SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR URGES STATES TO SUPPLY IRAQ WITH TRAINING AND EXPERTISE TO AID RECONSTRUCTION

Commission Continues General Debate on Violation of Human
Rights in any Part of the World


25 March 2004

The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq this morning urged the international community to provide Iraqis with the necessary training and expertise in diverse fields to enable them to carry out the daunting task of reconstruction and reconciliation to eradicate the culture and remnants of 30 years of a regime that used oppression as its only political tool.

The Special Rapporteur, Andreas Mavrommatis, introducing his report to the Commission on Human Rights, pointed out that he had, to the best of his ability, collected or examined evidence on past human rights violations in Iraq and had drawn a number of conclusions. However, he had not been able to finish this work for reasons beyond his control.

A Representative of Iraq said he fully supported the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iraq. Today, Iraq was ready to reconstruct the country and walk on the path of democracy. The basic governmental nucleus of a democratic system was already being put in place.

A Representative of Kuwait said more than 13 years had passed since Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the country had learned lessons and scarified thousands of martyrs. Kuwait cherished the fact there that was no more tyranny and a tyrant in Iraq, and there were no longer any killing fields.

Canada and Ireland spoke in connection to the report of the Special Rapporteur.

The Commission also continued with its general debate on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, hearing from a series of national delegations whose members spoke about progress achieved on the promotion of human rights in their countries, as well as accusing other States of violations. There were accusations that the Commission selectively and unfairly singled out countries of the South for criticism under this agenda item, while others said that it was the duty of the Commission and the world to speak about violations carried out in countries.

Speakers from the following countries delivered statements: Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ireland on behalf of the European Union, Nigeria, Australia, Republic of Korea, Sudan, China, Peru, Russian Federation, Egypt, Eritrea, Japan, Nepal, United States and Indonesia.

A series of countries spoke in right of reply in angry response to the accusations made against them. They were Cuba, Syrian Arab Republic, China, India, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Palestine, Greece, Zimbabwe, Israel, Japan, Australia, Cyprus, and Ireland on behalf of the European Union.

When it reconvenes at 3 p.m., the Commission will continue with its general debate on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world.

Documents on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in any Part of the World

As the Commission takes up its consideration of the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, it has before it a number of reports, including a report by the Secretary-General on the human rights situation of the Lebanese detainees in Israel (E/CN.4/2004/28 and Add.1), which communicates the Secretary-General’s compliance with the Commission’s request that he bring to the attention of the Government of Israel resolution 2003/8 and call upon it to comply with its provisions and to report to the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session and to the Commission at its sixtieth session on the results of his efforts in that regard. No reply had been received from the Government of Israel in response to the Secretary-General’s note verbale at the time of the preparation of the report.

The Addendum to the report notes that 23 Lebanese detainees, detained in Israel, were released on 29 January 2004. On 23 February 2004, a second note verbale had been sent to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel by the Secretary-General, to which no response had been received at the time of the present report’s preparation.

There is also a report of the Secretary-General on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies (E/CN.4/2004/29), submitted in response to the concern over continued reports of intimidation and reprisals against private individuals and groups that sought to cooperate with the United Nations and representatives of its human rights bodies. The report describes situations in which persons have reportedly been intimidated or suffered reprisals for having cooperated with United Nations human rights bodies, for having availed themselves of international procedures, for having provided legal assistance for this purpose, and/or for being relatives of victims of human rights violations, including in Brazil, Cameroon, China, Iran, Morocco, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Turkey and Uzbekistan.

There is also a note by the secretariat on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (E/CN.4/2004/31), which provides information on the range of issues addressed within the comprehensive dialogue between the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the authorities of that country. The report indicates that well-targeted assistance can have an immediate impact on the lives of vulnerable peoples; however, the substantial gains achieved by humanitarian assistance are challenged by lingering economic difficulties and a weakened international response. The humanitarian situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea remains complex and requires substantial international assistance to safeguard the well-being of millions of vulnerable citizens. It was, however, evident that the humanitarian response alone will not be effective in the long term unless the country overcomes its severe economic difficulties.

The Commission has before it the report of Andreas Mavrommatis, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq, on the situation of human rights in Iraq (E/CN.4/2004/36 and Add.1), which covers the period from 4 September 2003 to 9 February 2004. The Special Rapporteur, whose mandate was extended by the Commission by resolution 2003/84 which requested him to focus on newly available information about violations of human rights and international law by the Government of Iraq over many years, did his best to undertake as soon as possible a visit to Iraq. Unfortunately, the persistent insecurity throughout the country had severely restricted the freedom of movement needed to make contacts, fix appointments or visit locations in and outside of Baghdad. Thus, the Special Rapporteur had made a number of alternative arrangements, including holding approximately 20 meetings in Geneva and New York with the Permanent Representatives of Iraq, Kuwait, the United Kingdom, the United States, Coalition Provisional Authority experts and representatives of a number of United Nations agencies.

