Human Rights Council
MORNING
Also Discusses Report of Independent
Expert on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty; Concludes Debate
on Situation of Human Rights in Haiti
The Human Rights Council this morning discussed reports
on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo
and Myanmar, as well as on human rights and extreme poverty.
Vivit Muntarbhorn, the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, said that the State had declined to
cooperate with him and had not invited him to the country.
The situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
provided a continuing cause of concern. With regard to the
right to food, the country had been hampered very severely
by food shortages since the mid-1990s, mainly due to natural
disasters and mismanagement on the part of the authorities.
There were also the questions of the right to security of
the person, humane treatment, non-discrimination and access
to justice. The issue of abductions of foreigners carried
out by State agents had affected several countries. There
were also the issues of freedom of movement, asylum and
refugee protection.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea spoke as a
concerned country.
Participating in the interactive debate on the situation
of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
were China, Cuba, Republic of Korea, Finland for the
European Union, Japan, New Zealand, United States, Canada,
Australia, Zimbabwe, Indonesia and Peru.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Japan spoke
in right of reply.
Akich Okola, the Independent Expert on the human rights
situation in Burundi, said in the area of social and
economic rights, the new Government of Burundi had made many
commendable strides on which it should be congratulated. The
situation of political prisoners had now been resolved
satisfactorily, following appointment of a commission whose
recommendations resulted in the release of many who regarded
themselves as political prisoners. The human rights
situation still remained of deep concern, and human rights
violations still continued on a daily basis due to the
culture of impunity, widespread poverty, and the weakness of
the culture of human rights in general. During the reporting
period, the most violated rights were those to life,
physical integrity, safety and inviolability of the person,
opinion and expression, and property. The rights of the
child and of women also required attention, and the plight
of the minority community - the Batwa.
Burundi spoke as a concerned country.
Participating in the interactive dialogue on the
situation of human rights in Burundi were Algeria, Finland
for the European Union, Belgium, United States, Sudan and
Canada.
Burundi spoke in right of reply.
The report of the Independent Expert on the situation of
human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Titinga Frederic Pacere, was considered in his absence and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo spoke as a concerned
country.
Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in Myanmar, said although he had
not been permitted to conduct a fact-finding mission of
Myanmar since November 2003, he was pleased to observe that
in the recent months, the Government had replied to a number
of official communications sent by him and by other mandate
holders of the special procedures. He considered it as a
positive indication of the Government's will to cooperate
with the Council. The stability of the country was not well
served by the arrest and detention of several political
leaders or by the severe and sustained restrictions on
fundamental freedoms. Grave human rights violations were
indulged not only with impunity but authorized by the
sanction of laws.
Myanmar spoke as a concerned country.
Participating in the interactive dialogue on human rights
in Myanmar were China, India, Finland for the European
Union, Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
United States, Peru and Pakistan.
Arjun Sengupta, the Independent Expert on the question of
human rights and extreme poverty, said poverty existed in
most countries as a failure of social action. Most societies
with or without international cooperation could eliminate
poverty by adopting specific and targeted policies to remove
extreme income poverty, deprivation of particular indices of
human development such as health, education and shelter and
discriminatory social exclusion, within their existing
institutions. What was lacking was political will.
The United States spoke as a concerned country.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue on human rights and
poverty were Algeria, Mali, Senegal, Finland on behalf of
the European Union, Ecuador, Cuba, Morocco, Saudi Arabia,
India, China, Brazil, Philippines, Indonesia, Cameroon and
Peru.
The following non-governmental organizations also took
the floor: Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions,
International Movement ATD Fourth World, in a joint
statement with International Association against Torture,
International Council of Women and International Federation
of Social Workers; and Interfaith International.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded
its discussion of the situation of human rights in Haiti
which started in the previous meeting. In concluding
remarks, Louis Joinet, Independent Expert on the situation
of human rights in Haiti, said what were needed were real
democratic processes, and this was why international support
was important for, among others, the police academy in
Haiti. On prolonged detention, this was a disaster in
certain regards - judges had to work harder, among other
things, but there was some reason for hope, as the drop in
the number of imprisoned had to do with the acceleration of
the justice procedure, although this was not uniform across
the country. On training, this was done by the Judges
School, and priority had been given by the President to this
School. There was a serious lack of Justices of the Peace,
who were underpaid and under trained, and the school could
not do everything. It was very important to do proximity
training in the field.
