Human Rights Council concludes general debate

Council Hears Address by Minister of Plantation Industries and Special Envoy
of the President of Sri Lanka for Human Rights

The Human Rights Council in a midday meeting today concluded its general debate after hearing the High Commissioner for Human Rights update the Council on the activities of her Office in the morning meeting. The Council also heard an address by
the Minister of Plantation Industries and Special Envoy of the President of Sri Lanka for Human Rights.

Mahinda Samarasinghe, the Minister of Plantation Industries and Special Envoy of the President of Sri Lanka for Human Rights, said that consequent to the liberation of the people of Sri Lanka from the clutches of terrorism in May 2009, the priorities had been of the resettlement of about 290,000 internally displaced persons, facilitation of restoration of normalcy in the lives of returning internally displaced persons and rehabilitation of former child combatants. The process of reconciliation was a priority for the Government as it had everything to do with the people who had now begun to enjoy the dividends of peace. Sri Lanka regretted the procedural and substantive anomalies in the report of the Panel of Experts and strongly commended to the Council that this kind of irregular practice be discouraged as it might lead to established procedure being circumvented arbitrarily.

In the general debate, a number of speakers rejected comments made by the High Commissioner regarding the situation of human rights in their countries. Speakers expressed concern about migrants and refugees in the south of the Mediterranean. In the north of the Mediterranean borders had been closed against these migrants and refugees. With regards to strengthening the treaty body system, States should approve all solutions proposed for responding to difficulties that treaty bodies faced and it was necessary, in consultation with States parties, that treaty bodies proceed to revise and harmonize procedures. Speakers shared the High Commissioner’s view that transitional periods must be properly managed and that new institutions needed maximum support in order to establish democratic regimes and to end decades of human rights violations. The revision of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was very important and speakers were happy to note that this would be considered. Speakers also shared the sentiments of the High Commissioner regarding the plight of migrants and urged Governments to protect migrants regardless of country of origin or destination.

Speaking in the general debate were Algeria, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Australia, Czech Republic, Paraguay, India, Turkey, Ethiopia, Botswana, Austria, Indonesia, Israel, Honduras, South Africa, African Union, Sri Lanka, Canada, Ireland, Syria, Belarus, Iran, Nepal, Philippines, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Morocco, Costa Rica, Colombia, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Viet Nam and Sudan.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’Amité entre les Peuples, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Amnesty International, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), North-South XXI, Pax Romana, CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation, France Liberte - Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, Association for Progressive Communication, United Nations Watch, Society for Threatened People, Human Rights Watch, International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, World Muslim Congress, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, and National Association of Community Legal Centres Inc.

China spoke in right of reply.

The Council today is holding non-stop meetings from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. In the afternoon meeting, the Council will hold a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

Statement by the Minister of Plantation Industries and Special Envoy of the President of Sri Lanka for Human Rights

MAHINDA SAMARASINGHE, Minister of Plantation Industries and Special Envoy of the President of Sri Lanka on Human Rights, said consequent to the liberation of the people of Sri Lanka from the clutches of terrorism in May 2009, the priorities had been of the resettlement of about 290,000 internally displaced persons, facilitation of restoration of normalcy in the lives of returning internally displaced persons and rehabilitation of former child combatants. The process of reconciliation was a priority for the Government as it had everything to do with the people who had now begun to enjoy the dividends of peace. This process needed to be sustained and gradually built upon. Healing the wounds of the recent past was one of the challenges in the post-conflict phase and was important to sustained reconciliation. In order to address this challenge, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission had been established in May 2010, founded upon the principle of restorative justice and focusing on identification of those responsible for past events related to conflict. This domestic process had been established and had commenced work prior to the establishment of the advisory panel of the United Nations Secretary-General, which meant that Sri Lanka had taken on the responsibility to examine the conflict which had lasted nearly three decades, with the view to prescribing remedial action that would prevent any further violence in the country. Sri Lanka urged the critics to desist from arriving at hasty conclusions and to afford Sri Lanka the time, space and opportunity it needed to complete the domestic process.

Sri Lanka’s commitment to the further promotion and protection of human rights was enshrined in the proposed National Action Plan for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, developed through a consultative and participatory process with civil society. The Human Rights Commission had been established and was now fully functional and had taken proactive steps to inquire into allegations of rights violations of persons affected by the conflict, including the displaced. Sri Lanka regretted the procedural and substantive anomalies in the report of the Panel of Experts and strongly commended to the Council that this kind of irregular practice be discouraged as it might lead to established procedure being circumvented arbitrarily.

Sri Lanka recalled that the humanitarian operation of the rescue of 290,000 civilians held hostage by a terrorist organization had been a part of an act of the sovereign and his people in the wake of terrorist aggression. It was undeniable that Sri Lanka had taken definite steps at great costs to resettle and rebuild the lives of the people in the conflict-affected areas. The recent characterisation by the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the very nature of the operation as one which had been conducted under the guise of fighting terrorism was most unfortunate and gave rise to concerns on whether Sri Lanka was considered in an objective manner. It was of concern to Sri Lanka that while there had been robust engagement with the intergovernmental processes of the United Nations, any move to undermine it through attempts to formalise initiatives which had arisen outside intergovernmental processes, would entrench patently flawed procedure. In closing, Mr. Samarasinghe said that Sri Lanka had every confidence that such unusual procedures would not find accommodation in this Council.

