Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights
(OHCHR)
March 24 2005
Commission starts general debate on violation of human rights and
fundamental freedoms in any part of the world
The Commission on Human Rights today started its general debate on
the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental
freedoms in any part of the world, including the question of the
human rights in Cyprus.
National delegations made statements in which they outlined efforts
by their Governments to promote and protect human rights. Some
delegates alleged human rights violations in other States.
There were several statements alleging that this agenda item had
become politicized and targeted only countries of the South. Libya,
speaking on behalf of the League of Arab States, said it was
concerned about developments of major importance linked to the
increasing politicisation of the Commission’s activities under agenda
item 9, which were characterized by double standards and the primacy
being given to particular visions with respect to human rights. The
optimum and ideal approach to ensuring human rights, and to
redressing violations wherever they might occur, was provided by
reconciling dialogue and discussions within the mechanisms charged
with the protection and promotion of human rights.
Speaking on the violation of human rights in any part of the world
were Representatives of Japan, Egypt, Pakistan (speaking on behalf of
the Organization of the Islamic Organization), India, Luxembourg
(speaking on behalf of the European Union), Russian Federation,
Zimbabwe, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, New Zealand, Lebanon, Cyprus,
Greece, Syria, Turkey, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and
Nicaragua.
Exercising the right of reply under this agenda item were Mauritania,
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Uganda, Cyprus, Zimbabwe and
India.
Earlier, the Commission concluded its general debate on the question
of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories,
including Palestine after hearing from the following non-governmental
organizations: International Association of Jewish Lawyers and
Jurists; North-South XXI; International Save the Children Alliance;
National Union of Jurists of Cuba; Simon Wiesenthal Center;
Federation of Cuban Women; Habitat International Coalition; Women’s
International Zionist Organization; Medecins du monde international;
Movimiento Cubano por la paz y la SoberanÃa de los Pueblos; and
Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.
Syria and Lebanon exercised their right of reply at the end of the
general debate on that item.
The Chairperson of the Commission, Ambassador Makarim Wibisono of
Indonesia, reopened agenda 1 entitled “Election of Officers” to allow
the Commission to elect a new Vice Chairperson from Ukraine to
replace the current Vice Chairperson Anatoliy Zlenko, who was unable
to continue his functions. Volodymyr Vassylenko was elected.
When the Committee concluded its midday meeting at 3 p.m., it
immediately started an afternoon meeting from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. during
which it continued with its general debate on the question of the
violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the
world, including the question of the human rights in Cyprus.
Documents on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms in Any Part of the World
Under its agenda item on the question of the violation of human
rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, the
Commission has before it a report on the question of human rights in
Cyprus (E/CN.4/2005/30) prepared by the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights. The report covers the period up to 31
December 2004 and provides an overview of human rights issues in
Cyprus. It notes that despite some recent positive developments, the
persisting de facto partition of the island constitutes a major
obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights by all Cypriots throughout
the island. The situation of human rights in Cyprus, the report
continues, therefore would greatly benefit from the achievement of a
comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.
There is also the report of the Secretary-General on cooperation with
representatives of United Nations human rights bodies
(E/CN.4/2005/31) which notes that during the period under review,
reports of intimidation and reprisals against private individuals and
groups who seek to cooperate with the United Nations and
representatives of its human rights bodies have continued to be
received. Of particular concern is the continued seriousness of such
reprisals as victims suffer violations of the most fundamental human
rights, including the right to mental and physical integrity, to
liberty and security of person, and, at worst, the right to life. The
gravity of reported acts of reprisal reinforces the need for all
representatives of United Nations human rights bodies to continue to
take urgent steps to help prevent the occurrence of such acts, the
report states.
General Debate on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms in Any Part of the World
NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya), speaking on behalf of the League of Arab
States, said the League of Arab States was concerned about
developments of major importance linked to the increasing
politicisation of the Commission’s activities under agenda item 9,
which were characterized by double standards and the primacy being
given to particular visions with respect to human rights. Instead,
there should be unanimity in decision-making in all matters related
to the work of the Commission. The optimum and ideal approach to
ensuring human rights, and to redressing violations wherever they
might occur, was provided by reconciling dialogue and discussions
within the mechanisms charged with the protection and promotion of
human rights. That dialogue should be rational and objective, and
should take into account specificities of each country. The League of
Arab States rejected all attempts to excuse and justify human rights
violations.
The League of Arab States had noticed that countries seemed to be
classified in two groups by some countries, she said. The first group
was accused of being human rights violators, the other group was seen
as defending them. Within the first category fell developing
countries, while the guardians of human rights were the
industrialized countries. Acknowledging that human rights violations
did occur in developing countries, she stressed that this by no means
meant that any country or group of countries was immune to human
rights violations. Industrialized countries had committed appalling
examples of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia in the past,
as well as sex tourism and exploitation of children, and mistreatment
of indigenous communities, migrants and asylum seekers and refugees
had occurred in industrialized countries. The League of Arab States
also remained deeply concerned by the fate of detainees and prisoners
from Lebanon and Syria, held in Israeli prisons.
ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) noted that no value exceeded that of human
rights and no person in the world should be deemed an exception to
the universality of human rights. No Government should deny the
notions of good governance, non-discrimination, the rule of law, and
democracy. Japan believed in and had been promoting a positive,
constructive approach to improving the situation of human rights in
any part of the world. Countries that had shown sincere willingness
and had demonstrated concrete steps towards improving their human
rights situation deserved the positive acknowledgement of the
Commission. When the situation of a country had sufficiently
improved, that country should be allowed to rise out of the mire of
repeated resolutions and graduate to a fresh relationship with the
international community, so that it could feel a sense of achievement
and become confident in moving on.
Japan believed that citizens who were suffering under some country’s
callousness should be heard and encouraged. In this light, Japan once
again drew the attention of the Commission to the situation of human
rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Japan remained
deeply concerned about the reports of systematic, widespread, and
grave violations of human rights, including torture and forced labour
in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In particular, Japan
was concerned with the lack of progress with regard to the abduction
issue. These abductions were grave violations of human dignity, human
rights, and fundamental freedoms. It was unacceptable that the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been responding
unfaithfully to repeated requests for resolving this issue by the
international community. Moreover, the Government of Japan strongly
requested that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resolve this
issue by returning the abductees to Japan immediately and providing
satisfactory explanations about the cases in good faith.
MAHY ABDEL LATIF (Egypt) said this was a very controversial agenda
item, and the selective method targeted developing countries. There
had been erosion of the Commission for that reason and others, and
suspicion was cast on the noble objectives of the body. The approach
which the Commission should adopt in this framework should
necessarily be a balanced and constructive approach based on a
positive dialogue and on assisting a country through technological
and capacity-building programmes, so that it could grow. Based on
that, the differing vision here was not related to the objective
under which this item had been included in the agenda.
The item was being used for purely political aims and accounts, and
this was far from the original intent. A blind eye had been turned to
the grave violations of human rights of a number of countries, while
the finger had been pointed at the developing countries. In order to
achieve the noble objective of the Commission, hands should be put
together so that all could work together with an open mind. The
oppression of peoples and the controlling of their destinies needed
to be rejected. The belief in tolerance and in accepting the other
needed to continue to be inherited from one generation to the other.
Those attempting to distil hatred into hearts and to open the door to
hatred needed to be rejected, as should the values of other peoples
in the form of intellectual terrorism. The use of the Commission for
political lobbying should also be rejected, as should double
standards and duplicity.
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the
Islamic Organization (OIC), said despite unwavering support by OIC
Member States to the global campaign against terrorism, many
Governments and the international media continued the vilification of
one religion ~V Islam. Islam was a religion of over 1.5 billion
adherents around the globe representing one-fifth of humanity.
Deliberate efforts were being made to create spurious linkage between
Islam and terrorism. No other conflict or struggle that did not
involve Muslims was portrayed in similar negative tomes and shades.
Such slanderous campaigns were not restricted to Islamic countries.
Even Muslim minorities were being subjected to campaigns of hate and
criticism. The OIC was deeply perturbed at the frantic assault on
Islam, its articles of faith, its tenets and followers. Any attempt
to equate Islam and its adherents with terrorism was dangerous and
was fraught with grave implications. The OIC was also deeply
concerned that resolutions were sponsored under item 9 to target
Islamic countries and those from the developing world, putting to
question the credibility of such actions.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference was deeply concerned at
the continued occupation of the Palestinian territories. Over the
past forty-two months, that had caused countless deaths of innocent
civilians including women and children. The OIC called for the full
implementation of the resolution 425 and the withdrawal of Israel
from all occupied Lebanese territories including Shebaa farms. The
continued detention of Lebanese civilians in Israeli prisons also
remained a source of concern for the OIC. OIC resolutions on Jammu
and Kashmir condemned the continuing massive violations of human
rights of the Kashmiri people, upholding their right to
self-determination and called for a peaceful settlement of the Jammu
and Kashmir issue in accordance with the relevant United Nations
resolutions. The OIC remained concerned about the continued
occupation by Armenia of Azerbaijani territories. The OIC expressed
its firm support for the just cause of the Turkish Muslims people of
Cyprus.
HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said selecting the right approach to
achieve a shared objective of promoting and protecting human rights
across the world was as an important an objective as it was intended
to serve. Countries that violated the human rights of their own
people must first be engaged by the international community in
dialogue and persuasion, followed when necessary and requested, by
offers of technical assistance and cooperation that help in national
capacity building. The international community must ensure that the
twin challenges of limited resources and unlimited expectations that
confront developing countries, which constitute the vast majority of
the United Nations membership, were recognized and addressed. The
Commission had a particular responsibility to act in countries where
the will of the people had been deliberately throttled.
