives had been lost, including those of innocent civilians. The Iraqi people had suffered enormously over the years and one should hope that the suffering would soon end. All parties to the conflict should do their utmost to spare the civilian population. International humanitarian law and human rights norms and standards set clear limits to the actions of the belligerent and should be fully respected.
Mr. Cowen further said that the current session of the Commission was taking place under exceptional circumstances. While the international community faced various difficulties, it also had grounds for hope. The inauguration of the International Criminal Court was a clear signal of the determination of the international community to bring to justice those who perpetrated genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The perpetrators of human rights violations should be held to account and their impunity ended.
Mr. Cowen concluded that this was a moment of trial for the world; a moment of challenge for the United Nations system. One should redouble efforts to achieve a better and safer world for all the people. At the Commission and at other United Nations fora, the international community should seek to build a world based on the recognition of the inherent dignity of all and of the equal enjoyment of human rights by all members of the human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace.
PIERRE-HENRI IMBERT, Director-General of Human Rights of the Council of Europe, said that the Commission had opened during a particularly delicate political situation, with the armed conflict in Iraq and the disagreement over military action. In times such as these, many might be inclined to consider human rights issues as being "irrelevant" and might take no interest in the work of international organizations in that field. The responses to the terrorist acts on 11 September 2001 and the current international crisis seriously challenged the international community's belief in the strength of human rights, and its ambition to continue to ensure that they progressed throughout the world. But it was precisely in times like this, when human rights values were threatened even more than usual, that one should redouble efforts and be particularly attentive to the risks of their being violated.
Since the events of 11 September 2001, terrorism had continued to be a live issue, Mr. Imbert went on to say. While terrorism flouted the fundamental principles of human rights, democracy and the rule, it should be combated with the utmost firmness; measures to counter it should not be taken to the detriment of those principles. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers had adopted guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism in July 2002. Among other things, the guidelines affirmed the obligation of States to protect the rights of everyone against terrorist acts, in particular the right to life, and against arbitrariness; and required that all anti-terrorist measures be lawful and conform to the absolute prohibition of torture. The prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment of persons deprived of their liberty was more fundamental than ever in the current climate, where anti-terrorist measures could give rise to questionable policies, particularly in respect of the treatment of suspects after their arrest.
Mr. Imbert said that combating racism was also a priority of the Council. In the current climate of terrorist threats, people could be lumped together in such a way that an entire section of the population quickly came under what amounted to systematic suspicion on account of ethnic origin or religious beliefs.

