Human Rights Council holds interactive dialogue on human rights and international solidarity and on mercenaries

MIDDAY

13 September 2011

The Human Rights Council in a midday meeting today held a clustered interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity and the Chairperson Rapporteur of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.

Virginia Dandan, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, said that there were multi-faceted crises that the world must address immediately. Threats to peace and security, poverty, water, scarcity, population pressure, the adverse social and economic effects of globalisation including its impact on labour and migration, as well as the misuse of natural resources that was closely linked to increasing social conflict, marginalisation and poverty, were but some of the most serious constraints to a sustainable future during this century. These grim realisations reinforced the argument for the elaboration of the right to international solidarity and for judiciously moving forward without further delay, to reach an agreement on its contours, configuration and substance, as would be articulated in a draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity.

Fazia Patel, Chairperson Rapporteur of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impending the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, said that the Working Group was mandated by the Human Rights Council to monitor the activities of both mercenaries and private military and security companies and their impact on the enjoyment of human rights. Traditionally mercenaries were understood to be soldiers hired to fight in an armed conflict or to overthrow a Government. Mercenaries posed a threat not only to security but also to human rights and the right of people to self-determination and it remained crucial that States cooperated to eliminate this phenomenon and to focus on the need for regulation.

Equatorial Guinea, South Africa and Iraq spoke as concerned countries.

In the interactive dialogue, speakers said that international solidarity was one of the main principles of judicial order in the relations among nations and urged for an open dialogue on the topic of international solidarity free from capitalist interests. Other speakers said that the issue of international solidarity was not an issue that this Council should address. There were many other subjects that were more relevant to this Council and this mandate diverted attention and resources away from those issues. Speakers said that international solidarity was a pre-condition and a fundamental principle of international relations to achieve a peaceful, dignified and secure future for all. They affirmed their understanding that international solidarity was not limited to international assistance and cooperation, aid, charity or humanitarian assistance, but was a broader concept and principle that included sustainability in international relations, especially international economic relations, the peaceful coexistence of all members of the international community, equal partnerships and the equitable sharing of benefits and burden.

On mercenaries, some speakers said they shared the conclusions of the report of the Working Group on mercenaries that the use of private security companies by governments represented a growing threat to human rights. States that hired private military and security companies should ensure their accountability and conformity with international human rights law. The proliferation of private security companies and the lack of responsibility for violations was a matter for grave concern. Speakers believed that the issue of mercenaries was important and were concerned about the influence that mercenary activities could have on armed conflicts. However, they regretted that this year’s report continued to mix the issue of mercenaries with the different question of private military and security companies. There needed to be an international framework on the operation of private military and security companies, including better licensing processes, training of staff and mechanisms for oversight.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Venezuela, Switzerland, United States, Russian Federation, Cuba, European Union, Honduras, Azerbaijan, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, United Kingdom, China, Algeria, Spain, Egypt on behalf of the Arab Group, Pakistan, Egypt, Bangladesh, and Chad.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Association Comunita Papa Giovani XXIII, United Towns Agency for North-South Cooperation, International Association of Peace Messenger Cities, International Institute for Peace, United School International, North-South XXI, and Federation of Cuban Women.

The Russian Federation, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia spoke in right of reply.

At the beginning of the meeting, the President of the Council said that the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism had resigned from his mandate due to a conflict of interest that may arise from his appointment as Attorney General of Kenya. His resignation was immediate. Candidates interested may submit applications until the end of the month. The Council aimed to appoint a Special Rapporteur as soon as possible in order to allow him or her to present the report of his predecessor to the General Assembly.

The Human Rights Council is today holding three back-to-back meetings. At 3 p.m., it will hold a panel discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests.