India’s experience in the promotion and protection of human rights
was a good example of how the democratic organization of a
pluralistic society ensured that human rights were always protected,
he said. India’s federal and secular policy had witnessed a
continuous process of strengthening of democratic institutions.
Moreover, India’s approach towards economic and social grievances was
to address them through dialogue, strengthen institutions, and
intensify efforts at economic development. That was why the
Commission must send out a message of zero tolerance to States which
denied their own people basic democratic rights and freedoms, and
which, more often than not, had little or no stake in the stability
of the international system. Lastly, referring to terrorism, he added
that this practice had to be fought internationally by the community
of civilized nations in accordance with the rule of law. The
Commission owed a special responsibility to recognize and address the
rights of the victims of terrorism.
ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg), speaking on behalf of the European
Union, said the European Union hoped that the Commission would remain
as one of the key United Nations bodies in charge of ensuring that
human rights were guaranteed and respected. It should maintain the
possibility of examining the situation of human rights in any
country, as this was an element which was a key part of its mandate.
It was opposed to the use of non-action motions, as this was contrary
to the spirit of dialogue which should prevail in the Commission. The
European Union would present important initiatives, both geographical
and thematic, under the different points of the agenda, including
resolutions on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and together with the United
States, on Byelorussia. It would also express its concern with
regards to the situation in Uzbekistan, and would co-sponsor
resolutions on human rights in Israel.
The European Union was committed to fight against racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia, and religious intolerance, including
anti-Semitism. Work should be done for the full enjoyment of human
rights and fundamental freedoms for women. The death penalty was
firmly opposed. Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment were totally and firmly forbidden in international law. The
recruitment of children to participate in conflict was condemned.
There was particular concern for the situation of children in Uganda,
Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Colombia, Myanmar, Nepal and Sri Lanka. The situation of human rights
defenders was a priority for the European Union. The European
Union-China dialogue on human rights was a particular focus for the
European Union, and it was hoped progress would continue. There was
concern for the absence of a dialogue on human rights with Iran, and
it was hoped progress would be made, as there was concern for the
number of human rights violations in that country. The violations of
human rights in Chechnya remained one of the main subjects for
concern in the field of human rights.
There was also concern regarding the recent attacks in Bangladesh,
and for the suspension of democratic institutions and public freedoms
and the deterioration of the situation of human rights in Nepal. The
violations of human rights in Zimbabwe were also of concern, as was
the situation of human rights in Saudi Arabia. It was hoped that
there would be solution to the Cyprus issue in the context of the
resolutions of the Security Council and in line with the principles
of the European Union. No State was perfect with regard to human
rights, and no State could therefore hide itself from the vigilance
of the international community. There was a judicial and moral
obligation to cooperate to promote and protect human rights and
fundamental freedoms.
LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation) affirmed that all countries
were under obligation to abide by the basic principles in the field
of human rights, yet when the international community evaluated the
scale of compliance of these principles, it should bear in mind
whether it was dealing with countries that were well-off or with
those that experienced objective difficulties. The 60th anniversary
of the victory of the Second World War provided the possibility to
reaffirm the commitment of the international community to the task of
protecting basic human rights. Russia was adopting more and more
decisive measures to fight the manifestations brought about by
extremist groups. The international community should be concerned
about the rise of the ultra-right, including neo-Nazis. What was also
unacceptable was the disregard by the official authorities in Latvia
and Estonia of the glorification of former SS members and attempts to
condemn those who fought against Nazism. Moreover, the situation of
statelessness created by the authorities of Latvia and Estonia as
regards to a significant, Russian speaking part of their population,
required a high degree of attention because it led to the violation
of the entire range of rights.
National and religious tolerance, he added, were an absolute
necessity. At times new measures to combat illegal migration and
restrictions for granting asylum in developed countries led to a
decrease in protecting the rights of migrants. Moreover, Russian was
in favour of an uncompromised fight against terrorism, which had a
human rights dimension. Russia believed that the level of human
rights protection should not be lowered, namely, in the context of
discussions on whether or not to sanction practices that might be
qualified as torture. Russia also welcomed the trend to solve the
humanitarian crisis situations through regional mechanisms. In
particular, it supported the efforts of the African Union to solve
the conflict in Darfur.
CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe) said this item of the agenda invited
perhaps the hottest exchanges in this august chamber annually. There
were disturbing trends which certain countries had cultivated for the
sole purpose of demonising and seeking to chastise others for no
other reason than the settling of scores of battles fought elsewhere.