General Comments Before the Vote on the Special Sitting on Situation in Iraq
The Commission had before it a proposal by nine Member States to hold a "special sitting" on "human rights and humanitarian situation in Iraq as consequences of the war".
A Representative of Germany, speaking on behalf of the Western Group, called for a roll-call vote on the proposal.
A Representative of Cuba said this was a war of aggression and conquest and that it was a totally illegal war that the world was objecting to. The serious humanitarian consequences for the Iraqi people were clear to all persons who were not victims of the censorship of the Pentagon. The civilians and the military of Iraq were both being killed. No one could forecast the magnitude of the effects of this war. The world was being subjected to the troops of the United States. This behaviour must be stopped, or the entire world would be subjected to the American rule of the jungle. The Commission, whose credibility had already been sufficiently undermined, would take a death blow if it did not stand up and say no to such imperialist behaviour.
A Representative of Saudi Arabia voiced his concern at the start of military operations against Iraq. Saudi Arabia recalled that it was not participating in the war against Iraq and that its armed forces had not entered even one inch into Iraqi soil. Saudi Arabia had deployed all efforts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis and was of the view that the people of Iraq should not pay the price for the mistakes made by their Government. Many civilians had been killed as a result of the war. Consequently, Saudi Arabia did not oppose the convening of a special sitting, provided that it was confined to human rights and the humanitarian situation in Iraq and that the debate was not politicized. Saudi Arabia called for the cession of hostilities as early as possible, saying that the territorial integrity of Iraq should not be jeopardized.
A Representative of Algeria said that the Western Group had questioned the legitimacy of this proposal, even though it was perfectly clear that the Commission must immediately take up consideration of this situation which required the attention of everyone. It was clear that the consequences of the war, as shown by the media, were disastrous. However, it was disturbing that the media seemed to pay more attention to the consequences of this war than the United Nations. He respectfully asked the Western Group to withdraw its call for a vote so that the Commission could have a constructive discussion of the situation with full support from the international community. The Commission had exclusive responsibility for human rights, and a duty to speak out. The world had been told that this would be a clean war. It most certainly was not. Civilians were being killed every day and contracts were already being handed out for post-conflict reconstruction. Again, he reiterated the need for a real dialogue, in the name of the shared values of human rights of the international community, and called for the Western Group to withdraw its call for a vote.
A Representative of Libya said that Iraq was the victim of a barbaric and illegitimate aggression. A ferocious war was being launched against the country, a war which the whole world was witnessing on television and in the press. The Commission could not look on without acting and taking measures. The Iraqi people were living through a disaster, they were being wounded and killed and destruction was widespread. The credibility of the Commission was at stake. The Commission could not ignore the thousands of anti-war demonstrators around the world. Libya called for a special sitting in order to study the negative impact of the illegitimate war on the Iraqi people. To argue against holding such a sitting placed a question mark over people’s commitment to human rights.
A Representative of Zimbabwe said his delegation associated itself with the statement made by the Representative of Saudi Arabia. Since the Commission had to discuss human rights situation in general, there was no reason that States should not be allowed to express their views on the issue by holding the special sitting on the situation of war in Iraq.
A Representative of Syria said that truth was one of the first casualties of war. The world was told that the war would not affect civilians. This was not true. The world was told that it would short. That was not true either. The world was told that the war would come to the aid of the Iraqi people. Instead, bombs were launched against them. The Commission could not turn a blind eye on the situation in Iraq. It should think about the number of dead and wounded. How could the Commission not react? This war was directed against civilians and it plunged the world back into the Middle Ages. Syria appealed the Western Group to withdraw the proposal calling for a vote on the special sitting.
A Representative of Pakistan said the Commission was meeting under the shadow of a great crisis, despite efforts made to find a peaceful solution to the situation of Iraq. The civilian suffering and infrastructure damage must be limited for the future of the Iraqi people. Iraq's sovereignty and territorial unity must remain untouched as well as its natural resources. Indiscriminate attacks must be forbidden since humanitarian law forbade all direct attacks on the civilian populations. Weapons having indiscriminate effect, causing disproportionate suffering, must not be used. Furthermore, all parties must abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, since the Geneva Conventions had universal validity and must be respected by all. Pakistan had been one of the first members of the Security Council to focus attention on the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people as well as the need to lift sanctions as soon as possible. The international community had a great responsibility towards the inalienable rights of the Iraqi people, in particular their rights over their resources. Pakistan was therefore supportive of the proposal to consider the human rights and humanitarian situation in Iraq as a result of the war.
A Representative of Malaysia said that her delegation was one of the sponsors of the request to hold a special sitting. The war was illegal and contravened international law. The unilateral war waged against Iraq by the United States and its allies should cease immediately. The people of Iraq were suffering from the war which pretended to pinpoint targets with "precision". Thanks to the televisions transmissions on the ground, the international community was able to see the consequences of the unilateral war that had inflicted heavy damages against the people of Iraq. The proposal to hold the special sitting should be accepted by consensus. It would leave a black spot in the work of the Commission if it was rejected. The Iraqi people should get justice.