Participating in the interactive dialogue on the
situation of human rights in Haiti were Chile, Argentina,
Guatemala, Canada, United States, Peru, Finland on behalf of
the European Union, Brazil, Nigeria and France.
Haiti made concluding remarks at the end.
The Council is meeting today from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. In
the afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the reports on the
situation of human rights in the Sudan, Belarus, and the
report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection
of Human Rights.
Continuation of Discussion on Situation of Human
Rights in Haiti
JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said with regards to the report on
Haiti and its update, the reforms of the Government with
regards to justice, women and other encouraging progress to
punish those guilty of corruption and violence, were all
reasons allowing for optimism. However, the economic, social
and political situation continued to require measures to
resolve security and employment and other issues affecting
the population as a whole. It was hoped that with the help
of the international community the Government would confront
and overcome these challenges. Chile was committed to
contributing to democracy in Haiti. All countries should
provide economic and financial assistance in order to
consolidate progress made and deal with urgent problems such
as the implementation of social programmes. Did the
Independent Expert have any concrete proposals for
increasing the effectiveness of his mission?
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) thanked Louis Joinet,
Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in
Haiti, for his report. Argentina attached great importance
to work carried out by the Organization of American States
in helping to organize the general elections in the country.
The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti was
decisive in keeping security and fostering stability, and
for creating an environment towards normalization and the
normal functioning of economic activity. Argentina had
contributed troops to the United Nations Stabilization
Mission. Elections were the step towards normalization in
the short term. Social and economic development as well as
guaranteeing security were fundamental to assure long-time
stability. Argentina asked the Independent Expert how the
conditions of detention could pragmatically be improved in
Haiti.
CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ (Guatemala) said the Independent
Expert to the situation of human rights in Haiti, Louis
Joinet, had provided updated information on Haiti on the
electoral process and the strengthening of the country's
institutions. Such progress could not have been imagined
some years back. Guatemala was participating in the
contingent of the United Nations Stabilizing Mission to
Haiti. It supported all measures taken to strengthen the
promotion and protection of human rights in Haiti.
SARAH FILOTAS (Canada) said Canada welcomed the recent
report of the Independent Expert on Haiti, and was happy he
had had an opportunity to visit the country three times in
2005, which had allowed him to provide an attentive report,
which would be of use of Member States. Canada remained
concerned at the use of long-term detention and by the
general weakness of the judicial system. A Commission on
Preventive Detention before Trial was suggested by the
Independent Expert, and he should explain what specific
measures could lead to the establishment of genuine judicial
reform.
GIANNI PAZ (United States) commended the work of Louis
Joinet, Independent Expert on the situation of human rights
in Haiti, for his work. The United States agreed with Louis
Joinet's assessment that organized acts of violence were no
longer orchestrated or condoned by the State, nor were they
condoned under the interim Government. The United States
wished to know if the Independent Expert had reviewed the
impact of international programmes on problems such as
pre-trial detention. It also asked the Independent Expert to
elaborate on his suggestion for reform of the land register
and explain how it would help address problems of
speculation, corruption and inefficiency. Finally, the
United States asked the Independent Expert if he had any
recommendations on how to improve coordination between the
key stakeholders, such as international organizations,
donors, and the Government in tackling the problems he had
highlighted.
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS (Peru) said the Independent
Expert had made a valuable contribution through his work,
particularly in matters of impunity. The report had
indicated the existing problems of detention conditions and
violation of physical integrity. He asked how common
delinquencies were dealt with by the administration of
justice.
ANN MARI FROBERG (Finland), speaking on behalf of the
European Union, said the European Union was committed to
help the people and authorities of Haiti in their efforts to
rebuild and develop their country, and would like to
underline the importance of the protection and promotion of
human rights on the road to the political, economic and
social stability that the country needed for its
development. The Independent Expert should elaborate on what
reforms and measures in the field of human rights, and
especially with regards to the justice system the Government
should implement as a matter of priority, and what measures
he would recommend to ensure better respect of women's
rights, both in the short and the long term.
SÉRGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) thanked Louis
Joinet, Independent Expert on the situation of human rights
in Haiti, for his report. The social indicators contained in
the report provided a basic framework to overcome the
critical situation in Haiti. The root causes of the
situation in Haiti were poverty, social injustice and
vulnerability of state institutions. Brazil was involved in
social projects in Haiti, including projects to feed the
population and fight gender discrimination. Brazil asked the
Independent Expert how did he envision international
cooperation to assist Haiti in overcoming poverty, violence
and strengthening the judiciary.