Because of these strategies, Zimbabwe had been in the eye of the
storm. Some members would attempt to have the Commission pass a
resolution on alleged human rights violations in Zimbabwe as they had
tried in the past. However fancifully dressed that resolution could
be, it remained an uncleansable pig that should be slaughtered,
burned and cast away.
These same members also sought to demonise and chastise Zimbabwe in
the matter of human rights; they had created special funds to pay
those who assisted them in constructing falsehoods on Zimbabwe.
Regarding some ideas on how the Commission should be reformed, that
reform was foreseen in the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel
report. One interesting idea was the need for a code of conduct to be
adhered to by any State seeking membership in the Commission. But it
was clear that this sought to achieve aims other than human rights
goals in the Commission. Zimbabwe had never laid claim to being a
perfect country, it was a normal country at peace both within and
beyond its borders. The Commission should not be a theatre to further
the interests of rogue powers and racial supremacists. These States
should not be helped in the Commission. The freedom of Zimbabwe’s
people would not be diminished whatever ugly label was attached
against the name of the country.
PARK IN-KOOK (Republic of Korea) said in many parts of Africa,
protracted conflicts threatened not only the right to freedom from
arbitrary detention and torture but also even the fundamental right
to life. A lack of resources and capacities for the protection of
human rights posed another challenge in the region. Despite positive
steps towards political, legal and social reform in recent years
across the Middle East, ongoing conflicts and continued violence in
the region cast a dark cloud. In Latin America and the Caribbean,
while the region had the highest rate of ratification of
international human rights treaties in the developing world, economic
and social discrimination had been barriers to respect for human
rights. In Asia, democratic systems of Government were being put in
place in an increasing number of nations. However, dictatorships
persisted in some countries, with continuing abuses of human rights.
Moreover, there had also been some regressive developments in other
parts of the world.
The most severe and massive violations of human rights were committed
in areas of conflict. The failure to protect civilians in crises
raised serious questions regarding the fundamental capacity of the
international community to provide real solutions to contemporary
challenges, which gave rise to those serious human rights violations.
Democracy was an essential element in the promotion and protection of
the whole spectrum of human rights for all. His country strongly
upheld the universal values of freedom and human rights as the very
cornerstone of its long-term foreign policy goals.
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), recalling the statement made by the High
Commissioner at the opening of the session ~V “No State has cause for
complacency: no human rights record is perfect”, said the statement
captured the essence of the human rights situation all over the
world. Developed countries, despite their successes, could not
dismiss evidence regarding human rights violations in their own lands
in a felicitous manner or accommodate them cosmetically. There was a
need for a genuine engagement and an earnest endeavour to promote
human rights and for visionaries who would inspire and induce
compliance with voluntarily agreed human rights instruments and
standards. Referring to the findings of the High-level Panel on
Threats, Challenges and Change, he said country-specific situations
received lopsided attention and emphasis and there was a tendency to
rubbish the progress made so far in the field of human rights and to
float proposals to supplant the Commission with new mechanisms.
When human rights were used as instruments of foreign policy or
strategic interests, credibility suffered and so did the pursuit to
promote human rights, he said. There should be an equal emphasis on
the creation of an enabling environment in which human rights could
be nurtured and fostered. The denial of human rights in Jammu and
Kashmir was a challenge to the conscience of the international
community. Pakistan was engaging India in a dialogue to find a just
and lasting solution of the crisis in accordance with the wishes of
the Kashmiri people. While Pakistan and India were engaged in the
composite dialogue, reports from Indian-held Kashmir indicated that
there was an escalation of human rights violations including
killings, summary executions, extrajudicial killings, rape, torture,
and disappearances. Pakistan called on India to take immediate and
visible steps to end human rights violations, to complete the cycle
of troops reduction, to free political prisoners and to remove
restrictions on the travel of Kashmiri political leaders. In this
regard, the international community and the Commission had a
responsibility.
JILLIAN DEMPSTER (New Zealand) said that accession to human rights
treaties alone could not prevent abuse, neglect or human rights
violations against women and children. That required the will of
Governments. Too often, there was a gap between commitment and
implementation; Member States must continue to respect and to put
into practice the standards that had been collectively agreed upon.
Recently, she added, there had been much debate on the importance of
strengthening the family. New Zealand held that Governments best
supported families by observing the human rights of all their
members, without discrimination, and by eliminating impunity for
those who violated the rights of women and children.
It was the Commission’s responsibility to address particularly
worrying situation of human rights abuse wherever they occurred, she
continued. For example the gravity of the crisis in the Sudan
demanded that the situation be the focus of deliberations this year.