Documentation

The Report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, (A/HRC/18/32), provides an overview of activities undertaken during the reporting period, including a summary of its missions to Equatorial Guinea, South Africa and Iraq, and the participation of the members as resource persons in the intergovernmental working group established by the Human Rights Council at its fifteenth session. The Working Group reviews the activities and achievements of the mandate since its establishment by the Commission on Human Rights in 2005, including its progress in the elaboration of a possible draft convention on private military and security companies (private military and security companies), the consultations held in each of the five geographic regions pursuant to General Assembly resolution 62/145, and the communications and country missions of the Working Group in the past six years. The Working Group subsequently identifies the key challenges for the mandate. Lastly, the Working Group makes a number of recommendations for Member States in order to address the challenges identified in its report.
Mission to Equatorial Guinea, 16 to 20 August 2010, (A/HRC/18/32/Add.2), focuses on the investigations and prosecutions relating to the attempted coup d’état of March 2004 and to the armed attack on the presidential palace by alleged mercenaries on 17 February 2009. The Working Group also inquired about the activities of private military and security companies operating in Equatorial Guinea. The Working Group found that the attempt illustrates the possible close and disturbing links between mercenaries and some private military and security companies, making the monitoring of such links all the more necessary. In this regard, the Working Group recommends that the Government adopt legislation to regulate the activities of such companies and their employees.
Mission to South Africa, 10 to 19 November 2010, (A/HRC/18/32/Add.3), focuses on the legislation on mercenaries and private military and security companies and the impact of such legislation on the enjoyment and protection of human rights. The report also examines whether mechanisms have been put in place in order to hold private military and security companies accountable for any involvement in human rights violations. The Working Group recommends that the authorities provide coordination and harmonization between the two regulatory frameworks. It recommends that the authorities consider the establishment of accountability mechanisms for private military and security companies at the domestic level. The Working Group also recommends that effective remedies be offered to potential victims of human rights violations involving private military and security companies.

Mission to Iraq, (A/HRC/18/32/Add.4), focuses on the many private military and security companies Iraq has hosted over the past decade, and a series of high profile incidents involving such companies, such as the Nissour Square shooting in 2007, which have focused attention on the negative impact of their activities on Iraqis’ human rights. During its visit to Iraq the Working Group learned that the number of incidents involving private military and security companies have decreased in recent years. This could be attributed to several factors: the decrease in military-related activities in Iraq, stricter regulation by the Iraqi authorities; and efforts by the United States of America to tighten oversight of its private security contractors working in Iraq. Despite this decrease in incidents Iraq continues to struggle with the grant of legal immunity extended to private security contractors which prevents prosecution in Iraqi courts. The Working Group is deeply concerned about the lack of accountability for violations committed between 2003 and 2009 and recalls that the victims of such violations, and their families, are still waiting for justice.

The Note by the Secretariat: Report of the independent expert on human rights and international solidarity, (A/HRC/18/34), states the report on the implementation of resolution 15/13 will be submitted by the Independent Expert following the renewal of the mandate and the appointment of a new mandate holder by the Human Rights Council.

Presentation of Reports on Human Rights and International Solidarity and on the Use of Mercenaries

VIRGINIA DANDAN, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, said that the notion of solidarity had defined the work of the United Nations since its inception, drawing together nations and peoples to promote peace and security, human rights and development. Solidarity far exceeded the sense of a common bond that was rightfully synonymous with solidarity. Solidarity was a persuasion that combined differences and opposites, holding them together into one heterogeneous whole and nurturing it with the universal values of human rights. International solidarity therefore did not seek to homogenize but rather to be the bridge across those differences and opposites.

There were already multi-faceted crises that the world must address immediately. Threats to peace and security, poverty, water, scarcity, population pressure, the adverse social and economic effects of globalisation including its impact on labour and migration, as well as the misuse of natural resources that was closely linked to increasing social conflict, marginisation and poverty, were but some of the most serious constraints to a sustainable future during this century. These grim realisations reinforced the argument for the elaboration of the right to international solidarity and for judiciously moving forward without further delay to reach an agreement on its contours, configuration and substance, as would be articulated in a draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity. Ms. Dandan said that her predecessor’s reports contained, among many other things, the views expressed surrounding international solidarity as a human right. She paid very close attention to all views that had been expressed and would continue to do so, respecting, reflecting and remaining open to other perspectives. The way to understand was in listening to what was being said, and at the same time, to what was not being said. A workshop would be the proper forum and opportunity for further dialogue on outstanding issues and gaps including the gender implications of international solidarity, the impact of a right to international solidarity, the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and the realization of the right to development. The workshop would be held in the latter part of 2012.