Since the convening of the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly, the most important development has been the deterioration of the security situation in Iraq, notes the report, which has had an adverse effect not only on the long-overdue reconstruction of the country and the alleviation of the Iraqi people’s suffering, but has also impeded efforts to investigate past violations. The Special Rapporteur has been informed by non-governmental organizations of allegations regarding the conditions of detention of people arrested by Coalition Provisional Authority forces, as well as about unnecessary innocent civilian casualties during security operations by these forces. He had also heard evidence on issues such as the Anfal campaign, executions and mass graves during consultations with a Kurdish delegation. Testimonies made available to him proved there had been a deliberate campaign to arrest, execute, relocate or deport Kurds, as well as other nationalities such as the Turkmen, Assyrians and Chaldeans.

In relation to Kuwaiti prisoners of war and missing persons, the report has been given documents recently discovered or received from Iraqi sources indicating the culpability, at the highest level of Iraqi authorities, and their full knowledge of the fate of the POWs and other third-country nationals who were unaccounted for and had been executed. The Kuwaitis, using several teams in Iraq, were the first to recover remains from mass graves – mass graves being one of the first things that surfaced immediately after the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was the opinion of the Special Rapporteur that the close relatives and other dependants of people whose remains were identified were entitled to claim compensation.

The Addendum to the report covers the period 10 February to 7 March 2004 and its findings are based on substantive consultations held in Amman from 3 to 6 March. The main issues dealt with focus on oppression, discrimination, religious persecution and mass executions of persons belonging to the majority Shi’ah community; expulsions, mass executions of Faili (Shi’ah Iraqi Kurds) and misappropriation of their properties; the Anfal campaigns and the Halabcha chemical bombings; and the draining of the Marshes, including the consequent violations of a wide range of rights of the Marsh people. The Special Rapporteur also received a consolidated report providing a general description of human rights violations committed under the former regime during the period 1979 to 2003, as well as important documentation from the Ministry of Human Rights of the Kurdistan Regional Government on the issue of mass graves. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the process of criminal investigations in connection with grave human rights violations be speeded up, that all mass graves be secured and that the process of identification of remains be accelerated.

Introduction of Report of Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iraq

ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iraq, said the international community and the Commission should lend an ear to Iraq’s requests for human rights projects, and at the same time continue monitoring progress and ensuring that all efforts were proceeding in the right direction. Everything done, including the monitoring and cataloguing of human rights violations, was with a view to ensuring that human rights and fundamental freedoms were respected and applied without fear, favour, or discrimination.

The work, however, could not be finished, for reasons beyond the Special Rapporteur’s control. Thus, what he had in mind was not merely listing gross violations, but to do so in such a way as to be a guidance for the future, be it the prosecution and punishment of the culprits or ensuring non repetition of such crimes through creating the infrastructure and the mechanisms that would inspire confidence and eliminate or reduce the possibility of regression. One of the most serious chapters that formed part of the mandate had been almost completed, that on the Kuwaiti prisoners of war and others missing. But this was not complete because it still lacked a small addition on the final number of those identified and those whose remains could not be identified.

The main report amply explained the reasons why it was impossible to complete the task the mandate had indicated. The task was imperative to be completed, but could not be satisfactorily completed without a visit to Iraq, something which did not seem to be possible today. The international community and the Commission should support the process that was taking place in Iraq and at the same time ensure the consonance of whatever was done with minimum international standards and Iraq’s own international obligations. It was owed to the people of Iraq who suffered so much to stand by them. They should be provided with the necessary training and expertise in diverse fields to enable them to carry out the daunting task of reconstruction and reconciliation, eradicating the culture and remnants of thirty years of a regime that used oppression as its only political tool, and to entrench democracy and respect for human rights.

Mr. Mavrommatis said that to the best of his ability, he had collected or examined evidence on past human rights violations and had drawn a number of conclusions. He also spoke on his work on equally or even more serious chapters concerning mass graves, Anfal and religious oppression, and discrimination mainly against the Shi’a community.

OUSAMA BADEDINE (Iraq) said that the dark period of the last 30 years had now come to an end. He fully supported the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iraq. Today, Iraq was ready to reconstruct the country and walk on the path of democracy. The basic governmental nucleus of a democratic system was already being put in place. Acts of daily terrorism were a threat to security in the country, and many people were living in fear. The Governing Council was preparing all the necessary grounds for the future democratic Iraq. So far, the right to freedom of speech had been allowed by lifting the restrictions imposed by the former regime.

The Special Rapporteur had been unable to visit Iraq due to the prevailing security threat in the country. For that reason, he had not been able to see the economic burden the country was currently encountering.