General Debate

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) welcomed the analysis of the High Commissioner regarding the evolution of the situation of human rights in the North African region even if the western journalistic slogan that the High Commissioner used of “Arab spring”, which had been applied to all countries in the region, had a rather doubtful sociological value. The President of the Republic of Algeria, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, had announced a number of reforms for the consolidation of human rights in Algeria. Algeria was concerned about migrants and refugees in the south of the Mediterranean. Algeria had opened its borders to refugees while in the north of the Mediterranean borders had been closed. Concerning Sri Lanka, only a decision made by the Council and not an act of the High Commissioner could change previous decisions made by the Council. With regards to strengthening the treaty body system, States should approve all solutions proposed for responding to difficulties that treaty bodies faced and it was necessary, in consultation with States parties, that treaty bodies proceed to revise and harmonize procedures.

REINHARD SCHWEPPE (Germany) shared the High Commissioner’s view that transitional periods must be properly managed and that new institutions needed maximum support in order to establish democratic regimes and to end decades of human rights violations. Germany noted with appreciation the engagement of the High Commissioner’s office with regard to establishing accountability for crimes committed and towards ending impunity, both for past crimes and for the future. Germany supported the planned missions of the High Commissioner to Yemen and Bahrain and hoped that these would lead to a closer engagement with her Office for the benefit of the realization of human rights in these countries. Germany hoped that the mission of the Office of the High Commissioner to Syria could take place in the near future and they looked forward to learning more about the follow-up to recent visits of her Office to Tunisia and Egypt. The serious human rights violations in Belarus needed the attention of the Council as well and swift action. Germany reiterated the full support of the German Government for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the independence of the important work done by that Office to improve the situation of human rights.

LAURA MIRACHIAN (Italy) looked at the Arab Spring with support and solidarity. Concerning the reference to people fleeing from the southern Mediterranean shore to Europe, Italy reiterated its firm commitment to protect the human rights of all migrants. Italy noted that it had promoted an initiative that would lead to a comprehensive package of measures encompassing assistance to refugees and migrants and enhanced cooperation with countries of origin to address the root cause of migration, including capacity building, job creation and improvement of living conditions throughout the region. Italy was committed to long-term partnership for democracy and to mobility partnerships to increase access to legal migration channels, thanks to visa facilitation agreements. In cooperation with international organizations, Italy was providing assistance to a massive influx of people. The challenge was massive and unprecedented but Italy was committed to dealing with it with the highest regard for human rights.

M. HISHAM BADR (Egypt) said that Egypt had witnessed important developments during the past few months. On 19 March, the people voted in favour of a clear road map presently being implemented with an ultimate objective to make Egypt a country where the rule of law was supreme. Human rights were an integral part of the ongoing transformation underway in Egypt. Important steps were being taken to ensure the rule of law, accountability, and to prevent impunity for human rights violations. Victims and their relatives had been provided with effective redress mechanisms with a view to receiving reparations and remedies, and to exercise their right to truth. A full review was underway in relation to Special Procedure visit requests, the recommendations of treaty bodies and the Universal Procedure Review. The Egyptian Government was committed to achieving the goals of growth and social justice and looked forward to the international community, in true partnership, doing their part. Egypt also brought attention to the continuing situation in the Palestinian territories. Egypt stated that all human rights of Palestinians continued to be routinely violated with impunity and in defiance of international and humanitarian and human rights laws.

PETER WOOLCOTT (Australia) welcomed the visit of the High Commissioner to Australia and their invitation was consistent with the Government’s standing and open invitation to the Special Procedure mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. The High Commissioner was in Australia for six days and she travelled around the country, met with government officials and non-governmental organizations and had access to the highest levels of government. The Australia Government took its international human rights obligations seriously and was a signatory to all the major human rights instruments. The High Commissioner’s statement today referred to Australia’s immigration and asylum seeker policies. Australia was one of the top three refugee resettlement destinations in the world. Australian laws did not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, or ethnic identity. Australia’s multicultural policy unequivocally re-stated the Government’s opposition to all forms of racism, discrimination, intolerance and prejudice. In Australia, mandatory detention was based on a person’s unauthorized arrival, not on seeking asylum. The length and conditions of detention were subject to constant and regular review. Australia had taken unprecedented steps to tackle disadvantage among indigenous Australians and acknowledged past wrongs.

PATRICK RUMLAR (Czech Republic) shared the High Commissioner’s remark that governments tended to direct attention to economic growth and foreign investment with too little consideration as to how to promote and protect human rights. The Czech Republic noted that even sound and speedy economic growth and positive macro economic indicators could not compensate for the structural denial of different human rights, including civil and political ones and by no means could be invoked to justify violations of international human rights norms and standards. The Czech Republic welcomed the engagement of the Human Rights Council in the Middle East and North Africa, including the establishment of offices in Cairo and Tunis. It noted that Universal Periodic Review reviews were at odds with the situation on the ground with regard to Libya. The Czech Republic also noted the situation in Belarus where the political opposition, civil society and the media had faced harsh treatment since the last election.