If time allowed, Ms. Dandan said she would study and observe firsthand through country visits, among other things, how best practices identified in the reports of her predecessor actually worked on the ground, and how aid effectiveness was ensured in practice, particularly in terms of achieving development goals. She hoped that because the right to international solidarity belonged to peoples and individuals, they might find a meaningful way to engage with grassroots communities, so that they too would share ownership of the outcomes of the mandate. In conclusion, Ms. Dandan said she was confident that the support of the Human Rights Council, the results of all the activities she had arranged, the work done by her predecessor and the assistance of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, would serve as the tools, resources and materials that would enable her to construct and deliver a draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity, before her term ended in 2014.

FAZIA PATEL, Chairperson Rapporteur of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impending the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, said that the Working Group was mandated by the Human Rights Council to monitor the activities of both mercenaries and private military and security companies and their impact on the enjoyment of human rights. Traditionally mercenaries were understood to be soldiers hired to fight in an armed conflict or to overthrow a Government. The attempted coup of March 2004 in Equatorial Guinea was a classic case of the latter. The Working Group conducted a visit to Equatorial Guinea in August 2010 and there were two points about this mission worth highlighting. First, while the Working Group made a clear distinction between mercenaries and employees of private military and security companies, it was interesting to note that several of the mercenaries involved in the 2004 coup were former employees of private military and security companies. Second, States which combated mercenary activities must do so in accordance with international human rights standards. In this regard, the Working Group regretted that the authorities of Equatorial Guinea failed to grant it access to those suspected of being involved in a mercenary attack on the presidential palace in February 2009.

In the last several months there had been a resurgence of allegations of mercenary activities in Côte d’Ivoire and Libya. Notably, the use of foreign fighters by former President Laurent Gbagbo would require further study by the Working Group that hoped to visit Côte d’Ivoire over the next few months to obtain further information. In Libya, there were reports that mercenaries were used to attack civilian populations protesting democratic rights, which suggested that their activities continued to have implications on the exercise of the right of people to self-determination. The Working Group would make it a priority to visit Libya as well. Concerning South Africa, the Working Group’s visit to that country noted that there were a number of serious challenges to implementing the 1998 Act on the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance. New legislation adopted by South Africa in 2006 was not yet in force and therefore it remained to be seen whether it would prove effective in regulating the provision of security services in areas of armed conflict.

An equally important aspect of the Working Group’s mandate was the activities of private military and security companies which continued to undertake an ever large range of activities in an increasing number of countries around the world. Given the potential impact of their activities on human rights, they should not be allowed to continue to operate without adequate regulation. There was a growing recognition amongst stakeholders that the activities of private military and security companies should be regulated, both at the national and at the international levels. Last year there was the launch of the International Code of Conduct for private security providers developed by the private military and security industry, with the support of the Government of Switzerland and on the basis of the Montreux Document on pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for States related to operations of private military and security companies during armed conflict. The Code of Conduct established a common set of principles in accordance with the rule of law, respect for human rights and the interest of their clients and has now been signed by more than 150 companies.

Ms. Patel said that in June, the Working Group conducted its long-awaited visit to Iraq. During the visit the Working Group was pleased to learn that the number of human rights incidents involving private companies had decreased in recent years and it commended the efforts of the Iraqi and United States authorities to tighten private security contractors in operation in Iraq. Recent events in Africa clearly demonstrated that the problems posed by mercenaries were still a live issue. Mercenaries posed a threat not only to security but also to human rights and the right of people to self-determination and it remained crucial that States cooperated to eliminate this phenomenon and to focus on the need for regulation.

Statements by Concerned Countries

SALOMON NGUEMA DUMA (Equatorial Guinea), speaking as a concerned country, said the mission by the Chairperson of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries to Equatorial Guinea took place in August and they thanked her for the visit. The Government was concerned that the Working Group had dismissed some of the information provided to it and had not taken into account all of the information made available to them by Equatorial Guinea after the visit. Some members of the Working Group seemed to believe that after the 2009 Presidential election some of those in authority were not prepared to follow up on the concerns of the Working Group. The Working Group had underplayed the attack on the presidential palace in17 February 2009 and other similar acts. Equatorial Guinea was a Member State of the United Nations and signatory to treaties that required respect and protection of human rights. This was the context in which Equatorial Guinea operated from. Equatorial Guinea had taken steps to begin to reform its legal system. Equatorial Guinea was carrying out significant work as indicated in its national report.