ABDUL BIN RIMDAP (Nigeria) welcomed the report of the
Independent Expert and said that there had been a rapid
change in Haiti. The international community should help the
ongoing reform in the country. Haiti was a least developed
country and one of the poorest in the region. The lack of
economic development would impede the democratization
process if a poverty alleviation programme was not
implemented as soon as possible.
SIDONIE THOMAS (France) said the report shed particularly
instructive light on the situation and its developments in
Haiti. What could be the role of international cooperation
for example with respect to reforming the civil status
system; and what type of cooperation had the Independent
Expert engaged in with the justice system?
Concluding Statement by Independent Expert on Haiti
LOUIS JOINET, Independent Expert on the situation of
human rights in Haiti, said when talking about
reconciliation, the real leitmotif and driving force of his
work was reconciliation, and there had been progress in this
regard. Human rights issues were linked to security
problems, and a main question here was the temptation to
reinstitute the death penalty. What were needed were real
democratic processes, and this was why it was important for
international support for, among others, the police academy.
On prolonged detention, this was a disaster in certain
regards - judges had to work harder, among other things, but
there was some reason for hope, as the drop in the number of
imprisoned had to do with the acceleration of the justice
procedure, although this was not uniform across the country.
On training, this was done by the Judges School, and
priority had been given by the President to this School.
There was a serious lack of Justices of the Peace, who were
underpaid and under trained, and the school could not do
everything. It was very important to do proximity training
in the field. With regards to the issue of disarmament, and
how to combat violence, the ideal recipe in a disarming
programme had never been found, and this process took a long
time. A Disarmament Commission had been established by the
President. It was difficult to get rid of weapons, as the
Constitution gave citizens the right to bear weapons - the
problem was to own these legally. There were some hopes for
the new Disarmament Commission.
With regards to cooperation, the first priority should be
given to education, the second to education, and the third
to education. There was no solution to Haiti's problems
without progress on education. A lot had to be done in the
Courts and in the Criminal Courts, and there was a need for
legal security around the land system, as a priority. There
was also need for a civil registry system, and this would
take a long time. Consultants should not be sent - technical
experts were what was required, people who knew how to
implement the solutions that had been identified.
Concluding Remarks by Haiti
JEAN-CLAUDE PIERRE (Haiti), in concluding remarks,
thanked Argentina, Guatemala, the United States, Nigeria,
and France for their statements. The report was a valuable
tool for decision-makers to tackle the situation of human
rights in Haiti. There was a correlation between violence
and the unemployment rate. More than 80 percent of the
Haitian population lived under the poverty line. It was
important to stress the need for education as well as
providing jobs for people. Haiti also thanked the European
Union, the United States, and the international community
for their assistance in helping to improve living conditions
of the people in the country.
Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/35)
entitled report by the Special Rapporteur on the situation
of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea. The report notes that while welcoming the fact that
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a party to
various human rights treaties and that it has engaged with
the monitoring bodies under those treaties, as well as
adopting some key reforms of the domestic law such as its
criminal law, there is still a huge gap between formal
recognition of human rights and substantive implementation
of human rights in the country. The situation in the country
provides a continuing cause for concern - there are still
many transgressions and discrepancies of an egregious
nature, which require effective redress.
There are major challenges in regard to the rights to
food and to life, the rights to security of the person and
to humane treatment, the rights to freedom of movement,
asylum and refugee protection, and various political and
other rights such as self-determination and freedom of
expression, association and religion. Specific concerns
raised in this report include women's rights, in particular
violence against women, children's rights, particularly to
protection and participation, the rights of older
persons/the elderly, the rights of those with disabilities
and ethnic issues. Conclusions are provided at the end of
the report, with key recommendations addressed to the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, complemented by other
recommendations addressed to the international community.
Presentation of Report on the Situation of Human
Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
said that the State had declined to cooperate with him and
had not invited him to the country. While welcoming the fact
that the country was a party to various human rights
treaties and that he had engaged with the monitoring bodies
under those treaties, there was still a gap between formal
recognition of human rights and substantive implementation
of human rights. The situation in the country provided a
continuing cause of concern. With regard to the right to
food, the country had been hampered very severely by food
shortages since the mid-1990s, mainly due to natural
disasters and mismanagement on the part of the authorities.
In 2005, the authorities declined to accept food aid
channelled through the World Food Programme and ended the
presence of foreign humanitarian agencies. There was a
further obstacle in July 2006 due to the missiles tests
launched by the country. Those tests had a negative impact
on the food situation of the country.