RAUL MARTINEZ (Paraguay) considered the implementation of the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review to be very important. These recommendations should be supported by the Office of the High Commissioner. Paraguay inquired as to how these recommendations should be implemented and followed up on. Paraguay noted issues related to migrants and emphasized the need to not unnecessarily criminalize migrants and to respect obligations in terms of human rights. Paraguay expressed its support for an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

GOPINATHAN ACHAMKULANGARE (India) appreciated the High Commissioner’s continued emphasis on exploring ways to strengthen the treaty body system. In view of the growth of the treaty bodies and the increasing workload on these bodies on account of the success of the Universal Periodic Review, this was a timely effort. India welcomed the consultations that the High Commissioner’s Office facilitated with the treaty bodies at Sion earlier in May. These were the first such consultations with the States parties and it would be a pity if these were the only such consultations on the matter. India reiterated the need for such consultations with States parties to be appropriate, adequate and inclusive given that the success of the treaty bodies lay, in large part, on their ability to elicit cooperation from States parties. India also thanked the President of the Human Rights Council for having guided the Council through an eventful and perhaps difficult year in which the Council undertook the review of its own work and functioning.

ELA GORKEM-GOKCE (Turkey) welcomed the efforts on the part of the High Commissioner to strengthen dialogue between her Office and the Council. Turkey noted that events in Tunisia gave rise to mass movements in the Middle East. It noted that in some countries this led to flagrant abuses of human rights. Turkey welcomed the country visits so that the situation of human rights may be assessed. Turkey attached importance to efforts to improve the work of the treaty body system. The revision of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was very important and Turkey was happy to note that this would be considered.

MINELIK ALEMU GETAHUN (Ethiopia) expressed its belief that treaty strengthening should be implemented within the legal framework incorporated in each treaty and with the active involvement of States parties. Ethiopia emphasized its commitment to the fullest realization of its Growth and Transformation Plan, which underscored the human rights dividends of sustainable and equitable economic development and in which the role of the promotion of human rights was undeniable. Ethiopia agreed with the High Commissioner on the importance of implementing the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review.

MOTHUSI BRUCE RABASHA PALAI (Botswana) appreciated the comprehensive statement delivered by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the update on the work of her Office. Regarding the situation in the Middle East and North Africa Botswana shared the views of the High Commissioner. Development was key and without it much momentum and hope would be lost and there would be doubts about democratization. Botswana also shared the sentiments of the High Commissioner regarding the plight of migrants and urged governments to protect migrants regardless of country of origin or destination. Here they were reminded that feelings of nationalism could overshadow the protection of human rights. They also thanked the High Commissioner for organizing the meeting with States parties in Sion in early May to discuss the strengthening of the treaty body system. The High Commissioner’s observation that the Universal Periodic Review sometimes did not reflect the situation on the ground should be a matter of concern for everyone.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) expressed its satisfaction about the arrests of both Ratko Mladic in Serbia and Bernard Munyagishar in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Austria noted that these arrests demonstrated that persons who committed serious human rights violations could not escape justice. This successful international criminal justice would help to break the cycle of impunity in these countries. Austria appreciated the leadership of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on thematic human rights issues and the approach to country situations. The last months had shown that the Council was able to address human rights situations speedily. Austria supported the decision to establish a regional office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Cairo. It noted that opening of an office in Tunisia would pave the way for increased cooperation between the Office of the High Commissioner and the Government of Egypt. With regard to Syria, Austria noted that human rights abuses would have to come to an end. Of particular concern to Austria were reports of the deliberate targeting and killing of journalists. Austria attached importance to the work of the treaty bodies. It also would like to hear from the High Commission as to how it could assist with more systematic follow up.

DESRA PERCAYA (Indonesia) reiterated Indonesia’s commitment to collaborate with and support the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on various issues before the Council as well as missions in the field. Indonesia noted that the citizens of the countries in crisis in North Africa and the Middle East knew that in striving to obtain the right to being governed according to democratic principles and the rule of law, they also deserved the right to development and future prosperity. Indonesia welcomed steps by countries to reform constitutions, the judiciary and other institutions. Indonesia stood in support of governments implementing reforms to share the benefit of any experience and good practices that had proved successful in Indonesia. Indonesia supported the High Commissioner’s comments concerning follow-up to the first Universal Periodic Review. Indonesia expressed appreciation for the support to Indonesia in the recent elections of the Human Rights Council.

AHARON LESHNO-YAAR (Israel) said that like the rest of the world Israel was following the deteriorating events of the civil war in Libya and they looked forward to its immediate end. The fierce and systematic suppression of peaceful protesters by the malicious forces of Gaddafi had claimed the lives of thousands of people in the last three months. The large scale campaign of eradication of peaceful opponents to the tyrannical regime of Gaddafi must immediately cease and desist. In Syria and Yemen there were clear signs that these governments were quickly following the footsteps of Libya. It was the international community’s obligation to prevent further bloodshed in those countries. Any solution to the situations in Yemen and Syria required an indispensible answer to the people’s demands for democracy and liberty and the securing of their fundamental rights and freedoms. The millions of young Syrians and Yemenis, who had lived their entire lives under the iron fist of the same leader and regime, educated and raised in a society where no limits were placed on the power of rulers, where human rights were systematically crushed, understood now that the path for democracy may not be easy, but it was surely inevitable.