Equatorial Guinea was doing what it could to provide protection of human rights as part of a reform process. Equatorial Guinea had put emphasis on training of the armed forces and police service. The Working Group had justified attacks by mercenaries by a perceived lack of democracy. Equatorial Guinea questioned if the Chairperson would say to the most powerful countries in the world that they were victims of terrorism due to a lack of democracy. The Government of Equatorial Guinea reaffirmed its commitment to fight against acts of terrorism and use of mercenaries. Equatorial Guinea was taking positive steps to perfect and fine tune its legal instruments and was enacting law against recruitment, use and training of mercenaries.

JOSEPH KGOCLENYA (South Africa), speaking as a concerned country, said that South Africa did not have any registered military companies. South Africa recommended the work of the Working Group for the positive remarks made on the solid framework enshrined in the South African constitution. South Africa was the only country to promote legislation outlawing mercenary activities. This gave a legal basis for a solid legislative framework on the issue. South Africa acknowledged the challenges outlined in the report, and planned to put into place new legislation to repeal the 1998 legislation. South Africa reaffirmed its commitment to the issue. It was true that the South African Government had so far only prosecuted eight individuals who had contravened the law. Although South Africa had enacted laws against mercenaries, the country did not have an existing framework to deal with extradition or to establish mutual assistance, especially on the issue of dual nationals. Contrary to the impression created in the report, the South African Government would have appreciated a more factual depiction of their real position. In closing the South African Government extended their cooperation to the Working Group on the issue.

MOHAMED ALI ALHAKIM (Iraq), speaking as a concerned country, said that the Working Group had visited Iraq in June and that the Government had worked hard to record the impact of the private military contractors in the country. One incident by private military companies had resulted in the death of 17 civilians and the Government of Iraq was looking at the ability to compensate these victims in the United States courts. Concerning paragraph six of the report, Iraq responded that it had not made financial resources available to the private military contractors and that in order to ensure self-regulation for this activity it was difficult for the Government of Iraq to implement laws relating to impunity. It was difficult to monitor and control the activities of private companies and when there was proof of such crimes there was a need to punish those that were responsible. Iraq emphasized that it was difficult for the Government to monitor all the activity that was conducted on its territory by foreign forces. In Iraq there was a parity commission that ensured that any crimes committed in Iraq would be held accountable not only according to Iraqi law but also to United States law. Iraq called on the national Governments where the private military companies were located to punish these companies if they violated Iraqi law while in Iraqi territory.

Interactive Dialogue

FELIX PENA RAMOS (Venezuela) said that international solidarity was one of the main principles of judicial order in the relations among nations and urged for an open dialogue on the topic of international solidarity free from capitalist interests. In this context, together with sister nations, Venezuela had called for a model of regional integration based on the notions of economic complementarity, cooperation, friendship and solidarity among peoples. Venezuela affirmed its support for the important work of the Working Group on mercenaries and expressed concern about the deterioration of States’ monopoly of force, increasingly employed by private military and security forces. Venezuela confirmed its serious concern with the fact that the United States had not provided a response to the situation of terrorist Luis Posada Carrilles, who was freed in 2007, and so far had failed to respond to repeated requests for his extradition.

FELIX SCHWENDIMANN (Switzerland) said that Switzerland had long been an advocate for greater regulation of private security companies and armed forces and this advocacy had led to the drafting of the Montreux document and encouraged the setting up a mechanism for self regulation. Switzerland noted with satisfaction clarifications by the Working Group that even if governments may opt to subcontract, they were still under obligation to respect international human rights. In order to expand the number of States that supported the Montreux document, regional seminars were being held, including one upcoming in Mongolia and other seminars were planned for 2012. Approximately 60 companies had signed the document. A pilot commission was drafting a proposal for an expert mechanism to provide supervision and monitoring of compliance with international human rights. Swiss legislation on private security services was being drafted.

MARGARET WANG (United States) said the United States continued to believe that the issue of international solidarity was not an issue that this Council should address. There were many other subjects that were more relevant to this Council and this mandate diverted attention and resources away from those issues. This would be the fourth session in a row that the topic was being addressed at the Human Rights Council; the repeated initiatives ran counter to the efforts to regularize and rationalize the work of the Human Rights Council. The United States believed that there were more appropriate and effective ways to utilize this Council’s time and resources.