There were the questions of the right to security of the
person, humane treatment, non-discrimination and access to
justice. Given the non-democratic and repressive natural of
the State, there continued to be many reports of
transgressions by the authorities on that front, despite
reforms of the criminal code and criminal procedures code in
2004. The issue of abductions of foreigners carried out by
State agents had affected several countries. There was the
issue of freedom of movement, asylum and refugee protection.
While there were official claims that freedom of religion
was allowed, the reality suggested otherwise. The periods
2005 and 2006 attested to many transgressions still taking
place in the country with negative impact on its citizens
and on other countries.
Statement by Democratic People's Republic of Korea as
a Concerned Country
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea),
speaking as a concerned country, said the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea categorically and resolutely
rejected the report of the Special Rapporteur. As stated
several times, it did not recognise the so-called
"resolution" and its product, the mandate of the Special
Rapporteur, as they were pursuing political and strategic
objectives prohibited in the area of human rights. The
resolution was an outcome of a conspiracy by such forces as
the United States, Japan and the European Union, constantly
perpetrating hostilities against the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea for more than half a century. The reason
for the country being a target of the "Human Rights
Offensive" of the United States was simple: domination of
the whole Korean peninsula remained a prerequisite of the
United States strategy towards Asia, and the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea maintaining socialism was an
obstacle to this strategy.
Japan had also been fanatic in its clamour, and had not
yet settled its past crimes, and was now making the futile
calculation that, with the elimination of the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, this past crime would disappear
as well, and was also attempting to fabricate the country a
threat, in order to justify its plan for militarism and
reinvasion. The European Union spared no effort to win the
favour of the superpower, even by sacrificing the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea to that end. For these purposes,
human rights were being abused as indispensable means. The
confrontation over the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea's human rights problem, in essence, represented a
confrontation between foreign forces trying to infringe the
country's social system under the pretext of human rights,
and the country which was trying to defend its social
system.
Interactive Dialogue on Situation of Human Rights in
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
ZHOU JIAN (China) said that the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea was a close neighbour of China, and it had
suffered recently natural disasters and food shortages. The
Special Rapporteur had recognized the difficult situation
the Government was dealing with. The Government had never
given up its efforts to promote the realization of human
rights and improve the living conditions of the people. It
had also become party to various human rights treaties, and
had made amendments to domestic law. The Special Rapporteur
had to take all these issues into consideration and refrain
from shaming the country.
YURI ARIEL GALA LÓPEZ (Cuba) said that the debate taking
place in the room was a result of politicization by the
United States. The hypocrisy and double standards of the
Commission on Human Rights were still present in the
Council. The Council should be a different forum than its
predecessor. This forum should be a place of dialogue and
understanding. Cuba rejected the report on the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea.
HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea) said the Special
Rapporteur's efforts to carry out his mandate in the
difficult situation of not being able to visit the country
concerned were appreciated. The Special Rapporteur had taken
a practical approach in analysing the situation and drawing
his conclusions on the human rights situation in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea. His conclusions and
recommendations were fully supported, and the six-point
human rights formula launched in November last year was
constructive and well-balanced. His report provided useful
guidelines in advancing the human rights situation in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and it was hoped that
country would heed the conclusions in the report, as well as
the increasing concerns of the international community, and
make a sincere effort to improve its human rights situation,
by, among others, engaging itself in sincere dialogue and
cooperation with the various United Nations institutions.
The Republic of Korea would do all it could to help the
Special Rapporteur accomplish his mission.
ANN MARI FROBERG (Finland), speaking on behalf of the
European Union, thanked Vitit Muntarbhorn, Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for his report and
also commended him on the work to fulfill his important
mandate. The European Union deplored the fact that the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea had not responded
favorably to the request by the Special Rapporteur to visit
the country and cooperate with him. The European Union urged
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to extend its full
cooperation to the Special Rapporteur. What measures could
the international community take to ensure food distribution
and improve access to some areas of the country as well free
movement of humanitarian non-governmental organizations.
FUMIKO SAIGA (Japan) said the report was informative and
well balanced. The report had indicated that the human
rights violations were severe in the country. The Government
should invite the Special Rapporteur to visit the country so
that he could have first hand information on the country.
The abduction of foreigners was not yet resolved, and the
international community should resolve the pending issue of
abduction by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. What
problems had the Special Rapporteur encountered in compiling
his report?