ROBERTO FLORES BERMUDEZ (Honduras) thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her work in following the situation in North Africa and the Middle East, especially those countries that had begun the reform process as well as in those that continued with oppression. Honduras stressed the issue of migration and the situation of migrants who were the most vulnerable group. Honduras agreed to meet the challenge of respecting the rights of all persons from wherever they were and however they reached their destination. Honduras noted that the Garifuna community, who were of African descent, and the Honduran Government were preparing to host the First International Conference of African Descendants in support of the Year of People of African Descent.

LUVUYO NDIMENI (South Africa) shared the assessment of the High Commissioner pertaining to the recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa. South Africa was encouraged by the positive changes taking places, and in particular, the unfolding processes in Egypt aimed at ending impunity for human rights violations committed during protests. South Africa did not share the view that transitional justice mechanisms should be imposed on any State emerging from conflict, as each country needed to determine its own transitional justice mechanisms. South Africa would have liked to see the condemnation of the killing of civilians in Libya by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Allied Forces and encouraged the High Commissioner to investigate the issue, not only in Libya but also in other recent incidents of armed conflict. In relation to the update report, South Africa highlighted that human rights violations occurred in both developed and developing countries. South Africa inquired as to the unfolding of the reflection process regarding the United Nations Panel on Sri Lanka. South Africa was saddened by the treatment of migrants to Europe and elsewhere and underscored concerns raised by the High Commissioner on the new form of racist treatment of the aboriginal peoples in Australia. On the reform of the treaty body system, South Africa agreed that the treaty body system faced challenges and looked forward to further consultations as agreed to in Sion and recalled its allusion to the need for a transparent and inclusive intergovernmental process.

MME KHADIJA R. MASRI (African Union) thanked the High Commissioner for her presentation and commitment to protection and promotion of human rights, particularly in Africa. The High Commissioner rightly stressed that the denial of the right to development in its most global dimensions had led to the mass movements in North Africa and the Middle East. The work of the High Commissioner fit in nicely with that done by the African Union; the same goals were being sought and the similarity in approaches provided a platform for cooperation. The African Union shared the High Commissioner’s concern about the situation of migrants, particularly those that put their lives at risk on the sea in search of a better life. The way in which migrants were treated had not improved. The Commission of the African Union was highly concerned about the rejection and criminalization of migrants that had been observed recently in some European countries. Drastic policies of interception, repression and control could be a source of violence and abuse and could promote the development of human trafficking. They should work together to guarantee the rights of all people wherever they may be and whatever their means of transport. People should show solidarity with people who were less well off in keeping with their international obligations.

KSHENUKA SENEWIRATNE (Sri Lanka) said that Sri Lanka was perplexed to note the High Commissioner’s reference to the report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on accountability in Sri Lanka which, as was widely known, had been borne outside of an intergovernmental process. As the Panel had been compiled to advise the Secretary-General, it was unfortunate that the High Commissioner had thought fit to refer to it in her report, which brought into question her objectivity. Further, the High Commissioner had deemed it appropriate to call for action on recommendations which had been based on unverified information and were un-sourced. The High Commissioner had also called for the establishment of an international monitoring mechanism which has been recommended in the reports based on unverified information and Sri Lanka said that if adhered to this call, the professionalism and independence of the Council would be called into question. The continued demonstrable lack of objectivity and impropriety on the part of the High Commissioner did not augur well for the work of her Office in constructive engagement with the Government of Sri Lanka which had constantly been sought by Sri Lanka though their interactions. To other countries that made similar references, Sri Lanka said that the policies of the Government of Sri Lanka were solely based on ensuring the welfare of its people and therefore it was well aware of its responsibilities.

MARIUS GRINIUS (Canada) called on the Human Rights Council, its Special Procedures and the High Commissioner to speak out to support civilian populations demanding fundamental rights and freedoms, and to condemn human rights violations, take concerted action to prevent or end human rights violations and provide support for necessary reforms to guarantee rights and freedoms and accountability for violations. Canada welcomed the promise of change towards democratic governance in North Africa and was convinced that the active participation of women in reform efforts was essential. Canada was appalled by the brutality of the Libyan and Syrian regimes and their disregard for human rights and called on these regimes to fully respect human rights, address the protestors’ legitimate concerns and investigate violations. Canada shared concerns for the situation in Abyei and South Sudan and the continuing conflict in Darfur. Canada supported the extension of the mandate on Nepal and shared concerns about the harsh and disproportionate treatment of political dissent and harassment of rights groups and the media in Belarus. Canada agreed that careful consideration by the Government of Sri Lanka of the conclusions and recommended measures in the report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts was needed.

MICHEAL TIERNEY (Ireland) noted that over a period of some months now, human rights issues had moved rightfully to the centre of concern for the international community. This had happened because of the force of the moral demand made by ordinary citizens. People in North Africa and beyond had clearly stated that the legitimacy of power was derived from the respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. Ireland joined other delegations in commending the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on its response to these complex events. The Office had conducted successful missions to Egypt and Tunisia and had agreed in principle to conduct further missions to Yemen and Bahrain. The international community must and would respond to the identified needs for technical assistance for those countries seeking to manage periods of transition. Throughout this tumultuous period, the voice of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had provided a clear framework for understanding the events and for formulating appropriate responses. This had included inputs into debates at the Security Council.