VICTORIA GUSEVA (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation shared the conclusions of the report of the Working Group on mercenaries that the use of private security companies by governments represented a growing threat to human rights. States that hired private military and security companies should ensure their accountability and conformity with international human rights law. The transfer of the right to the use of force to private companies should not provide loopholes for governments to avoid their responsibility under international law. The recruitment of mercenaries had been simplified and mercenary activities were increasingly dynamic; this development represented significant challenges. For this reason, further work on the topic should focus on the recruitment process as well as on unlawful activities such as the overthrowing of legitimate governments.

PABLO BERITI OLIVA (Cuba) said Cuba attached great importance to international solidarity in the field of human rights. All countries should work closely with Cuba, in particular in the realization of the right to development. Cuba said it would provide support at every level and hoped the Human Rights Council would provide the resources necessary. The Working Group on the use of mercenaries continued to monitor mercenaries and had proved itself able to respond to evolution in this area. The proliferation of private security companies and the lack of responsibility for violations was a matter for grave concern. As a State party to the Convention against Recruitment Training and Use of Mercenaries, Cuba called on all States to condemn the use of mercenaries and become a party to this convention. Cuba encouraged all States to cooperate in fulfillment of her mandate. Cuba would propose a resolution on international solidarity and another on mercenaries in this session.

JEROME BECCION JOURDAN (European Union) said the European Union recognised the importance of international solidarity. As the world’s biggest contributor in terms of public development aid, the European Union demonstrated its commitment to international solidarity on a daily basis and would continue to do so in the future. International solidarity was an important moral principle and a political commitment. However it failed to meet all the requirements of a legal concept, and more specifically, of a human right. Its content was too vague, the right holders and duty bearers were not clearly identified and the rights and duties themselves were not clear. Trying to formalise international solidarity as a human right would be a rhetoric move that was deprived of any legal content and thus would be without any meaning for the people on the ground.

It was the primary responsibility of States to promote and protect the human rights of individuals within their jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or the importance of international solidarity or assistance. The European Union believed that the issue of mercenaries was important and was concerned about the influence that mercenary activities could have on armed conflicts. However, the European Union regretted that this year’s report continued to mix the issue of mercenaries with the different question of private military and security companies. The European Union was concerned that the report provided a one-sided opinion on the form of regulation required for the private military and security companies industry and even prejudged the outcome of the Open-Ended Inter-Governmental Working Group mandated to consider the possibility of elaborating an international regulatory framework on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the activities of private military and security companies. The European Union hoped that the next session allowed for an open-minded discussion, and that the issue of the regulation should also be discussed in other fora with a broader competence in international law.

ROBERTO FLORES BERMUDEZ (Honduras) expressed concern that the use of mercenaries had assumed roles and activities that had traditionally fallen within the purview of State security institutions. At a time of increasing national and regional insecurity, the proliferation of private security companies had accelerated and remained without clear structures established by States exposed to them. It was difficult to identify and address human rights violations without sufficient regulation. There needed to be an international framework on the operation of private military and security companies, including better licensing processes, training of staff and mechanisms for oversight. There was a need for an international instrument for the monitoring, regulation and supervision of the operation of private military and security companies. Honduras was committed to work on the development of an international instrument and was pleased to extend an invitation to the Working Group.

ISMAYEL ASADOV (Azerbaijan) said problems connected with the use of mercenaries were of urgent importance to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani territory was occupied by a neighbouring county that had made extensive use of mercenaries. The use of mercenaries was an unacceptable phenomenon that was prohibited by legislation in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan was one of the 32 States parties to the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and shared the Working Group’s concern regarding the low number of ratifications of the Convention.

SAEED SARWAR (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that they believed that international solidarity was a pre-condition and a fundamental principle of international relations to achieve a peaceful, dignified and secure future for all. The Organization of the Islamic Conference affirmed their understanding that international solidarity was not limited to international assistance and cooperation, aid, charity or humanitarian assistance, but was a broader concept and principle that included sustainability in international relations, especially international economic relations, the peaceful coexistence of all members of the international community, equal partnerships and the equitable sharing of benefits and burden. Effective international solidarity must be based on shared responsibility, mutual respect, cooperation and support. To achieve solidarity, the spirit of mutual support, cooperation and respect for national sovereignty had to be at the core of inter-State relations. The Organization of the Islamic Conference shared the concern of the Working Group on the increasing use of private military and security companies and lack of accountability for human rights violations in connection with their activities. A binding international regulatory instrument was essential to ensure accountability for human rights and an effective remedy for victims. By creating a legally binding international convention, host as well as contracting States would be obliged to regulate the activities of private military and security companies and their personnel.