Explanation of Votes Before the Vote
A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and acceding countries to the EU who were Member States of the Commission, said that the EU was ready to discuss the situation in Iraq from a humanitarian and human rights perspective. The EU hoped that the conflict would end soon and expected all parties to comply with the Geneva Convention. However, the proposal at hand did not focus on issues pertaining to the mandate of the Commission. The maintaining of peace and security was the responsibility of the Security Council. Consequently, the EU would vote against the proposal to convene a special sitting on Iraq.
A Representative of Japan said that human rights issues were a concern of the international community and the Commission was mandated to deal with these issues. However, the forum must not be used to push forward politically motivated agendas. Furthermore, the Security Council was dealing with this issue, and the Commission must not pre-judge the conclusions of that meeting. The opportunity to discuss the situation in Iraq was provided for under item 9 of the Commission. For these reasons, the delegation of Japan would vote against holding a special sitting.
A Representative of Bahrain said his country's position was well known and national authorities had already made it clear. In case the special sitting was held, Bahrain thought that it should concentrate on discussing human rights and humanitarian issues, relating to human rights in Iraq in the context of the current situation there. Bahrain believed that political issues were not within the mandate of the Commission.
A Representative of Brazil said that Brazil would cast an affirmative vote on the proposal of convening a special sitting on the human rights and humanitarian situation in Iraq. The serious situation in Iraq must be addressed. The Commission would be amiss if it did not consider the situation in Iraq from its human rights perspective. The Commission must exercise its leading role in the protection of human rights.
A Representative of Sri Lanka said that his country was greatly concerned about the breakout of war in Iraq, as well as the social, economic and political consequences in that country and the region as a whole. It was regrettable that the Security Council had not reached a consensus on this matter. Sri Lanka believed that the human rights and humanitarian situation in Iraq had not appeared in a vacuum, therefore a special sitting would have to include all root causes of the situation. The current proposal seemed somewhat limited, and Sri Lanka would therefore abstain on this vote.
A Representative of Australia said that his delegation was unable to support the proposal because the Security Council was already seized with the issue. Iraq had been a violator of human rights and the Commission had condemned the situation there and had adopted resolutions on it. Australia had been one of the sponsors of such resolutions. The action taken against Iraq to disarm it was legal under international law.
A Representative of Canada said that Canada was following closely the situation in Iraq, which had been a subject of lengthy discussions in the Security Council. The situation in Iraq would be an important subject under agenda item 9 of the Commission. Furthermore, the responsibilities of all parties to the conflict had been underscored by the Red Cross and the UN Secretary-General and the humanitarian challenges had been reviewed in a number of fora. Canada believed that a special sitting would further politicize the work of the Commission and could not see how this could contribute to improving the situation in Iraq.
A Representative of Viet Nam said people around the world were filled with pain and emotion because of the situation in Iraq. His delegation would vote in favour of the proposal since the war was leading to far too much human suffering. The Commission must be a forum for dialogue enabling members to discuss the reduction of the current human suffering in Iraq.
A Representative of the Republic of Korea said that his country was concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people due to the current crisis. It was also ready to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq. But his delegation did not see the need to hold the special sitting on Iraq. The Security Council was the appropriate body to deal with the situation and it was already doing so.
A Representative of Venezuela supported the proposal submitted by Syria since it believed that the humanitarian situation in Iraq could not be ignored by the Commission. The humanitarian crisis in Iraq was worsening by the day. There was a food crisis, health crisis and mass displacements in the region. It was clear that the session should be confined to the humanitarian and human rights situation in Iraq.