FAYSAL KHABBAZ HAMOUI (Syria) said Syria was surprised and regretted the words used by the High Commissioner when describing the situation in their country. Those words went beyond the mandate and remit of the High Commissioner. Criticising and pointing the negative were contrary to constructive dialogue and did not build confidence. There had been positive developments by the Government which led to tangible improvements in the level of violence, but those were not mentioned by the High Commissioner. Speaking of negative images only did not help improve the situation in Syria or in the region. Turning to the situation in Palestine, Syria said that Israeli forces had killed 15 persons, but this could not be mentioned.

IRINA ARZHANKOVA (Belarus) thanked the High Commissioner for her attention to events in Belarus but stated that her assessments were not balanced. There was no reason for citizens of the European Union to take part in massive protests against Belarus. Belarus expressed concern that no calls had been made for international and independent investigations into secret detention centres as well as the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Belarus called on the High Commissioner to pay attention to human rights worldwide with equal attention. Belarus was open to the outside world, its visa regime was one of most liberal, and it was surprised at calls to make the system more liberal. Belarus called on Member States of the Council not to support the initiative of Brussels for a Special Rapporteur on Belarus. Belarus was surprised about the lack of reaction of the High Commissioner to measures by the European Union and United States against Belorussian citizens, which could be seen as a weakness of human rights bodies.

NATALLIA ZHYLEVICH (Belarus) said the attention of the High Commissioner to human rights issues in the field was understandable; however as before there was no balance in the assessment of country situations and this could not but give rise to legitimate concern. Belarus called upon the High Commissioner’s office to act in keeping with mandate and to monitor the human rights situation in countries in the world on an equal basis. The permanent reference to problems in certain countries and stubborn silence on the part of the High Commissioner’s office to even greater problems of a similar nature in other countries was simply inadmissible. Belarus was open to the outside world; its visa regime was one of the most liberal one could find and they were surprised at the part of the statement made by the High Commissioner in respect of appeals for greater openness. Belarus was also concerned at the lack of reaction on the part of the High Commissioner’s Office and of the Special Procedures of the Council in respect to the unilateral measures introduced by the European Union and the United States against Belorussian citizens, including journalists.

SEYED MOHAMMAD REZA SAJJADI (Iran) said that it was well known that for more than a century the West had supported and financed dictatorships in the Middle East and Arab world, as it was through these autocracies that it managed to control the wealth of this part of the planet which subsequently led to the increasingly widespread poverty, torture and repression and a lack of fundamental rights and freedoms. The ongoing Muslim awakening had insistently affirmed that the Islamic world would no longer accept double standards and hypocrisy in the international relations era either. Justice, democracy, freedom and self-determination were undeniable rights that could not be promoted and protected selectively to serve the interests of some and not all and must be extended to people living under foreign occupation, in particular in occupied Palestine and other Arab territories. It was also of paramount importance for States to undergo these processes of change and adjustment without unwarranted foreign interference. Iran was deeply concerned over the increasing anti-migrant feelings and Islamophobia in western societies, in particular in France, Norway, Denmark and Belgium. These feeling, at times, resulted in violence and discrimination against migrants, including Muslims who had been living in host communities for generations. The international community had an important role to play in protecting the rights of migrants, including the rights to life and freedom of religion.

BHRIGU DHUNGANA (Nepal) appreciated the comprehensive update of the High Commissioner and welcomed her focus on major events around the globe. The root causes that led to the denial of fundamental freedoms and human rights must be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Transition periods were sensitive periods that were best helped by support to institutions and putting people in the centre of the process. Nepal believed that the effectiveness of the Universal Periodic Review called for the creation of effective national institutions and was happy to note that the High Commissioner’s call to strengthen treaty bodies was receiving the necessary attention. Concerning the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights country office, Nepal said that internal consultations were going on and that the country would soon arrive at an appropriate decision in the changed context of the democratic transformation in the country.

EVAN P. GARCIA (Philippines) said the Philippines was closely monitoring the events in North Africa and the Middle East, particularly as regards migrants and third country nationals. The Philippines acknowledged that the transition process was never an easy path and its own history and development had shown that the struggle for the cause of human rights and democracy was never one-sided or a black-and-white affair but a complex process. The Philippines emphasized the urgent need for mutual respect and dialogue across perceived divides and between stakeholders. The Universe Periodic Review remained an important mechanism that built trust and understanding. The Philippines congratulated Sri Lanka for ending the decades-long conflict and encouraged the Government to continue its national efforts to promote peace, reconciliation, national healing and inclusive development and stability, which contributed to the long-term promotion and protection of the human rights of its people.