Sexual violence against women and girls and abduction of children
continued to be among the widespread, systematic and gross violations
of human rights in Darfur. The Commission must send a united and
unambiguous signal to the Government of Sudan that that situation
must end. New Zealand also continued to be concerned by particularly
grave human rights situations in the wider Asia and the Pacific, and
urged the Government of Iran to address human rights issues, which
required further attention, including the use of the death penalty
for minors. Iraq should revoke all legislative provisions that
discriminated against women. The Governments of Afghanistan,
Guatemala and El Salvador were commended for progress made in
protecting women’s rights.
GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon) said some countries looked at item nine with
suspicion because of the repeated attempts to manipulate it and use
it to settle accounts and to target specific countries unjustly. The
question which should be asked was how does occupation affect basic
human rights. Occupation was a flagrant violation of human rights. A
resolution had been submitted to the Commission since 2000 with
regard to the Lebanese prisoners languishing in Israeli prisons. The
Lebanese brothers in the prisons had been suffering prisons
conditions since for years. In addition, the occupation of the
Lebanese territory by Israel had had devastating consequences in many
aspects, among which were the land mines implanted by Israel.
The fate of those Lebanese citizens who went missing in the hands of
Israel was not clear. The Government of Lebanon could not simply
forget those missing without any information concerning their
whereabouts. The Israeli authorities should indicate to the Lebanese
authorities whether those persons were dead or still in secret
prisons.
JAMES C. DROUSHIOTIS (Cyprus), said the question of human rights in
Cyprus had been on the agenda of the Commission since 1975 where
resolutions had called for the “full restoration of all human rights
to the population of Cyprus, and in particular to the refugees”. The
High Commissioner placed focus on the need for the implementation of
human rights and their universality and centrality in the world
society. Cyprus fully shared that view. In 2004, the people of Cyprus
were asked to approve or reject the Secretary-General’s proposal for
a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem; the non-acceptance
of the plan by 75.8 per cent of the Greek Cypriots was not a
rejection of the solution of the Cyprus problem, but a rejection of
the specific plan that was put before them. Cyprus shared and
understood the disappointment of the international community for not
arriving at a settlement, and was indeed the first to feel this
disappointment, since an acceptable solution should serve the vital
interests of all Cypriots. Cyprus still suffered from the illegal
occupation of 37 per cent of its territory by more than 35,000
foreign troops, and daily violations of basic human rights and
fundamental freedoms of its people by the occupying power.
The reunification of the island and its people remained the absolute
top priority of the Government of Cyprus, which was determined to
work for a solution that would meet the expectations of both
communities for a common future for all Cypriots within the European
Union. The Government was only asking for the protection of human
rights of all Cypriots in line with relevant European Court of Human
Rights Judgments and the provision of international humanitarian law
and norms, namely, the right of return, restitution of property,
respect of the rights of the enclaved and ascertaining the fate of
the missing persons. The tragic humanitarian problem of the missing
persons still remained unresolved. The Government of Cyprus called on
Turkey to cooperate constructively and proceed with effective
investigations in order to determine the whereabouts and the fate of
hundreds of Greek Cypriot civilians who had disappeared. Moreover,
the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Greek Cypriot
and Maronite enclaves have not improved sufficiently in order for
these people to fully enjoy their human rights and freedoms,
including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the
freedom of expression, as well as full and unimpeded functioning of
primary and secondary school facilities. There was a legal, political
and moral responsibility to abide by the binding Court’s Judgments
and mandatory United Nations resolutions. Cyprus called on Turkey to
implement them.
TASSOS KRIEKOUKIS (Greece) said the restitution of respect for human
rights on the island of Cyprus constituted a sine qua non for a just
and viable solution to the question of Cyprus. His country’s position
on this long-standing political problem remained supportive of the
need to reach a functional and mutually-acceptable solution, based on
relevant Security Council resolutions, the Secretary-General’s plan,
and in conformity with European Union principles. Cyprus’ accession
to the European Union, and Turkey’s European orientation, had created
a new environment conducive to providing fresh impetus and new
perspectives in the search for a solution. It was indisputable that
the values upon which the European Union had been founded offered
ample and safe ground for a lasting and operative settlement.
Numerous violations, in several aspects of human rights and
humanitarian law, had continued uninterruptedly since the Turkish
invasion of the island in 1974, he said. Among those figured, the
issues of missing persons; refugees whose situation had been
exacerbated by the influx of settlers from mainland; and Turkish
troops illegally stationed in Cyprus. Those troops had recently been
reinforced, and their weaponry further modernized, moves which were
perceived as intransigence and the entrenchment of the status quo.
GHASSAN OBEID (Syria) said Syria considered that agenda item 9 was
not balanced because of its politicisation and selectivity. Under
that item, the developing countries were accused of human rights
violations while they were denied the means to develop their
societies. Many developed countries distributed notes of accusations
on the developing countries while ignoring their own human rights
violations, including occupation. With regard to Israel, human rights
violations had continued in the occupied territories, as witnessed by
the Special Rapporteur. Countries should be encouraged to have
interactive dialogue on their human rights situations. Countries
where prisoners of other countries were languishing should refrain
from continuing their violations. In the case of Israel, the
landmines it had planted in southern Lebanese had continued to affect
the inhabitants because of Israel’s refusal to provide documents
identifying the landmines.