AMY LAURENSON (New Zealand) said the mandate was one to
which New Zealand attached particular importance, and there
was much in the report that was worthy of exploring further.
With regards to the provision of food and other aid from
outside the country, the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea's shift from accepting humanitarian relief to its call
to a development framework of a broader nature also called
for reflection. The Special Rapporteur had suggested that
human rights should be incorporated into this, and he should
explain what would be the key elements of this approach.
WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) deplored the continued
systematic violation of basic human rights in the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, including extrajudicial
killings, disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture,
religious repression, a complete lack freedom of speech,
association, movement, and workers' rights. The United
States asked what would it take to encourage the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea to view the Special Rapporteur'
mandate as a window of opportunity to engage with the United
Nations system; and why the Special Rapporteur thought the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea had engaged with the
monitoring bodies under the four human rights treaties to
which it was a party, but had not engaged with him.
SARAH FILOTAS (Canada) said Canada had regularly raised
human rights issues in ambassadorial and other senior-level
meetings with counterparts from the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, particularly during a visit to the
country. However, the authorities tended to dismiss Canada's
view as infringing on their sovereignty. What alternative
means could the United Nations and the international
community use to induce that country to abide by the
provisions of the international human rights treaties to
which it was a party as improve the human rights situation?
ROBYN MUDIE (Australia) said Australia remained deeply
concerned about reports of continuing human rights
violations in "North Korea", and appreciated the work of the
Special Rapporteur. There was particular concern about
border crossers who were forcibly repatriated to "North
Korea". The country should engage further with the
international community, and dialogue was the best way to
deal with such concerns. There was also concern for the
humanitarian situation, and the Government's actions to
restrict humanitarian assistance by the United Nations and
other humanitarian agencies. The Government should allow the
United Nations to help, avoiding the onset of a deep
humanitarian crisis. Had there recently been any changes in
access arrangements for the Special Rapporteur?
ENOS MAFEMBA (Zimbabwe) aligned itself with the statement
made by China. Zimbabwe remained very concerned over the
politicisation of the issue, and wondered how could one
expect a fair, balanced and objective report when the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea was being continually
demonised. The report did not help anyone. Instead, the
Council had to engage in a constructive dialogue.
JONNY SINAGA (Indonesia) welcomed the report and the
informative statement of the delegation of the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea. Indonesia was against country
specific mandates. It would nevertheless like to see
positive developments in the Council generally and in the
deliberation of specific issues in a way that promoted and
strengthened dialogue, transparency, non-selectivity and
cooperation.
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CUADROS (Peru) said the Special
Rapporteur was congratulated for his efforts to produce a
report with no political elements or selectivity and which
tried hard to express the situation in the country. His
recommendations were supported, and it was regretted that he
could not carry out a country visit to the concerned
country, and the Government of "North Korea" should assume
the obligation of international cooperation and allow him to
do so. There was serious concern regarding reports of
detention, violations of freedom of movement, problems
related to repatriation, freedom of the person, and many
others. This report should give rise to positive points, and
the best way to do this was to establish channels for due
cooperation. What kind of action could the international
community, and in particular the Human Rights Council take
with regards to what the Special Rapporteur suggested, and
what were his opinions with regards to the exercise of civil
rights and fundamental freedoms in "North Korea" compared to
those rights internationally.
Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the
Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea
VITIT MUNTARBHORN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
in addressing questions from the floor, said that he wanted
to assure delegations that he had tried to carry out his
mandate in a constructive and objective manner. He had
nothing to do with the drafting of the resolution as he was
contacted for the position after the approval of the
resolution. Therefore, he came to this post very unattached
and with an independent and free spirit.
The Special Rapporteur said that the presence of UNICEF
in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was important,
and that the agency was involved in programmes on child
protection and development. With reference to doable
measures that the Special Rapporteur would endorse, he said
that some of the priority areas included food relief, as
there was a serious food shortage due to the loss of the
harvest to floods. The World Food Programme had set up a
programme aimed at assisting 1.9 million people for the next
two years, but funding and access to the areas in need had
fallen short. The World Food Programme was only assisting
13,000 people; therefore, there was an urgent need for the
international community to address the humanitarian gap.
With reference to the Special Rapporteur's visit to the
Republic of Korea, and on the consequences of the Korean
War, he welcomed the warming of relations between both
States, and encouraged the continuation of the inter-Korean
dialogue, including on issues such as family reunion and
missing people.