DHARAR ABDUL-RAZZAK RAZZOOQI (Kuwait) said that the last Iraqi regime had been an evil one. Now, the pillars of evil had fallen and Saddam Hussein was in the custody of the law. Justice would apply on the dictator, that same justice that he denied for millions inside and outside Iraq during one of the most vicious and bloodthirsty regimes one had ever witnessed in modern history. More than 13 years had passed since the invasion of Kuwait and the country had learned lessons and scarified thousands of martyrs. Kuwait cherished the fact there that was no more tyranny and a tyrant in Iraq, and there were no longer any killing fields. There was no falsification of facts that could match what the past regime had done.

The past Iraqi regime had systematically denied that there were prisoners of war, Kuwaitis or third country nationals. According to former Iraqi officials, that issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war had been the figment of imagination of the Kuwaitis. The regime had said that there were no prisoners of war and alleged that Kuwait politicised the issue of prisoners of war in order to prolong the sanctions on Iraq. The majority of the international community and the majority of the members of the Commission had stood by Kuwait; and for the last 13 years, the Commission had adopted its resolution calling for the release of Kuwaitis. After the fall of the regime, the international community had witnessed how brutal that regime had been. Those previous allegations in previous reports of the Special Rapporteur about the flagrant violations of human rights in Iraq were now well documented.

Interactive Dialogue

DEIRDRE KENT (Canada) asked how the international community could best contribute to training and development in Iraq, and what concrete steps could the Government take to keep a focus on human rights? What could be done to ensure there was no roll-back in the rights enjoyed by Iraqi women.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland) asked whether the Special Rapporteur had been able to work through other parts of the United Nations to take forward his mandate. With regard to 173 mass graves, of which 55 had been confirmed as containing bodies, was there a particular time frame with regard to these graves, she asked.

ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iraq, responding to the questions posed, said that activities to train non-governmental organizations and Government officials on such issues were underway at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Special Rapporteur continued to be worried about the situation of women’s rights, but had been unable to collect pertinent information. It should be remembered that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was applicable in Iraq, but that in the past, nothing had been done to ensure its implementation. It was to be hoped that that attitude was a thing of the past. Everything that was done should be consonant with Iraq’s international obligations, as he continued to stress to Iraqi authorities.

On the issue of mass graves, Mr. Mavrommatis said that Kuwait had been lucky in moving in quickly and having the necessary teams of people. But the task was so enormous that funding and technical and manpower support from the international community continued to be necessary. The plea he had heard over and over again from Iraqis concerned was that national reconciliation could only come about once much more was known about the missing. There were hundreds of thousands missing – the Kurds alone had given him a figure of 182,000 people. The international community should be present in this task, and the presence of the United Nations would be useful. Moreover, the presence of the international community would ensure that minimum international standards were followed during the process.

General Debate on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in any Part of the World

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the terrible events of 11 September had left indelible imprints on contemporary international relations. The unswerving support of the Islamic countries to the fight against terrorism had been reciprocated with organised media campaigns of vilification of their religion, beliefs and values. They were victims of State terrorism and repression in occupied territories under draconian laws. Muslims were facing racial, ethnic and religious profiling. Equating Islam and its followers with terrorism was a dangerous trend fraught with grave implications for understanding and empathy imperative for promoting shared objectives of the globalised world. The current situation in occupied Palestine exemplified the failure of the international human rights machinery, and the marginalisation of the Palestinian people was a direct result of the apathy and indifference of the international community.

The recent steps initiated by Pakistan and India to prepare the grounds for a composite dialogue for resolution of all outstanding issues. including the core dispute of Jammu and Kashmir, was long awaited by the international community, and it was hoped the opening of the dialogue would have a salutary effect on the human rights situation there. The OIC was also deeply distressed over the prevailing insecurity in Iraq, where a lasting solution to stem turmoil should be founded on respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq. The current abuse of item 9 to target Islamic and developing countries did not augur well for the future of the Commission. The OIC was convinced that perpetuation or acceptance of injustice constituted the gravest form of human rights abuse.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), said no State had a perfect human rights record, and so no State could be immune from international scrutiny, and this was why the EU and its partners in the Council of Europe had set up strong and legally binding mechanisms to ensure that human rights obligations were complied with. Yet there were areas where the human rights record could be improved: racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance were inimical to the principles on which the EU was founded. Unfortunately, in many parts of the EU today, increasing manifestations of these phenomena were witnessed. Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and all other forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia were condemned, as were all forms and manifestations of religious intolerance.

Over the last year, there had been improvements in the human rights situation in a number of countries, including Liberia and Sierra Leone, and this was welcomed, as was the resumption of the negotiating process for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. There was concern at the widespread use of the death penalty. Torture, and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment were among the most abhorrent violations of human rights, and all States should become party to the appropriate treaties and instruments. The situation of human rights in China, Syria, Indonesia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Haiti was also addressed. The EU wished to see an end to impunity of those perpetrators of crimes against children, including the recruitment of child soldiers. The EU would work with countries that wished to improve their human rights situation, and there was a moral and legal obligation for all to work together to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.