CHRISTOPHER LOMAX (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom concurred with the Working Group on the importance of better regulating the activities of private security companies in order to raise standards and help prevent human rights abuses. The United Kingdom was disappointed that the report did not reflect the strength of opinion expressed at the May meeting that their work should take greater account of the progress made by the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers to include comprehensive and international auditable standards and address human rights concerns. The United Kingdom reiterated its opposition to the draft convention which it viewed as impractical and its belief that the Council should be concerned with human rights issues and not other issues of international law. It was not the competent body to consider the activities of mercenaries and private military and security companies.

REN XJAOXIA (China) said international solidarity was necessary and international solidarity should be a mechanism to allow countries to overcome global challenges together. International solidarity was not just assistance and could also encompass peaceful coexistence. As pointed out in the report of the Working Group, mercenaries could be used by governments to crack down on opposition movements. China expressed it concern regarding the abuse of human rights by private military and security companies. Private security companies should be bound by these international laws and they should not hold combatant status. China looked forward to the creation of the Human Rights Council inter-governmental working group to support the elaboration in this area.

MOHAMED SALIM SAMAR (Algeria) said that solidarity was crucial for the success of developing countries particularly as the 2015 deadline for the realization of Millennium Development Goals came closer. The report of the Working Group provided useful information on different aspects of mercenaries. This was a practice that Algeria condemned forcefully as it constituted a violation of the principle of self-determination prescribed by the United Nations Charter and posed an important threat to the stability of States. Developing countries with limited resources continued to suffer from this phenomenon exacerbated by arms trafficking, terrorism and weapon proliferation. In 1997 African countries adopted a convention for the elimination of mercenaries in Africa. Algeria appreciated the effort to bring the attention of the Council to the complex activities of private military and security companies. Algeria was concerned by human rights violations by security companies and their increasing participation in the exercise of force.

JAVIER PARRONDO BABARRO (Spain) said that in today’s world they continued to see the existence of private armed groups operating in conflict zones, but that these groups could not be equated with classic mercenaries. It was also clear that private military and security companies shared similarities to classic mercenaries, but were private actors and not an armed force. They needed a specific regulatory framework of the use of force by these companies, and to distinguish between these two working phenomena. There was a huge range of private activities that defined the use of force, activities that should never be delegated by the administration to private operators. Spain queried whether the Human Rights Council was the appropriate forum to draw the legislation up, adding that they believed the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly was the more appropriate place to create this legislation.

BASSEL SALAH AHMED (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that the use of private military and security companies had increased in the Arab region. The right to use force as a deterrent should be the exclusive prerogative of the State. The Arab Group believed that if special circumstances existed and there was an urgent need, then such companies should be subject absolutely to the will of the State involved and subject to humanitarian and national law. The outcome of the Working Group had been identical to the orientation of the Arab League, namely to fill any legal gap through adoption of new international instruments. The Arab Group called for negotiations at the highest level to discuss issues such as unilateral use of force at the national level.

MARIAM AFTAB (Pakistan) expressed support for the conclusions in the report of the Working Group on mercenaries. The increasing use and reliance on private security companies was an issue of concern for the international community. The presence of private military and security companies in the region served as an impediment for peace and stability and in many cases these did not only violate human rights but also disregarded sovereignty and States’ monopoly on the use of force. Private security companies were also used by powerful countries seeking to destabilize other countries and, in some cases, these mercenaries even operated undercover as diplomats.