KIM YONG HO (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) appreciated the opportunity to take note of the consistent attention and recent activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the global protection and promotion of human rights. However, they had strong reservations to some points made by the High Commissioner, in particular her reference to the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as it did not reflect reality. As they had repeatedly explained at every opportunity, in their country the protection of human rights was firmly guaranteed by the constitution and relevant laws and all people fully enjoyed their human rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly freedom of expression. This was also made clear during the meeting between the High Commissioner and representatives of their country in February 2011. They could not understand the intention of the High Commissioner who referred to the “suppression of the freedom of expression” and the “troubling” situation. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was of the view that the High Commissioner, who had the responsibility to respect and ensure the principles of objectivity and impartiality, should refrain from repeating fabricated and distorted information circulated by forces hostile to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco) thanked the High Commissioner for her focus on the region and the reforms in Morocco. In the region there were different socio-economic conditions regardless of similarities. The specificity of Morocco was that the reform was not a fruit of a single spring, but was a result of irreversible political commitments. The reforms started in the 1990s and the specificities of the country were recognised by many international partners. Reforms included the family code, the rule of law, the courts and the justice system. Particular impetus to reforms had been provided by the royal statement of March 2011. Human rights were now one of the crucial pillars of social and economic covenants in the country. Consolidation of democracy and the rule of law was happening through the reform of justice, with the strengthening of independence, restructuring of the national human rights body which now had more prerogatives and through good governance including human rights, the fight against corruption and transparency. Morocco noted the interest shown by the High Commissioner in strengthening the treaty bodies.

NORMAN LIZANO ORTIZ (Costa Rica) recognized the historical period taking place in the Middle East and North Africa where people had demanded respect for human rights. Costa Rica also emphasized that other countries, generally considered as respecting human rights, had been singled out for their lack of respect of these fundamental rights. Costa Rica emphasized that freedom of expressions was a fundamental right and went hand-in-hand with information technology. The natural human evolution in the arts, science and technology should not modify the universality, indivisibility and interrelation of human rights. Costa Rica congratulated those governments which had stated they would receive visits from the Office. Costa Rica emphasized a process to strengthen human rights bodies and looked forward to dialogue on these issues in the coming months, which would be extremely important to the future of the treaty body system.

ALICIA VICTORIA ARANGO OLMOS (Colombia) thanked the High Commissioner for her statement which referred to the situation of human rights throughout the world. As Colombia had expressed on numerous occasions and in various fora, they were concerned about the violence in North Africa and the Middle East and they urged parties to build channels for social and political dialogue in order to build societies that were more democratic and just and where people could exercise their fundamental rights and freedoms. Reconciliation and peace were not possible without punishing those who were guilty of violating human rights, a process of reparations for victims and a guarantee that this would not happen again in the future. Colombia had instituted this process and as part of the process of reconciliation it had identified the bodies of 9,000 “disappeared” persons and was in the painful process of notifying their families. More than 1 million families, or approximately 4 million persons, would receive reparations in a process that was expected to take 10 years. Fighting impunity was key in building democracy.

BADRIDDIN OBIDO (Uzbekistan) wished to address recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review and said Uzbekistan agreed with the High Commissioner that it was important to establish a monitoring mechanism for the implementation of the recommendations from the first cycle of this process. Uzbekistan had adopted and was now implementing the national action plan for the implementation of Universal Periodic Review recommendations. This plan contained a number of measures addressing the rights of women and children, civil society bodies and others. At the moment, Uzbekistan was working together with the High Commissioner to define measures of cooperation to ensure the compliance of th5 country with the recommendations it had received during the Universal Periodic Review process.

HUSSAIN AL-ZUHAIRY (Iraq) said Iraq was making every effort to play a positive role in the international community. Iraq presented its report to the Universal Periodic Review and had presented a series of bills concerning the execution of human rights to the Iraqi Parliament, including legislation regarding freedom of opinion and peaceful demonstrations, which were being discussed and adopted. Other laws were being considered for repeal, as they ran counter to human rights. The human rights institution to be established in Iraq would be based on the Paris Principles. In Baghdad in a few days, the working group on mercenaries would be welcomed, as well as the Special Rapporteur on torture. Iraq would welcome further visits by human rights bodies. Iraq was no longer closed and welcomed further efforts to increase respect for human rights in Iraq. Iraq would be convening an extended conference to examine the human rights situation in Iraq as well as the recommendations emanating from the Universal Periodic Review. Some of these recommendations had been adopted while others were still being examined.

VU ANH QUANG (Viet Nam) commended the activities of the High Commissioner’s Office, including the commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development as well as the International Year of People of African Descent. However, the delegation felt the High Commissioner should deal more with global challenges and issues such as the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, particularly in the context of the global financial crisis, the food crisis and natural disasters. The exercise of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in Viet Nam was in keeping with international standards, therefore Viet Nam expressed regret about the non-objective characterisation of the situation in that country in the High Commissioner’s report.

MOHAMED ELMURTADA MUBARAK ISMAIL (Sudan) said that in her statement the High Commissioner had welcomed the referendum on the status of South Sudan which had been carried out and favoured the independence of the South Sudan. Sudan welcomed this statement and hoped that this would come about in January. This was an essential step forward in achieving stability. Sudan continued to respect the global peace agreement and continued to encourage the South to respect it and not to create new events on the ground, but to instead wait for the designated date for the independence. The agreement said that the status of the Abyei would be under the presidential authority and would be managed by bodies created by that authority. The forces tried to overtake the region, however, leading to human and material losses, making Sudan obliged to take measures to establish peace and stability.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, acknowledged the steps announced by the Kingdom of Morocco for constitutional and other reforms, but the Mouvement contre racisme remained concerned about the treatment of Sahrawi people. The Mouvement contre racisme was also concerned about the French Government’s opposition to include a human rights chapter in the mandate of MINURSO. They urged the High Commissioner to dispatch a mission to the non-autonomous region of Western Sahara and report findings to the Council. The Mouvement contre racisme hoped that the Assistant Secretary-General Simonovic’s dialogue with Iraqi authorities included the protection of the residents of Camp Ashraf. Two months after the massacre perpetrated by the Iraqi military forces, there was yet to be an investigation about the tragedy. The Mouvement contre racisme welcomed a plan for the European Parliamentary Delegation for relations with Iraq and underscored security of residents of Camp Ashraf.