ABDUL BIN RIMDAP (Nigeria) said that after prolonged military rule, the return to democratic governance in his country in 1999 had been further reinforced through successful, free and fair general elections in April 2003. The Government recognized the role of good governance and the rule of law and their importance in the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. For that reason, the fight against corruption and for transparency in all facets of the government machinery had been made the main pillars of the Obasanjo Administration. Recognizing the universal quality of human rights, Nigeria – as a State party to several international human rights instruments – had domesticated their terms into national laws. Among other efforts, there had been initiatives to involve women in all aspects of society to empower them both politically and economically. The Government had also outlawed trafficking in human beings and embarked on vigorous campaigns against that heinous crime, which constituted a modern form of slavery.

The Government had also established agencies to ensure the effective protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all citizens, he said, including the National Human Rights Commission, Independent National Electoral Commission, Public Complaints Commission, Code of Conduct Bureau and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Offences Bureau. It had also taken positive steps to tackle problems of ethnic nationality. The Niger Delta Development Commission had been established to address the concerns of oil-producing states and environmental pollution in the area.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) said progress in Iraq on the transition to a democratic and representative system of Government was welcomed. There was concern about the lack of progress on human rights, national reconciliation and political reform in Burma; intense concern for the deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe; and deep concern about human rights and the humanitarian situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Israel and the Palestinian Authority were urged to return without delay to the negotiating table in order to put an end to the tragic cycle of violence and loss of innocent life. There was support for the efforts of President Khatami and others to promote the rule of law and protect human rights and freedoms in Iran; and China’s progress in recognizing social and cultural rights were acknowledged, with encouragement for further steps towards the realization of civil and political rights. Indonesia’s progress in building democratic institutions was recognized. Both the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Government of Sri Lanka were called upon to restart the peace process as soon as possible. Both the Maoists and the Government of Nepal should redouble efforts to achieve a durable political settlement and avoid human rights abuses. The international community should ensure that its mechanisms were better equipped to offer constructive assistance to countries seeking to improve their national protection systems and to draw attention to violations wherever they occurred.

HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea) said it was disheartening to note that even though the world was moving closer to the universal ratification of the six core international human rights treaties, gross and systematic abuses of human dignity still persisted in many corners of the world: in Africa, where internal conflicts between Governments and rebel forces persisted in many forms of human rights abuses; across the Middle East, civilian casualties continued to rise in several parts of the region; in Asia, people of many countries were subject to arbitrary detention or imprisonment for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association or belief; in Central and Latin America torture and ill-treatment by the police and security forces continued to be reported; and in Europe and North America, discrimination against ethnic people, minorities and foreigners still remained a source of grave concern, with widespread anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

Although despotic regimes were steadily decreasing in the world, some still remained and committed, as a matter of national policy, ruthless and brutal abuses of human rights and fundamental freedoms of people under their jurisdiction. The Republic of Korea remained committed to continue to raise its human rights standards and improve their implementation, and would do so in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all the international human rights treaties to which it had subscribed.

ELSADIG MUSTAFA OSMAN ALMAGLY (Sudan) said that no country was free from the violation of human rights despite the efforts made in improving the situation. While discussing agenda 9, it seemed that the situation was being politicised in the Commission. During the past four years, Sudan had made progress in the field of human rights and had achieved improvements in many areas. An independent national human rights commission had been set up in accordance with the Paris Principles. Also, in the last four years a national dialogue had taken place in the country, including on the issue of human rights. Although the economic situation of the country had worsened in the course of the last 20 years, the Government had continued to improve human rights conditions and had adopted programmes aimed at advancing the living conditions of its citizens. The teaching of human rights elements had been introduced in the educational system from elementary to university levels. Other progress made included Sudan's adoption of most of the international instruments pertaining to the promotion and protection of human rights. Measures had also been taken against the traditional harmful practice of female genital mutilation that had affected women.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said it was the common task of all countries to promote and protect human rights. It was regrettable that this discussion at the Commission had been seriously distorted and used by certain Western countries to humiliate developing countries and trample upon their sovereignty. No human rights situation was perfect anywhere in the world; Western countries were by no means models for human rights protection and developing countries were certainly not synonymous with human rights violations. Countries had the primary responsibility to promote and protect human rights, and they were both duty-bound and entitled to decide on the path of human rights development in light of their different situations. Differences between countries’ paths should be settled on the basis of equality and mutual respect, through dialogue and cooperation. It was regrettable that certain countries stubbornly clung to Cold War mentalities or, worse, allowed domestic considerations to drive resolutions. The United States, after a lull of two years, had been prompted by its upcoming general elections to put forward an anti-China draft, which had nothing to do with the situation of human rights.