BASSEL SALAH AHMED (Egypt) said Egypt was mainly worried about the growing impact of the activities of private military and security companies and the whole phenomenon of privatization of armed conflicts. Those companies could have a potential devastating effect on the security and stability of entire regions, not just countries, particularly the new forms of mercenary activities that had emerged in recent years. They demonstrated that mercenaries continued to pose a threat to human rights and the right of peoples to self-determination. The tendency to deal with the activities of private military and security companies was even more alarming from the perspective of self regulation and best practices, a trend far from corresponding to the nature and implication of private military and security companies, which were seldom held responsible for their activities leading to violations of human rights. Egypt strongly welcomed the proposal of the Working Group to conclude an International Convention on private military and security companies which regulated their work and set the responsibilities of States, the ones of origin and registration, and those of operation. Egypt would consider the different views on the proposed convention and the belief of some parties that any regulation for the work of private military and security companies had to be conducted by the companies, on a voluntary basis, and not by the States.

NAHIDA SOBHAN (Bangladesh) said poverty deprivation and underdevelopment were both causes and consequences of human rights violations. Cooperation was indispensible to meet the implementation of the globally agreed millennium development goals. Global economic crises had affected development aspirations with a disproportionate effect on least developed countries. Transparency in international financial monetary and trading system was essential. Bangladesh said that there was a need to facilitate international cooperation concerning the movement of workers with flexibility as it had a high impact on development and the promotion and protection of the economic, cultural and social rights of the worker and their family members.

AWADA ANGUI (Chad) thanked the mechanisms for the presentation of their reports. Concerning the report of the Working Group on mercenaries, Chad deplored the current situation in a neighbouring country where black foreigners were labelled as and assumed to be mercenaries. These citizens from Sub-Saharan Africa were being presented as mercenaries and some had been executed. Chad called upon humanitarian organizations and non-governmental organizations to ensure their protection

STEFANO NOBILE, of Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII, in a joint statement with several NGOs1, said the globalized world reviewed contradictions of progress. Global military spending was increasing yet the majority of States were still far from secure. The Association Comunita Papa Giovani XXIII reiterated its commitment to the work of the Independent Expert on international solidarity of human rights.

NAJI HARAJ, of United Towns Agency for North-South Cooperation, in a joint statement with International Educational Development and International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), thanked the Working Group for visiting Iraq. The United States was the main user of these private military and security companies and it was necessary to lift their immunities in order to investigate human rights violations. The report unfortunately did not refer to international responsibility, particularly of those countries which had recourse to the use of mercenaries such as in the case of the United States in Iraq. Private military and security companies should be accountable for violations of international law. The United Towns Agency for North-South Cooperation called for the appointment for a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq.

M. DAVID FERNANDEZ, of International Association of Peace Messenger Cities, in a joint statement with Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII, said the Human Rights Council had recognized the third tier rights and called on the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee to draft a Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace. The Association called on Member States to amend the Convention preambles to mirror the preamble of the Santiago deceleration codifying the right to peace. They urged the appointment of a new Special Procedure with his/her functions to be governed by the provisions proposed in the Santiago convention.

SONIA RANI, of International Institute for Peace, said that they lived in an inter-dependant world where people found expression in globalisation. If the human race was to progress in a secure environment, they must support the right for international solidarity. Human beings were affected everywhere by migration. In the face of disaster the resources from across the world must be utilized. Political and strategic communications became the defining factor in people’s lives, and the expression of people’s will in different countries defined which countries faced a movement by their people. The world was affected by discrimination. People had a right to be treated equally by the law, and support must be given to people who found themselves discriminated against on grounds of gender or religion.

The Representative of United School International, emphasized that international solidarity could be meaningful only on the basis of effective efforts towards collaboration. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared that all persons were equal. These aspirations could only be guaranteed under democratic systems. However, the current system of governance was skewed and undermined by undemocratic regimes and unequal distribution of resources. For this reason the international community should strive to promote democracy.

GALA MARIC, of North-South XXI, said that it viewed international solidarity, ranging from legal duties of cooperation to the imperatives of achieving common objectives, as crucial to ensure respect for human rights for all human beings. North-South XXI welcomed the report of the Working Group and its commitment to strive for a new legally binding instrument that established legal obligations for States and asked a number of questions concerning the interaction of the Working Group beyond the green zone, with non-governmental organizations and victims of human rights abuses.

CAROLINA AMADOR, of Federation of Cuban Women, said the Independent Expert should continue to work for change to allow the countries of the South to step out of the cycle of violence. The experiences of international solidarity in Cuba in the fields of education, health and other spheres of life had demonstrated an alternative way to the effective promotion of economic, social and cultural rights. The economic blockade against Cuba and the issue of mercenaries and terrorists should be addressed. Cuba called for the release of Cubans illegally detained in the United States.