The Special Rapporteur urged the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea to enforce labour rights in industrial
zones, to provide human rights training to law enforcement
officials, and to engage in human rights education
campaigns.
On some of the obstacles encountered in fulfilling his
mandate, the Special Rapporteur said that the major
difficulties included lack of access to the country and no
cooperation on communications from the Government.
The Special Rapporteur emphasized the importance of the
involvement of the human rights community, addressing food
and humanitarian needs, including refugee protection, and
the improvement of the judicial system.
Right of Reply
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea),
in a right of reply, said that the statements made by Japan,
the United States and the European Union were pure
allegations. He asked what the United States was doing in
Guantanamo and in the Republic of Korea. The United States
was committing all kinds of human rights violations even
under the feet of the Statute of Liberty. With regard to
Japan, it should first settle its crimes committed during
the Second World War, during which millions of people had
been killed and abducted, before accusing others. Why did
the European Union keep silent when the United States
invaded Iraq? Was it difficult for them to criticise a super
power? They should rather deal with their own problems of
discrimination and racism in their countries.
FUMIKO SAIGA (Japan), speaking in a right of reply, said
the delegation was not politicising the human rights issue
in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and could not
accept the claim just made. Japan acknowledged the fact of
history with sincere feelings of remorse and reiterated
apologies. The history issue could not be used to justify
abduction, which was an ongoing clear violation of human
rights. The figures just referred to by the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea were unsubstantiated.
CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea),
in a second right of reply, rejected the allegations made by
Japan, and urged Japan to settle its historical record on
the invasion of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
and commit itself to avoid repeating the crimes of the past.
FUMIKO SAIGA (Japan), in a second right of reply, said
that with regard to the claims between Japan and the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a declaration had
been signed in 2002 between the two States in which they
agreed to settle their differences through a process of
normalization.
Report on Situation of Human Rights in Burundi
The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/109)
entitled report by the Independent Expert on the human
rights situation in Burundi, which addresses in section I
the political and security situation in Burundi. The
Independent Expert welcomes the exemplary and successful
completion of the election process. However, despite
relative stability, the overall security situation remains
very fragile. The main victims of the continuing violence
are civilians. Section II deals with the situation of civil
and political rights in Burundi and violations of rights
such as the right to life, liberty, security and
inviolability of the person, freedom of movement and
people's freedom to choose their residence, and the rights
of women, children and the Batwa minority. The Independent
Expert then analyses the situation with regard to economic,
social and cultural rights, especially the rights to health
and education, addresses the situation in the judicial and
penitentiary sectors and with respect to strengthening of
the rule of law, as well as activities relating to the
promotion of human rights.
Section III contains the Independent Expert's
observations and recommendations in which he says that he is
deeply troubled by the continuing sexual violence in Burundi
and reiterates his call on the Government to take swift and
concrete measures to combat this phenomenon. He recommends
prompt action on issues relating to prisoners provided for
by the various international and national commissions that
have dealt with these issues. He encourages the Burundian
authorities to press ahead with the establishment of the
institutions provided for by the Arusha Agreement,
especially those relating to human rights, in particular the
establishment of transitional justice mechanisms and an
independent national human rights institution.
Presentation of Report on Situation of Human Rights in
Burundi
AKICH OKOLA, Independent Expert on the human rights
situation in Burundi, said in the area of social and
economic rights, the new Government of Burundi had made many
commendable strides on which it should be congratulated. It
had put in place a programme of free primary education, and
although it had encountered many problems, it was working
fairly well. Early this year the Government had commenced a
programme to provide free health care for expectant mothers
and children under five years of age. The situation of
political prisoners had now been resolved satisfactorily,
following appointment of a commission whose recommendations
resulted in the release of many who regarded themselves as
political prisoners.
The human rights situation still remained of deep
concern, and human rights violations still continued on a
daily basis due to the culture of impunity, widespread
poverty, and the weakness of the culture of human rights in
general. During the reporting period, the most violated
rights were those to life, physical integrity, safety and
inviolability of the person, opinion and expression, and
property. The rights of the child and of women also required
attention, and the plight of the minority community - the
Batua. On the violations of the right to life, over the
first half of the year, human rights observers had reported
that 53 persons had been killed in the country. The practice
of torture was still reported to be widespread during police
investigations. Many violations had been reported regarding
arbitrary arrest, detention in illegal places, and lengthy
detention.