The Chinese Government, he said, attached great importance to the enhanced enjoyment of its citizens’ human rights. The new generation of collective leadership had proposed that peoples’ needs were cardinal and that the Government should only serve the people. Stress had also been placed upon solving problems faced by farmers, rural areas and agriculture. China had achieved much success in the past year; despite the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and severe flooding and drought; the Chinese economy had grown by 9.1 per cent and 1.07 million people had been lifted out of poverty. Among other developments, the Government had abolished measures concerning the collection and sending home of vagrants and beggars in cities. The National Peoples Congress had also incorporated a provision for the respect and protection of human rights into the Constitution.

JORGE VOTO-BERNALES (Peru) said the Secretary-General had taken every opportunity to remind all of the basic premise of human rights - that they were the direct expression of the dignity of each human being. When a State crushed the lives of people, oppressed them, imprisoned them illegally, forbade them the right to assembly and the right to democratic expression, human rights were being violated, and there was insecurity and distress. The Commission had the duty to protect these people, as each individual was a bearer of rights, and they should not and could not be denied to individuals who had struggled and whose voices should be heard at the Commission.

Each State had an obligation in this respect, including to the international community. Human rights were the same for all, and the country resolutions adopted by the Commission were pro-human rights assertions, not against a Government but in favour of the inhabitants of that country, responding to the needs of citizens whose rights had been breached or limited, and who looked to the Commission for the settlement of these rights. There should be no room in the Commission for partiality or selectivity, and a joint effort should be made to ensure that consideration of breaches were the subject of calm and deliberate discussion, otherwise those who would suffer would be those undergoing deprivation and suffering. It was necessary to enhance cooperation with all mechanisms of the Commission, including the Special Rapporteurs, whose reports were usually coloured by impartiality and their commitment to human rights.

VLADIMIR PARSHIKOV (Russian Federation) said that international instruments in the area of human rights had laid the foundation for human rights standards as universal values. Unfortunately, reality had proved quite far from the ideal; human rights violations even occurred in countries where one would not expect to see them. Even in Europe, with its rich human rights traditions, one saw frequent manifestations of racism, anti-Semitism, racial discrimination and other intolerance. This had been seen in national parliaments, a phenomena which constituted a danger for society as a whole. It was surprising that freedom of speech, which had been made absolute, had made it possible for various extremist factions to work legally in public. And increasingly, one saw that places of worship and cemeteries had been subjected to vandalism. Moreover, migratory populations also faced increasing discrimination, even though history had shown that the flow of peoples was of use to States.

A further blow was being dealt to groups of undocumented people in European countries as part of the fight against terrorism, he said. Making it possible for law enforcement bodies to hold individuals in custody for undetermined periods of time and without specific charges being brought against them constituted a serious violation of human rights. Finally, he noted that improvement in human rights must occur through dialogue, conducted on an equal basis, not through discrimination and prejudice.

OMAR SHALABY (Egypt) said that the discussion of the agenda item 9 should be based on constructive dialogue and not on selectivity and impartiality. One had observed that the item had allowed some countries of the developed world to criticise the human rights records of the developing countries. It was not logical to criticize the developing countries and at the same time turn a blind eye to their development. There were many questions as to the objectivity of the work of the Commission and on the manner that the Special Rapporteurs were appointed. The work of the Commission should be transparent and objective. Egypt could not accept that there was only one value of human rights, while ignoring other systems of values. The attempt to impose one value system on others was tantamount to oppression, which was unacceptable. The diversity of cultures should be respected. The developing countries were entitled to their traditions and cultures, and they should not be obliged to accept the cultural values of other countries. In the Commission, positive and constructive cooperation should prevail. All regional groups were called upon to move away from confrontation in the Commission.

AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) said that Eritrea-Ethiopian peace agreements had not yet fulfilled the exigencies enumerated in the 1976 Declaration of the Human Rights Commission on the Right to Peace. Ethiopia had categorically rejected the Algiers Agreements by its denunciation of the decision of the Boundary Commission, which was created by the Algiers Agreement, because it did not get what it claimed. That had elicited wide denunciation, criticism and warnings, but nothing much else, and Ethiopia was still occupying sovereign Eritrean territory while over 60,000 Eritrean citizens had been internally displaced. The Commission should fully realize the human rights consequences of Ethiopia's lawlessness in terms of the right to peace, the right to development and in terms of democracy. Ethiopia's refusal to comply with its treaty obligations was a threat to peace, frustrated development and was a serious obstacle to democratic governance. Unfortunately, Ethiopia continued to flout international law and to act irresponsibly and recklessly because of the wrong signals it was receiving from some States.

SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said that the responsibility for the protection and promotion of human rights rested with States, but at the same time, the international community must maintain interest in the situation. Grave human rights violations required that the international community’s voice be heard. In that regard, individual victims should not be forgotten, since human rights lay first and foremost with the individual. Furthermore, while the particular circumstances of a country’s history, culture, religion and tradition should be taken into account, it should not be used to rationalize the suppression of human rights.

Overall, mere criticism and reproach were counterproductive, he said. They should be replaced with tolerance, dialogue and mutual respect, and countries’ efforts and accomplishments should be adequately reflected in the discussion. Thus, the moving or removal of some countries’ resolutions was found to be an appropriate response when the situation of a country had sufficiently improved. On the other hand, a country that stubbornly refused to take steps for improvement deserved the reprobation of the entire international community, while the Commission had the duty to use positive incentive to clear the path in bringing them back to the international fold. Such a situation concerned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which had not been cooperating positively with relevant international human rights institutions. That country was once more urged to rectify the current inhumane situation of the separation of returnees from their families.

HARDEEP SING PURI (India) said the importance and effectiveness of this agenda item to the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe ran the risk of being eroded on account of its misuse. Its effectiveness in the advancement of human rights depended critically on Member States recognizing that country resolutions were an instrument of last resort, not the first weapon of choice to be used whenever a country fell out of political favour. Indiscriminate use of country resolutions had over the years led to sharp divisions in the Commission, which was unfortunate. When the impression gained ground that the complex human rights edifice that had taken shape over the years was really an instrument for advancing the political objectives of those who controlled its purse-strings, there should be recognition of the problem. Members should also ask themselves whether the concerns and aspirations of the vast majority of the United Nations membership which belonged to the developing world had not been lost sight of; the challenge they faced was of limited resources, and unlimited expectations needed to be understood and recognized.

India remained steadfast in its view that true respect for human rights could only be assured in a political environment that guaranteed democracy and freedom. The very same liberties and freedoms which democracies guaranteed also tragically made the most vulnerable open to abuse and assault. The challenge from terrorism was one of the gravest threats facing the world, but counter-terrorism measures should preserve the rule of law, protect human rights and sustain democracy.

GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal) said that while the gravity of the issues involved in the present discussion demanded informed debate, this was often sadly not the case. While the Commission could and should stand firm and united at all times to prevent the massive, flagrant and sustained violation of human rights, in its examination of this question the Commission must choose a course and adopt an approach that was objective, fair and balanced. Depending on the severity of the situation, it should first explore and exhaust all avenues of cooperation and counselling with States to address situations of human rights. The Commission had been created to defend and promote the whole spectrum of human rights issues. This task was even more important given that challenges to the full and effective enjoyment of human rights had greatly increased as the scope of those rights had broadened and deepened. For example, traditional challenges such as poverty and lack of capability had been multiplied with the onslaught of new challenges resulting from globalization. Moreover, international terrorism and conflict constituted challenges to the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said that the practical guarantee of human rights was not lofty aspirations, but the web of restraints, permissions, interests and traditions of the rule of law and its practice. Acknowledging these facts, however, did not diminish the requirement to stand up for the victims of human rights abuse, the victims too often voiceless in their own land. There was no simple path or one act that prompted nations to be just, to respect and sustain human rights; sometimes it was the conscience and moral outrage of non-victims which made the difference. Some countries which had made real progress recently in advancing human rights were Afghanistan, Iraq, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, Jordan, Morocco, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guatemala. However, there were Governments which continued to deny their people the rights to which they were entitled: Cuba, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, Belarus, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Burma, Viet Nam, Indonesia, North Korea, and China. In the case of the latter, there was much the Government could do to meet its commitments as outlined in the 2002 bilateral human rights dialogue and to make key structural reforms.

The Representative of Indonesia said there was a need to forge international cooperation in the field of human rights promotion and protection based on genuine dialogue, and attempts to undermine the work of the Commission through politicisation, selectivity, finger-pointing and other confrontational approaches could not be accepted. All parties were called upon to conform to this pattern of dialogue and cooperation in the best interests of achieving the shared human rights ideals. Indonesia attached significant importance to this item, especially in the light of the firm commitment which the Indonesian Government had made to the advancement of democratic and human rights ever since 1998 when the cornerstone of democracy was first laid. Over the years, the Government of Indonesia had been steadily building on this foundation through a number of important reforms in all sectors which would shortly culminate in the holding of a general election. Indonesia had been engaged for the last five years in a very thorough programme of reform, particularly in the areas of legislation, governance and the judiciary. It also attached particular importance to addressing cases of human rights violations. It was the Government’s strong conviction that the vigorous reform permeating all layers of society would enable the creation of a conducive environment for further promoting a culture of human rights in Indonesia.