Concluding Remarks

VIRGINIA DANDAN, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, thanked everyone for their continuing support and the best wishes they offered for her new role. Ms. Dandan said she had listened very carefully to the issues and objections related to international solidarity. The objections and issues were not unfamiliar or un-new to her as she had worked in the field of human rights for almost 30 years. Ms. Dandan said that her experience on the ground with grassroots communities had convinced her of the value of international solidarity for peoples and for individuals.

FAZIA PATEL, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights an impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, in reply to Member States, said that the Working Group had met with civil society in Iraq and had travelled outside of the green zone although there was no chance to meet with victims. In prosecuting mercenaries and dealing with employees of private military contractors there was a need to apply correct human rights standards, as mentioned by the delegation of Chad. Ms. Patel said that the Working Group had tried hard to distinguish between the narrow category of mercenaries and the broader category of private military contractors. The inter-governmental working group had a mandate to consider all options for regulation and it was for Member States to decide what would be the most appropriate means for regulating the industry of private military contractors and mercenaries. For example, the delegation of Spain proposed a half way house between an international code of conduct and a convention and the Working Group would welcome an opportunity to consider such an approach.

Right of Reply

ROMAN KASHAEV (Russian Federation), speaking in a right of reply, indicated that South Ossetia had been a sovereign state for three years and had territorial control. Russian Federation recalled that it was Georgia that attacked South Ossetia and fired on schools and hospitals, wounding many. Georgian forces had shelled roads which residents had been using to attempt escape and tens of thousands of children had been compelled to leave their homes. The policy of the president was to build a monoethnic state with no room for ethnic minorities, these children and their parents were deprived of many rights, including the right to study and learn in their language.

ISMAYEL ASADOV (Azerbaijan), speaking in a right of reply concerning the statement of Armenia, deplored the falsifications that Armenia had spoken about today at the Council. Armenia should establish an objective list of the human casualties, especially concerning the assassination of children. Armenia should take responsibility for the killing of children.

EKA KIPIANI (Georgia), speaking in a right of reply, objected to the point made by the Federation of Russia. Georgia’s territorial sovereignty was recognised by the international community, and in all Security Counsel resolutions since 1993 referring to the situation in Georgia, and similarly in all General Assembly resolutions, since 2008, that referred to Georgia. Georgia stressed that the complete misrepresentation of facts by Russia was just an effort by the Russian delegation to misuse this forum. Georgia called on Russia to respect the forum given by the Human Rights Council and respect it as a forum for discussing human rights.

SATENIK ABGARIAN (Armenia), speaking in a right of reply, indicated that the statement by Azerbaijan proved its hostile attitude towards Armenia and its people. Armenia did not want to get into a useless situation and trading accusations on the killing of children. Armenia referred once against to the documents mentioned in its previous statement and the statement made in this room as an example of the racist attitude of Azerbaijan that should be seen and reviewed within the Human Rights Council.

ISMAYEL ASADOV (Azerbaijan), speaking in second right of reply, reminded the Armenian representative that today in Azerbaijan there were 30,000 Armenians which showed its spirit of tolerance, which the Armenian representative seemed to forget. Azerbaijan suggested to the Armenian representative study the international documents concerning the conflict between two countries.

SATENIK ABGARIAN (Armenia), speaking in a second right of reply, said that while these issues did not concern the deliberation of the Council, it brought attention to the fact that Armenia had requested an independent inquiry on the death of these children and had not received a response from Azerbaijan. Concerning the claim that there were 30,000 Armenians in Azerbaijan, Armenia noted that before the conflict there were 400,000 Armenians living in Azerbaijan.

_________

1. Joint statement on behalf of: Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII, Association Points-Coeur, New Humanity, Istituto Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice delle Salesiane di Don Bosco, International Volunteerism Organization for Women, Education and Development (VIDES), Company of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, VIVAT International, Dominicans for Justice and Peace (Order of Preachers), Caritas Internationalis (International Confederation of Catholic Charities) and Fondazione Marista per la Solidarietà Internazionale (ONLUS).

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record