Since his last visit, the Special Rapporteur said there
had been many disturbing developments in the area of
political and human rights. Respect for freedom of
expression and opinion was under threat as a result of
increasing intolerance by the Government of individuals
perceived to be against it, either as a result of their
membership in another political party, opinions expressed,
or for investigations conducted into scandals implicating
members of the ruling party. Full peace could not be
achieved in Burundi without a full and frank examination of
the causes of the conflicts which had characterised the
history of the country since independence. The Government
should speed up the process of establishing the transitional
justice mechanisms, and fulfil its international commitment
in this regard. It should consolidate the young democracy
which it embraced in 2005, by showing tolerance towards its
critics. The international community should increase its
support to the justice system in Burundi, and its
humanitarian and development assistance.
Statement by Concerned Country
FRANÇOISE NGENDAHAYO (Burundi), speaking as a concerned
country, said that only a year had passed after the entry
into force of the function of the elected democratic
institutions, and the period was relatively short to make an
objective evaluation of the actions of the Government in
general and the human rights situation in particular.
However, it was sufficient to analyse the trend, and to
measure the constraints in matters of human rights
protection and the challenges faced. With regard to the
constraints, it was important to cite the persistence of war
with the Front National de Libération (FNL) until a peace
agreement was signed on 7 September 2006 between the Front
and the Government. The socio-economic situation of the
country should also be considered as 12 years of civil war
had destroyed the socio-economic infrastructure, devaluated
the currency by diminishing the purchasing power of the
population, and had also destructed the social, moral and
human values.
The signing of the peace agreement had also allowed the
observation of the ceasefire and the establishment of the
spirit of peace. Burundi was now endeavouring to strengthen
the respect of human rights. The newly elected Government
was implementing social policies in order to alleviate the
miseries of the vulnerable groups of the population. A
series of measures had been taken by the Government to
address the human rights situation in the country.
Interactive Dialogue on Situation of Human Rights in
Burundi
IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the
African Group, said that the African Group had noted with
satisfaction the progress of the peace process in the
Burundi. The Group took note of the report of the
Independent Expert and supported the recommendations made in
the report. They invited those who had not yet done so to
make good on their pledges to aid the Government of Burundi.
Finally, the African Group encouraged the Government of
Burundi to continue its dialogue with all parties concerned.
MIIA RAINNE (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European
Union, said the importance of due protection of human rights
in Burundi in its road to political stability and
reconstruction could not be ignored. The European Union was
concerned about the information it had received regarding a
preparation for a coup d'état, and had taken note of the
assurances of the Government that a judicial investigation
would take place in strict compliance with human rights and
due process. Had the Special Rapporteur been in contact with
the authorities in this regard? Regarding the establishment
of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, what was his
assessment of this, and what role could a Special Chamber
have in revitalising the judicial system?
NICOLAS NIHON (Belgium) said that sexual violence was a
concern as mentioned in the current and previous reports of
the Special Rapporteur. The pressure exercised on the
victims to marry the perpetrator of the crime was additional
trauma on the victim. What measures did the Special
Rapporteur envisage to deal with that issue?
WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said the report was
admirable and highlighted the country's positive political
developments, and also showed the ongoing human rights
problems, including gender-based violence, and the ongoing
conflict regarding the Government and the rebel group, and
the negative effects it had had on peace and security. The
recommendations were appreciated, including that the Special
Rapporteur on the rights of women should visit the country,
and that the international community should continue to
support development in the country. With regards to the
continuing sexual violence and the need for the Government
to take swift measures, did the Special Rapporteur have any
recommendations for the Government in this regard; and with
regards to transitional justice could he elaborate further?
MUDAWI MOHAMED EL TURABI (Sudan) said that Sudan
associated itself with the statement of the African Group
and welcomed the report of the Independent Expert. Sudan
also noted with satisfaction the recommendations of the
Independent Expert, in particular with a view to calling on
the international community to help in establishing social
peace and restorative justice. Sudan also called on the
international community to continue to assist Burundi to
pursue the path of peace, for which it lacked the necessary
means.
SARAH FILOTAS (Canada) said that serious violations of
human rights were taking place in Burundi, which were
committed reportedly by Government agents. In the nine
months since the completion of the report, violations of
human rights had continued. The Government officials who had
committed extrajudicial and summary executions were still in
prison but had not yet been tried. What was the assessment
of the Rapporteur of the recent developments in the country,
practically on the question of whether he believed the
conclusion of a cessation of hostilities agreement allowed
the Government to take a more measured and rights-respected
approach to ensuring the security of the people in the
country?