Right of Reply

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking in a right of reply, said that the United States and the European Union statements had fulfilled expectations. The United States had made reference to Cuba, talking of torture, a lack of independent courts and prison conditions. Yet, the only place where such conditions actually prevailed was at the base at Guantanamo. The United States statement was totally out of place. Furthermore, the European Union would do better to talk less and do more to improve human rights. Who did they think they were to come here and given lessons to the Third World? They were the ex-colonialists, the ex-slave traders. The European Union had no right to speak of human rights, but should focus on their own millions of unemployed, on the education of illiterate people and on compensation for the many victims of slavery and pillaging. The Union seemed so concerned with the situation of prisoners, but had not mentioned at all what was going on at Guantanamo, nor had there been a mention of the goings-on in the gulag in northern Baghdad. Neither the United States nor the European Union had any right to speak about human rights in the Commission. They were debtors and should be ashamed to come to this forum and make such statements.

GHASSAN OBEID (Syria), speaking in a right of reply, regretted that the statement by Australia and the European Union mentioned his country as being a violator of human rights. Most of the countries mentioned in the statements were from the developing countries; and no European country was mentioned in the statements as if European countries were immune from human rights violations. The human rights violations in Israel had not been mentioned although Israeli forces continued to destroy houses and other infrastructure, and to build the Wall which constituted a flagrant violation of human rights. By occupying Arab territories, Israel had continued to violate the human rights of Arabs in the occupied territories. Occupation by itself constituted a violation of human rights. The maintaining of the state of emergency had been criticized. But the occupation of Syrian territory by Israel had been forgotten. Syria was always ready to cooperate with the international community on human rights and other aspects.

SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking in a right to reply with regard to the statement of the United States, said China had achieved a lot in the field of human rights, and this was a fact recognized by the whole international community, and could not be written off by the accusations of the US delegation. It went without saying that China had problems. Having five times the population of the United States, it should have five times the violations, but it did not. China’s Government had the confidence and the credibility to solve its problems. What surprised the delegation was the lack of mention of American violations of human rights in the American statement, as it gave the impression that the United States was the best in the world, which it was not. The United States was well-known for its police brutality and violence against detainees. Were there a world record, then the United States would be the champion. It was suggested that the United States should buy a mirror and look in it, and if it could not afford one, China would do so for it. China had prepared a white paper on the human rights of the United States, and would make them available this afternoon for all. However, it advised not to read it, since it might cause a nightmare.

DEBABRATA SAHA (India), speaking in a right of reply, said that he had witnessed the Representative of Pakistan, claiming to speak on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), who had chosen to make an egregious and regrettable reference to his country. He wished to draw the attention of OIC members to the language of the joint statement, issued by the Governments of both India and Pakistan, which delineated the process of the composite dialogue in terms of how it was to be sustained and taken forward. The OIC members should engage in introspection and think about whether they should not focus on parts of the world where there were serious violations of human rights.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking in a right of reply, said he categorically rejected the accusation of the Representative of the United States against his country. The United States was the only country in the world that violated the human rights of peoples inside and outside its own territories. That country did not even look at the millions of poor people in its own territory. By invading Iraq, it had committed untold violations of human rights against the people. With regard to Japan, it should be first ready to return the five abducted Koreans before speaking on other matters concerning their two countries

GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon), speaking in a right of reply with regard to the statement of the European Union, said that Lebanon had established a Commission to determine the fate of the detainees, regardless of the place of that detention. The report of the Prosecutor’s Office of the court of cassation was also included. This was part of the strong and fraternal relations between Lebanon, Libya and Syria, and the issue would be clarified as soon as possible.

NABIL SHEHADA (Palestine), speaking in a right of reply in response to the statement by Australia, said that the problem of the Palestinian people had been touched upon, but that the problem of the Israeli occupation had not been dealt with. Yet the occupation was the underlying problem. She had referred to Israeli actions as defensive in nature, but they were crimes. The legitimately elected leadership of the Palestinian Authority was encircled and unable to meet, while the police and other authorities were unable to act effectively. The Representative of Australia had also approved the building of the separation barrier. That construction had led to the annexation of territory. Why would a country that was traditionally so democratic approve of such crimes? The Australian position not only did not help bring to an end Israel’s crimes, but encouraged them to commit more. Israel was encouraged to end its crimes.

TASSOS KRIEKOUKIS (Greece), speaking in a right of reply in reference to the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that human rights were indivisible and universal and this principle was the cornerstone of the whole human rights protection system. The solution of the long-standing problem of Cyprus was being sought in the conference held in Switzerland. Greece was ready to help in the search for a peaceful settlement for the island.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a right of reply, said there was one developed country that had made it its vocation to attack Zimbabwe at every opportunity: Australia, whose record of human rights violations remained unparalleled in the Western world, as evidenced by the recent ongoing brutal harassment of Aboriginals. The Prime Minister of that country would have the world aware of Zimbabwean human rights violations, but would not let the world know that Aboriginals were denied their human rights and made to live in squalor. Australia was the only developed country where children were still blinded by trachoma and suffered from ancient diseases, and Australia also refused to comply with court judgments that asserted that land should be returned to Aboriginals. The Australian Prime Minister routinely demonized Zimbabwe for returning land to their original owners. Thus Australia was intensely concerned to divert attention from its own record of human rights, and to move attention to Zimbabwe. This was no acceptable substitute for a proper Australian policy.