JOHN FISHER, of Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network, commended the High Commissioner for the “Speak up, stop discrimination” campaign calling for an end to discrimination and other human rights violations. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network welcomed the Office’s release, jointly with UNAIDS, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Development Programme, on “Tackling discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity” which provided a clear and much-needed articulation of jurisprudential framework for addressing these issues. The Special Procedures had reported on cases of transgender people burned to death, of lesbians tortured and raped, of gay men beaten to death; any attempt to limit the ability of Special Procedures to address theses issues should be rejected. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network raised concerns that two-thirds of communications from Special Procedures went unanswered, highlighting need for increasing attention to measures to enhance state cooperation. Systematic monitoring, follow up and concrete action to address situations of reprisals remained an important priority.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, welcomed that the High Commissioner for Human Rights had raised the need to address accountability in Sri Lanka. Amnesty International noted that on 31 March, the UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on the accountability in Sri Lanka issued its report highlighting the credible allegations that both sides in Sri Lanka’s armed conflict violated international human rights and humanitarian law, possibly committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Secretary-General of the United Nations should establish an independent international mechanism to investigate the allegations. Both Amnesty International and the Panel of Experts had noted that Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission was flawed and would do little to deliver justice to the victims and advance the situation. Sri Lanka had a poor record of accountability as decades of impunity and failed ad hoc inquiries had demonstrated. Amnesty International noted that the Secretary-General’s Panel had concluded that the Commission was deeply flawed.

LAILA MATAR, of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, expressed deep appreciation to the High Commissioner and her Office for the unwavering support they had demonstrated over the last five months for the rights and dignity of millions of ordinary citizens throughout the Arab region who continued to risk their lives on a daily basis to demand the most basic and fundamental of human rights. The Cairo Institute noted that in Syria and Libya the death toll was rising. It also noted that cases of extra judicial killings, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearance and torture had become the norm for dealing with citizens who sought dignity and democracy and might be tantamount to crimes against humanity. The Cairo Institute noted that the death toll approached 200 in Yemen and that the Government and government-led militias were attacking protesters in al Hureya square in Taiz with excessive force and live ammunition. The President’s strategy of provocation and use of violence had escalated to armed conflict and threatened the peace of the country.

GUYOUN KIM, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), welcomed the statement of the High Commissioner focusing on the accountability issues in Sri Lanka. Forum Asia strongly echoed the call by the Panel of Experts to the Government of Sri Lanka to commence genuine investigations into alleged violations of international humanitarian law committed by both sides to the conflict. Forum Asia was deeply disappointed that the Government of Sri Lanka had responded to the Panel by denying its legitimacy and totally rejecting its findings and recommendations. Forum Asia repeated that the Human Rights Council must remained seized on a whole range of issues in this country, including targeting of journalists and human rights defenders for their legitimate work.

CURTIS DOEBBLER, of North-South XXI, said that climate change, although the greatest threat to human rights today, had not been mentioned in the High Commissioner’s report. North-South XXI asked what activities the High Commissioner’s Office had been taking in this regard and whether she would address the climate change meeting in Durban, South Africa later this year. North-South XXI invited the High Commissioner to address the responsibility of States due to their historical contributions to climate change. They welcomed the mention of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action in the report of the High Commissioner and the activities ensuring that the High Level Meeting to be held in September 2011 would be a success.

LAURENCE KWARK, of Pax Romana, welcomed the report on accountability in Sri Lanka and was encouraged by the historical moments in the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and even Europe in rising up to claim fundamental rights and accountability. Pax Romana emphasized that in Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries millions of Dalit victims continued to suffer under the culture of historical discrimination. Pax Romana urged Sri Lanka to show good will by immediately taking institutional reforms to investigate crimes and undertaking measures to advance accountabilities towards victims. Pax Romona urged the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council to propose and adopt a resolution to hold a day of special reflection and panel discussion on crimes committed in Sri Lanka.

RENATE BLOEM, of CIVICUS - World Alliance for Citizen Participation, shared the High Commissioner’s assessment of ongoing developments in the Arab region. Vulnerable migrants needed special attention. They could not just be outsourced and offloaded elsewhere. CIVICUS urged the European Union and other countries to be supportive in action and practical solidarity. CIVIUS was encouraged by the Council’s energy in addressing violations in Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and Syria but was concerned with the lack of action so far to address similar gross violations in Bahrain and Yemen. CIVICUS shared the High Commissioner’s continued concern about Belarus and thanked the Commissioner for highlighting the leading role of civil society.