A Representative of India said it was with the deepest regret and anguish that one had watched the unfolding of events leading up to and following the commencement of military action in Iraq. This military action lacked backing and could not but cause deep anguish to the people in Iraq and all peoples of conscience. India did not believe in war, with the exception of the war against terrorism. India fully supported the proposal insofar as it related to the suffering of the Iraqi people. The Commission's role must be that of human rights and standard setting, not that of political motives. India had consistently opposed resolutions targeting special countries whatever the actual intentions of the sponsor were since this politicised the work of the Commission. The Indian delegation had endeavoured to see if the Commission would adopt a text calling on all parties to safeguard all human rights and ensure the humanitarian situation of the people of Iraq. Such a text had not been agreed on. It was stressed that the deliberations of the Commission must focus on thematic issues, rather than political matters which were better dealt with by other bodies. India maintained that the humanitarian situation in Iraq must remain at the centre of everyone's concern. The international community must undertake large-scale efforts to limit humanitarian suffering. India would be ready to play its part. However, having considered the matter - realising that the special sitting would be likely to transgress the human rights issues and enter into the political sphere - India would abstain on the vote.
A Representative of Thailand said that her country was preoccupied with the humanitarian situation in Iraq. She felt that the Security Council should deal with the Iraqi situation rather than the Commission. Thailand would vote against the proposal if tabled for a vote.
A Representative of Paraguay said that Paraguay was in favour of peace and a peaceful resolution of conflicts. It was deeply alarmed over the situation in Iraq, especially the loss of life and the serious condition of the civilian population. The Security Council was considering the situation in Iraq, including a resolution on the humanitarian situation in the country and the renewal of the oil-for-food programme. Paraguay was concerned that the special sitting might lead to a fruitless debate and reaffirmed its full confidence in the Security Council, which was the only UN body responsible for finding a solution to the crisis. Paraguay would therefore not support the proposal to convene a special sitting.
A Representative of Costa Rica said that after negotiations within his delegation, underscoring that it was clear that Costa Rica was a peace loving country, it had been questioned whether Costa Rica could really object to a special sitting. However, Costa Rica would not vote in favour of the sitting due to the fear that the deliberations would exceed issues of human rights and go beyond the mandate of the Commission. Member States constantly called for transparency within the Commission and the end of politicisation. The time had now come to be consistent with the wish to de-politicise the Commission. It was stressed, however, that there was a need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. The warring parties also had an obligation to respect the Geneva Conventions. Costa Rica was not indifferent to the situation - lasting peace was in the interest of all countries. Costa Rica reaffirmed its unconditional support for the agencies of the United Nations and would contribute to the highest degree possible in the provision of humanitarian aid.
A Representative of Chile said that his country was deeply moved by the Iraqi situation. Chilean people hoped that the crisis would be settled peacefully and that the suffering of the people was avoided. Chile had offered its assistance to Iraq in the process of disarming itself. The dialogue in the special sitting might not help the people. Chile would therefore abstain.
A Representative of China said that members of the Commission were lucky to be fighting only a war of words. The Commission was fully aware of the situation in Iraq thanks to reports by the BBC and CNN. Thanks to these reports they came to know that last night 100 innocent civilians were killed by a precision guided missile. China recalled that according to legal advice provided by Secretariat, the Commission had the right to consider the issue. For these reasons, China supported this proposal to convene a special sitting and announced that if the proposal was adopted it would confine its observations to its terms of reference.
A Representative of Kenya said Kenya had stated its position on the crisis on Iraq many times and in many different fora. Kenya was among the majority of countries that believed that the weapons inspectors should have been given more time to disarm Iraq peacefully. Peace and security was within the sphere of the Security Council. Unfortunately, war had broken out. The war had far-reaching economic, social and political consequences, as well as human rights consequences. Kenya believed in the peaceful solution of conflicts and had seen firsthand what the consequences of war could be. Kenya would therefore vote in favour of the special sitting, on the condition that the deliberations of the Commission focused on human rights and the humanitarian situation alone.