YAAKOV LEVY (Israel), speaking in a right of reply, said that it had not been sufficient for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to have a special sitting on Israel, as well as the discussion under agenda item 8. It had carried its attacks on Israel over into agenda item 9. In response, Israel wished to direct the attention of OIC members to the note, placed before the Commission yesterday, which stated that Israel held no Lebanese detainees. There was thus no reason to discuss the issue. He also wished to note that after hearing Syria talk about the need for an occupation because of an emergency situation, he felt Syria had conveniently ignored the fact that one Arab State continued to occupy another, refusing to recognize its sovereign existence. Noting that ambassadors were normal symbols of diplomatic relations, he asked if any ambassador in the room could name the current – or any – ambassador in Beirut. Or would this tax the imagination too much as a State did not appoint ambassadors to regions considered its own? However, Syria was well represented in Lebanon – by an occupation army, today numbering 20,000 members. He also wished to remind Syria how it had lost the Golan Heights, which was claimed as the basis for the emergency occupation. That had occurred as a result of two wars of aggression launched against Israel. The best path to peace was not accusations here, but sitting down to negotiate.

SHIGERU ENDO (Japan), speaking in a right of reply in reference to the statement made by the Representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that abduction cases were unlawful acts. The abductees were staying in Japan of their own will, Japan requested the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to allow the remaining families of the abductees to come to Japan.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), speaking in a right of reply, said that with regard to the factual inaccuracies in the statement of Zimbabwe, Australia had a non-discriminatory immigration policy, and was a culturally diverse and vibrant society. Aboriginal and Torres Islander Peoples had been disadvantaged in the past, and the Government recognized this and was determined to rectify it. It had passed laws, by which all racial discrimination was illegal, indigenous heritage protected, and special housing, health and legal aid made available, as well as other programmes, all of which improved the situation of indigenous Australians. The Government wished to develop a partnership with these people, giving them a voice in decision-making and providing an equitable life to all in Australia.
GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon), speaking in a right of reply, said that with regard to the diplomatic representation between Lebanon and Syria, the best representation was the relationship between the people of the two countries. The relationship between Israel and Lebanon, however, was characterized by bombs and killing. Israel should take care of its own serious human rights situation. Those in glass houses should not throw stones.

GHASSAN OBEID (Syria) said that the Representative of Israel who took the floor was a Representative of the occupying power. Syria was not occupying Lebanon. There were numerous UN resolutions concerning the Israeli occupation of Arab territories, which Israel did not comply with.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking in a second right of reply, said his country rejected the accusations made by Japan. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea remained of the same opinion and upheld its position that the abduction cases had been resolved thanks to its work, with one exception which was due to Japan’s holding of five people in violation of the bilateral agreement. If Japan was serious, it would return the five to their families in Pyongyang. Japan had done nothing to uphold the Pyongyang Agreement, including recognition of its past crimes consistently and adamantly refusing to apologise for its crimes during the Second World War, which was the most substantive part of the agreement. It had even passed discriminatory laws, forbidding Koreans to send money to their relatives in their home country from Japan, and used the abducted five for their political uses against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Japan was called upon to take measures to return the abducted five and to compensate for its past crimes.

HELENA MINA (Cyprus), said that she wished to exercise the right of reply in reference to the statement of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. She wished to recall the relevant United Nations resolutions that, among other aspects, condemned all secessionist acts and declared the so-called “Turkish Republic of Cyprus” legally in valid and called on all States not to recognize or assist the purported State.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking in a right of reply, welcomed the ongoing debate in the Commission, and said although she did not agree with the accusation of many countries referring to the statement she made on behalf of the European Union, she however saw the need for the freedom of expression.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe), speaking in a second right of reply, said that if the leaders of Australia were the paragons of human rights that they claimed to be, they would follow Zimbabwe’s lead and return the land to the Aborigines, and this with a time limit, since without it, it would be pointless, as the Aborigines might disappear, drowned in the alcohol with which they were generously plied. Australia should follow Zimbabwe, and merely repeating other people’s lies on Zimbabwe was no acceptable manner of determining a policy.

SHIGERU ENDO (Japan), speaking in a second right of reply, said that regarding the counter-arguments espoused by the Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in response to his own remarks, he wished to reiterate his Government’s stance. Kim Jong Il had admitted and apologized for the abductions during his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi. Those actions constituted a serious violation of human rights and were internationally wrongful acts. He urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to allow the reunification of the returnees with their families and reiterated his Government’s adherence to human rights standards.