TURKEKUL KURTTEKIN (Turkey) said the settlement of the Cyprus problem
would have improved the situation of human rights in the island.
However, the historic opportunity was missed when the
Secretary-General’s Plan was rejected by the Greek Cypriot side in
the simultaneous referenda of May 2004. Referring to the report of
the Secretary-General’s, he said since the restrictions and embargo
by the Greek Cypriots in various fields, such as the right to free
trade and travel, were continuing, efforts to rectify this situation
by many parties, including the European Union, were still impeded by
the Greek Cypriot side. The report of the Secretary-General made
reference that the outcome of the referenda had resulted in a
stalemate and that neither of the parties had made a proposal to
resolve the impasse. The report also argued that freedom of movement
had also been facilitated by Greek Cypriot willingness to accept
entry to the south by European Union nationals and Cyprus visa
holders who entered the island through ports in the North. All the
issues in the report, would have been resolved if the
Secretary-General’s plan had not been rejected, he added.
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) denounced the
subjective criteria that had been employed by the Commission on Human
Rights, and the action of the European Union, which had attempted to
put pressure on his country by introducing hostile resolutions at the
Commission. The people of the country had firmly defended their
chosen system. The Charter of the United Nations stipulated equality,
justice and respect for other nations as the principles of
international order, but these were ignored. The United States had
not taken into account its own bad score in respect of human rights,
in their attempts to impose its norms on the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea.
NESTOR CRUZ TORUNO (Nicaragua) said Nicaragua attached great
importance to the promotion and protection of human rights in its own
country and elsewhere in the world. Nicaragua’s experience in the
democratic process had shown that only pluralistic political systems
allowed the free participation of citizens in nation building.
Nicaragua was concerned that the difficult situation in the world had
adverse consequences in the promotion and protection of human rights,
particularly in countries in transition and developing ones. However,
human rights violations could not be justified in any situations. Any
human rights violations were not tolerated. States should enable
individuals by fostering their human rights.
Right of Reply
The Representative of Mauritania, speaking in exercise of the right
of reply in reference to the statement made by Luxembourg on behalf
of the European Union, said Mauritanian legislation did include a
provision for capital punishment, however the practice had not been
exercised since 1975.
The Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
speaking in exercise of the right of reply in reference to the
statement of Japan, rejected the stereotyped allegations made by that
delegation. If Japan was truly concerned about the human rights
violations committed by others, why did it remain silent on its own
unprecedented gross violations against others? Japan had abducted 24
million Koreans, massacred one million and imposed sexual slavery on
hundreds of thousands of women and girls. Every family in the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been affected. Moreover,
why was Japan reluctant to talk to about the discriminatory measures
now being taken against Koreans?
Japan had no right to talk about human rights violations of others,
he said. The number of crimes committed against Japanese in the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea could never compare to the
crimes committed by Japan. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
had been faithful to the joint declaration in resolving the abduction
case, but Japan had done nothing to fulfil it own responsibility. Its
only action had been the recourse to hostility against the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea in pursuit of its political objectives.
Unlike Germany, Japan had not been willing to settle its past crimes
against humanity. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea wished to
remind Japan that history could never be denied, and that there was
no statutory limitation on the crimes against humanity that Japan had
committed.
The Representative of Uganda, speaking in a right of reply in
reference to the statement made by Luxembourg on behalf of the
European Union, said the Ugandan Army did not recruit children into
its armed forces. It was, however, known that the Lord’s Resistance
armed group was abducting children to use them as soldiers. The
European Union had in the past indicated that fact. The Ugandan Army
did not recruit children at all.
The Representative of Cyprus, speaking in exercise of a right of
reply in response to the statement made by Pakistan speaking on
behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, drew attention
to United Nations Security Council resolutions which condemned the
illegal occupation of the occupied areas in Cyprus. The economic
isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, he added, was self-imposed.
The Representative of Zimbabwe, speaking in exercise of the right of
reply in response to the European Union, said the Union’s statement
was tantamount to direct interference in the parliamentary elections
set to take place at the end of the month. Against the onslaught of
hostility and clandestine activities, the Government of Zimbabwe had
enacted laws to maintain law and order. The European Union’s reaction
was predictable as those laws had foiled its sordid goals. Those
guilty of trying to disturb the stability had been apprehended and
punished. Moreover, the European Union’s naked lie about intimidation
of the opposition had exposed by the campaign currently underway.