ORETTA BANDETINI DI POGGIO, of France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, noted that the situation in Ashraf camp was an urgent and humanitarian issue that Ms. Mitterrand, the President of the organization had been following closely for a long time. The Foundation noted the High Commissioner’s statement that the “Iraqi military were well aware of the risks attached to launching an operation like this in Ashraf”,… “There is no possible excuse for this number of casualties…”. They urged the Human Rights Council to help promote the acceptance and enforcement of the plan forwarded by the European Parliament after its recent visit to the camp which aimed at a peaceful settlement of the Ashraf issue thus preventing a further humanitarian catastrophe.

JOY JENNIFER LIDDICOAT, of Association for Progressive Communications, thanked the President of the Council for the manner in which he had engaged with civil society throughout his term. The Association for Progressive Communication welcomed the High Commissioner’s opening statement to the Council and took the opportunity to thank her Office for its work. They also welcomed the reference to recent events in North Africa and Middle East and called for dignity, equity and justice which “spread from village to village, country to country, and across the globe by e-mail, text message and social media”. The Association noted that the Internet was used by billions of people around the globe and operated on a decentralized structure with no single regulatory oversight. It noted that freedom of expression must be the basis for the protection of rights both off and online. The Association expressed grave concern about violations of human rights of persons using the Internet to enhance social justice and development.

ABIGAIL CHERNICK, of United Nations Watch, said that the High Commissioner spoke of the brutality of the Government in Libya and Syria and Human Nations Watch welcomed the recent United Nations resolution which had suspended the membership of Libya in the Human Rights Council. United Nations Watch was alarmed by the situation in Syria and joined the High Commissioner’s call to the Government of this country to allow immediate access to her Office in order to conduct an investigation. United Nations Watch requested an immediate stop to repression in Yemen and Bahrain and said that the countries resorting to such measures had no place in the Human Rights Council.

TENZIN KAYTE, of Society for Threatened Peoples, shared the concerns by the High Commissioner concerning repression of human rights in China. There was a pattern of forced disappearances in China, with victims being tortured and interrogated before being released. The targets were Mongolian, Tibetan and Uyghur people, particularly those exercising their freedom of expression. The Society for Threatened People requested the High Commissioner to intensify the monitoring of the freedom of expression in China and ensure it complied with its international obligations.

JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, commended the Human Rights Council for reacting to the situations in Syria and Libya but found the protracted silence with regards to State violence and abuse in Bahrain and Yemen as a betrayal of the Human Rights Council’s mandate and thousands of victims requiring its protection. The human rights situation in Yemen had deteriorated into a full-fledge crisis that demanded urgent attention by the Council. In Bahrain, the human rights crisis was growing increasingly grave.

ALTAF HUSSAIN WANI, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, appreciated that the High Commissioner had acknowledged a number of steps and initiatives taken by some States to promote and protect the human rights of their citizens in the wake of recent developments. International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations remained concerned that the Office of Human Rights Commissioner had failed to respond to extremely volatile human rights situations, including the summer uprising in 2010 in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Peaceful demonstrations were met with brute force resulting in the death of over 100 people, but these events were not condemned by the Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights.

FAISAL REHMAN, of World Muslim Congress, expressed appreciation to the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her updates and introductory statement that provided a wealth of information on human rights situations around the world. However the World Muslim Congress remained concerned about certain facts which could have been a part of the updates but were ignored. The World Muslim Congress noted that the statement contained nothing about the burning of the Koran by an extremist United States pastor. It did not maintain any reference to the extremist act. It also made no mention of the summer uprising in Indian administered Kashmir, although this was well documented in the media

ISHTIYAQ HAMEED, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, noted that the Office of the High Commissioner was particularly busy at the moment with burgeoning situations across the globe. The focus on the rights of migrants was particularly relevant at this time and the Association urged that States be pressed with regard to their international obligations to offer protection to those people who were fleeing oppressive regimes and areas of conflict and violence. The International Human Rights Association of American Minorities noted that some European States were failing to meet many of their obligations with regard to money at this time. An emphasis should be placed on those places that had been suffering de-facto occupation and had done for so long that they had fallen off the immediate priority list, places like Indian inhabited Kashmir. The Association asked that this long standing situation be brought under control.

PHILIP LYNCH, of National Association of Community Legal Centres Inc., welcomed the report of the High Commissioner and said the Association had the pleasure to meet her during her visit to Australia. The National Association of Community Legal Centres was concerned about the status of migration detention and was concerned that this detention was not in accordance with the law. Immigration detention was not a measure of last resort, but asylum seekers and immigrants who arrived illegally were detained as a matter of course before all other measures were exhausted. Australia had a positive human rights record, but needed to improve on immigration detention and the National Association was ready to work with the Government to achieve this goal.

Right of Reply

JIANG YINGFENG, China, speaking in a right of reply, responding to the statement by the Society for Threatened Peoples, said statements were made against China on an untenable basis and China rejected the lies of this organization. China respected rights of speech and expression, but freedoms in any country were not absolute. These rights should be exercised in a way that did not threaten stability. The pursuit of the right to development was a part of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. China rejected the separatist views professed by the Society concerning Tibet. Ulterior political motives were involved in these statements. This was sacrilege to the fundamental right of freedom of expression and against the pursuit of the right to development.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record