Action on Motion to Hold Special Sitting
In a vote of 25 against and 18 in favour, with seven abstentions, the Commission decided against holding a special sitting of the fifty-ninth of the Commission on Human Rights on human rights and humanitarian situation in Iraq as consequences of the war. The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Bahrain, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.
Against: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Thailand, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Uruguay.
Abstentions: Chile, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Senegal, Sri Lanka and Togo.
Absent: Sierra Leone, Swaziland and Ukraine.

Explanation of Vote After the Vote
A Representative of Mexico said that the history and beliefs of Mexico had led it to have a clear desire for peace and respect for human rights and humanitarian law. On 21 March, the President of Mexico had expressed regret over the outbreak of the conflict in Iraq and the failure of a peaceful disarmament of Iraq. Mexico shared the view of the High Commissioner who called on all parties to respect human rights and humanitarian law, stressing that no one should be deprived of life or subjected to torture, that no attacks should be carried out against civilians, and that the sick and wounded should be cared for. The Commission could not make statements that were the preview of another body. Despite the fact that the title of the special sitting was amended, the objective of the sitting included elements which clearly went beyond the scope of the Commission. For this reason, Mexico voted against the proposal.
A Representative of South Africa said that once again, a session of the Commission had been afflicted by serious divisions. These divisions had haunted the Commission for quite a long time. It was hoped that this was a wake-up call to all those who loved life. It was difficult to imagine that on issues concerning life and death, the Commission on Human Rights had failed to see eye to eye with those who found themselves in the middle of this war. By definition, war was a threat to life. Its consequences went far beyond what could be seen on television. This war had been started by a minority, a minority in the Security Council, a minority in the General Assembly, and a minority in the world as a whole. By this vote, the Commission had denied itself the opportunity to express itself on this tragedy. During war, the human rights of most people were violated, with ensuing humanitarian difficulties. The world had been told this war was for the good of the Iraqis - was this really the way in which Iraqis would have chosen what was good for them.
The world had been promised a short war - was this not just a different way of saying that they would be killed quickly. A life could never be replaced and the infrastructure could never be restored fully. The Commission still needed to send a message to the ordinary people of Iraq, since the Security Council was a limping and undermined body. The Commission's message needed to be to those who had found themselves in the theatre of a war they had not chosen to enter into.
A Representative of the United States said that her country deeply regretted the loss of human lives in Iraq. The United States would make all efforts to build new hopes and new freedoms in the country.

Statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
SERGIO VIEIRA DE MELLO, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the Commission’s decision not to hold a special sitting on Iraq had revealed divisions but also profound concern over the plight of the Iraqi people. The fact that the people of Iraq were facing and had for some time faced the most difficult, dreadful plight was beyond dispute. The High Commissioner urged all parties to the conflict to respect fundamental human rights and humanitarian law and observe meticulous precautions in protecting civilians. This could not be stressed enough, especially since civilians bore the brunt of the violence. It should be recalled that the violation of the human rights of the Iraqi people did not start a week ago. The human rights of the Iraqi people had been violated for many years, as had been abundantly documented by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq as well as reputable human rights experts in non-governmental organizations. The Iraqi people had also suffered as a result of the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq.
In recent days, prisoners had been taken by both sides. Combatants and civilians had been killed; many had been injured. Property had been damaged. Water, sanitation and other basic necessities essential for sheer survival were unavailable to significant numbers of civilians. In such difficult circumstances, humanitarian law and fundamental human rights must be protected on the ground by the parties to the conflict. No one could be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. No one could be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No one could be arbitrarily arrested or detained. All parties must observe the rules applicable in armed conflict, particularly the principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatants.
Parties must never direct attacks against the civilian population or civilian objects, even if the purpose was to strike at a military target, Mr. Vieira de Mello said. States must never make civilians the object of attacks and must consequently never use weapons that were incapable of distinguishing between civilians and the military. They must preserve infrastructure and other assets essential to the civilian population and protect the environment of Iraq. Tragic experience had demonstrated that the precision of modern weapons, particularly at long range, was not reliable, not least in densely populated urban areas. If there was any doubt at all, restraint and refrain must be the watchwords. In other words, that particular target must not be attacked. There must be no reprisals against the civilian population. Humanitarian assistance must not be hindered. In short, the parties must take every possible precaution to ensure that civilian casualties did not occur.

Right of Reply
A Representative of Iraq, exercising his right of reply in response to the statement made by the High Commissioner, said the Commission had lived a dark day today, when it refused to discuss an important issue like the humanitarian situation in Iraq. He had listened carefully to the statements made by Member States and he stressed that civilians were being killed everyday as could be seen on televisions screens across the world. How could the Commission speak of human rights and ignore the plight of 26 million people in Iraq. This was not a procedural question, it was a question of life and death. The Commission must be against such flagrant violations of human rights. The citizens of Iraq had the right to have their situation discussed. Even today, the United States had asked for an additional 30,000 troops to continue their human rights violations. Such behaviour must be condemned.



CORRIGENDA


In press release HR/CN/03/20 of 27 March, the statement by the Representative of Bahrain on page five should read as follows:
A Representative of Bahrain said his country's position was well known and national authorities had already made it clear. In case the special sitting was held, Bahrain thought that it should concentrate on discussing human rights and humanitarian issues, relating to human rights in Iraq in the context of the current situation there. Bahrain believed that political issues were not within the mandate of the Commission.




* *** *