Perhaps the European Union was hinting that its “agents provocateurs”
were planning activities to disturb the tranquillity. Zimbabwe had
fought for its democracy, which was alive and well. Repeating
untruths at the Commission would not change that.
The Representative of India, speaking in a right of reply, rejected
the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of
Islamic Conference (OIC) concerning a region, which was part of
India. India was composed of Muslims who enjoyed all rights as the
rest of the population.
General Debate on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights in
the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine
MAYA BEN HAIM, of International Association of Jewish Lawyers and
Jurists, said the report of the Special Rapporteur was far from
objective in assessing the impact of the sustained campaign of mortar
attacks coupled with the suicide bomb attacks mounted from the
Palestinian centres of population on Israel civilian targets with
which the Israeli Defence Forces had had to contend. That hopelessly
one-sided litany of accusations exceeding in tone and content the
unbalanced and distorted presentation earlier reports, failed to
grasp the essence of the problem to which the decision of the Israeli
authorities to construct the security and separation fence responded.
BASSAM ALKANTAR, of North-South XXI, said the issue of the Lebanese,
Palestinian and Arab detainees in Israeli prisons needed to be
addressed. There was grave concern about the remaining Lebanese
detainees in Israel, about Israel’s continued concealment of the fate
of scores of Lebanese missing persons, and about the bodies of
deceased Lebanese nationals who were taken into detention and
transferred by Israel to Israeli prisons during the occupation of
Southern Lebanon. They were being held as bargaining pawns. There
were also more than 7,500 Palestinian and Arab prisoners in Israeli
prisons, including women and children. The Israeli Government should
ensure that all prisoners were given prompt, regular and unrestricted
access to family, lawyers and doctors and were not subjected to
torture and/or other ill-treatment.
JANET SYMES, of International Save the Children Alliance, said four
key issues constrained the fulfilment of children’s rights in the
occupied Palestinian territories, including closures, child
detainees, protection and human rights monitoring. Closures and
curfews violated children’s rights by restricting their movement, and
hence their rights to education and access to quality healthcare
services. Furthermore, 750 Palestinian children had been arrested by
the Israeli military in 2004, most accused of stone throwing. Many of
those arrested had been subjected to degrading treatment. Israel
should immediately halt its policy of child arrest and discontinue
its unlawful treatment of Palestinian children in detention centers
and prisons. Moreover, children’s right to survival and development
was being violated as the current situation put children at risk of
being injured or losing their lives. Some 154 Palestinian children,
and 11 Israeli children, had been killed in 2004. Finally, while
there was broad recognition of the need for enhanced monitoring of
children’s rights in the occupied territories, little progress had
been made in identifying clear steps.
IVONNE PEREZ GUTIERREZ, of National Union of Jurists of Cuba, said
her organization could not underline enough the situation of the
Palestinian people and their suffering. The genocidal Government of
Israel continued to apply illegal practices against the Palestinian
people. There had been many victims of what mounted to war crimes by
Israel. The United States should speak unequivocally and without
double standards against the crimes committed by Israel against the
Palestinian people.
SHIMON SAMUELS, of Simon Wiesenthal Center, said item 8, in its
one-sidedness and single-country bashing, was emblematic of the
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s description of the
Commission’s credibility deficit and need for restructuring. The
Commission had a responsibility to focus on a scourge that had been
sidelined in this debate, which was terrorism and the violation of
the human rights of its victims. By discrediting the death-mongers
and emphasising the paramount respect for life and hope, the
Commission was invited to empower the human rights of the victims of
terrorism who should be the central subject of today’s debate, a
focus that might just help to redeem the integrity of the Commission.
CAROLINA AMADOR PEREZ,of Federation of Cuban Women, said due to
Israeli actions in building the wall, hundreds of roads had been torn
up, hundreds of thousands of people had been prevented from going to
their schools and places of worship, and the means of existence of
Palestinians was being destroyed. Women, in particular, suffered from
high unemployment. More than 5,000 Palestinian homes had been
destroyed by Israeli demolitions, and more than 2,000 boys and girls
had undergone traumatic experiences of being arrested and mistreated
in Israeli detention centres. Israel was armed to the teeth with a
fascist mentality that outdid even that of Hitler’s Nazism. The
United States and Israel sought to eliminate the resistance of the
Palestinian people. For its part, the United States had used the veto
power 29 times against Security Council resolutions aimed at ending
the extermination of an entire nation. However, the people of Cuba
maintained that no war, no siege, no cruelty would staunch the
Palestinians’ struggle for their rights.
MURIELLE MIGNOT, of Habitat International Coalition, said Israel
facilitated the violation of Palestinian individual and collective
land rights by imposing its discriminatory domestic laws,
confiscating the occupied people’s property including land, water and
other natural resources. Palestinian and Israeli organizations had
made significant efforts to prevent the above-mentioned violations
through contacts with military bodies or by approaching the Israeli
High Court but in vain, and in spite of the International Court of
Justice’s opinion that the settlements and separation wall were in
violation of international law. The international community and the
members of the Commission bore a responsibility under the principle
of international cooperation to remedy these violations, and failure
to do so perpetuated hostility in the region, and destroyed faith in
the entire system of international law and legitimacy among the wider
public.
RAMA ENAV, of Women’s International Zionist Organization, said that
her organization’s main objective was to care for children,
especially those from deprived backgrounds, and to improve the status
of women in every sphere. To respect and accept the “other” was the
primary focus of this work. Conflict prevention was more important to
that end than conflict resolution, for which purpose the organization
had organized a Children’s Peace Day at the European Council in
Strasbourg. It brought together Christian, Muslim and Jewish
children. Human rights education was the key to successful conflict
prevention. Women in general believed in restraint of aggression, she
added; 95 per cent of all crimes were committed by men. Women would
mould the peace process, and the most significant work was in
teaching children. Children should be educated toward understanding
the points of view of others, and endeavouring to reach out.
GRACIELA ROBERT, of Médecins du monde international, said her
organization had been present in the occupied territories since 1995
and had been carrying out programmes to improve the right to health
of the Palestinian citizens. Since June 2002, the construction of the
wall has worsened the health situation of the Palestinian people. Her
organization had set up a programme with local partners to remedy
this situation. The health system was in peril due to the wall which
also broke down family links; it also had had a psychological impact.
Moreover, the people guarding the wall had no medical knowledge.
Regular access to hospitals had been suspended for virtually 200,000
Palestinians. The wall was also a violation of international human
rights and humanitarian law. Medecin du Monde called for the ruling
of the International Court of Justice to be implemented as a matter
of urgency. The construction of the wall had disastrous effects on
the physical and mental health of the population within.
BORIS CASTILLO BARROS, of Movimiento Cubano por la Paz y la SoberanÃa
de los Pueblos, said the tenacity of the Palestinian people was
admired as they had fought for independence with great dignity and
skill and relentless resistance. There should be solidarity so that
in the course of the negotiations, a true peace plan could be
achieved. The Zionist Government of Israel sought to find shameful
capitulation. The unity and capacity of the Palestinians would
shatter those pretensions. Israel should comply with all resolutions
passed by the international community.
MELINDA CHING SIMON, of Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, said
there had been a dramatic and horrifying escalation of housing
demolitions, destruction of property, and expropriation of land in
the occupied Palestinian territories in the last year. In May 2004,
Israeli military forces had demolished 298 buildings in Rafah,
leaving more than 3,700 people homeless. Forty Palestinians had died
as a result of that incursion, as crops, greenhouses and farm
equipment had been destroyed and damaged. The Rafah incursions were
only part of a series of operations in which homes and property had
been destroyed as a collective punishment. Homes had also been
demolished as part of clearing operations, and for having been built
without a permit. These housing demolitions took place in the broader
context of annexation of Palestinian land through a complex legal
system, which sanctioned discrimination against Palestinian citizens
of Israel, as well as against the residents of the occupied
territories. The construction of the security fence was the latest of
these developments, which allowed for settlement expansion and
destruction of Palestinian land and forced displacement of
Palestinians from their land.
Right of Reply
BASHAR JAAFARI (Syria), speaking in exercise of the right to reply,
said Syria was surprised by the accusation lodged against his country
by the United States which was politically motivated. It was clear
that the United States had used its Security Council veto several
times to block action which aimed to condemn Israel. Syria called on
the United States, which was a sponsor of the 1991 Madrid
declaration, to follow the principles of the Madrid Conference and to
be a full-fledged partner for peace in the Middles East. All
resolutions calling for international legitimacy should be applied.
It was important to indicate that the Syrian presence in Lebanon was
in line with United Nations resolutions as well as with previous
United States’ administrations. The Syrian Government had been
redeploying from Lebanon since 2000 and at present there were only
9,000 Syrian soldiers present. The Secretary-General’s Special Envoy,
in his meeting with the President of Syria yesterday, said the
meeting had been very fruitful.
GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon), speaking in a right of reply, said the
interest of other countries for the sovereignty and independence of
Lebanon was appreciated, but those in charge of independence and
sovereignty were the people of Lebanon. The only invasion suffered by
Lebanon had been that by Israel. As for the relationship with Syria,
every Lebanese today and in the future wished to preserve the
brotherly relations in the framework of the independence of both
countries. The presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon was legitimate
and temporary, and their withdrawal had begun. Words of excessive
zeal would not be of assistance. All resolutions adopted on the
Middle East should be implemented, as should the principles of the
Madrid Conference in order to ensure a just and lasting peace.
–Boundary_(ID_2CZxFvTac4DxFy97tiWBog)–
http://www.ohchr.org/