Concluding Remarks by Special Rapporteur on Burundi
AKICH OKOLA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights in Burundi, said many of the violations that were
contained in the report took place within the conflict
between the Government and the rebel movement, which had
refused to join the peace process. His report documented
some of these violations, and pointed out the institutions
and sometimes the persons who were responsible for them. The
Special Rapporteur hoped that now that the peace agreement
had been signed with the Government that some of these
violations that had taken place would cease. The Government
appeared to have set on a path of repression not based on
military conflict, but based on fear that those who were
within the political process could be engaged in activities
that it perceived as detrimental to the security of the
State.
There was no evidence the Special Rapporteur had that the
Government would substantiate the claims it had made against
the individuals who had been alleged to be planning a coup
d'état. The Special Rapporteur was still concerned about the
commitment of the Government to respect and promote human
rights. There appeared to be a firm commitment on the part
of the Government on the issue of the establishment of the
Truth and Reconciliation Mechanism, but with the intention
of limiting its capacities, without the establishment of
special chambers that would bring to justice those
individuals who had committed certain types of crime. Sexual
violence continued - he had been informed that there was a
programme of sensitisation of the public at large to ensure
that the kind of immunity that prevailed in regards to
sexual violence was addressed, and he hoped that this
programme, in which the United Nations was participating,
would somehow bring this phenomenon to an end.
Right of Reply
FRANÇOISE NGENDAHAYO (Burundi), speaking in a right of
reply, said that the delegation of Canada had referred to
the failing system of justice in Burundi. While Burundi
admitted that there were legal lacunae, but it was not
possible to say the system was failing. Over 120 political
prisoners had been freed, and there were others whose cases
were under investigation. Criminals had been brought to
justice and strides had been made in combating impunity.
Regarding the coup d'état, that was an allegation which was
being investigated. Of course it remained a concern of the
Government, but they had to wait for the evidence to be
produced.
Report on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic
Republic of Congo
The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/113)
entitled report by the Independent Expert on the situation
of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
which states that the human rights situation continues to be
a matter of concern throughout the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, especially in the eastern regions (Ituri, North
Kivu and South Kivu) and in northern Katanga, where militias
and other armed groups, both Congolese and foreign, as well
as the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(FARDC) and the Mai-Mai, are committing atrocities and other
massive human rights violations with impunity. Massacres of
civilians, pillage, mass rape of women and girls and summary
executions have, among other things, seriously undermined
the Transitional Government's efforts to improve the
situation.
The precarious circumstances of unpaid or underpaid civil
servants and public officials, the climate of impunity, and
the threats, harassment and killings to which journalists
and human rights defenders are exposed foment unrest and
jeopardize the prospects for the restoration of peace.
The main sources of concern include the lack of consensus
on joint management of the transitional period and the
steady deterioration of law and order in Ituri (Orientale
province) following repeated attacks by the armed militias.
The lack of an independent judiciary and the control
exercised by the executive branch over the judiciary and
judicial decisions are also regrettable. Other problems
include insecurity, the situation of women and children, the
trafficking and illegal exploitation of natural resources
and other violations of fundamental rights.
The Independent Expert makes specific recommendations to
remedy the situation, including the following actions: speed
up the disarmament of the Forces démocratiques de libération
du Rwanda (FDLR), the Interahamwe, the "Rastas" and their
Mai-Mai allies, and their unconditional departure from
Congolese territory; in the case of the Ministry of the
Interior and the Independent Electoral Commission, adopt all
necessary measures to permit the active involvement of all
shades of political opinion in the democratic process as a
contribution to social peace; and in the case of the
Government, promote an independent judiciary and ensure the
independence of the judicial system, chiefly by revising the
Law on the Status of Judges and the Law on the Organization
and Functioning of the Higher Council of the Judiciary, and
by endowing the judicial system with a budget that will
guarantee its financial independence.
Statement by Democratic Republic of Congo as a
Concerned Country
MARIE MADELEINE KALALA (Democratic Republic of Congo)
expressed sadness at the absence of the Independent Expert.
His post implicated cooperation between the Human Rights
Council and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the delay
in the consideration of the report delayed the achievement
of this, and the Democratic Republic of Congo hoped that the
report would be considered during the session in order to
ensure an interactive and helpful dialogue. The Independent
Expert was asked to go to the Democratic Republic of Congo
in the next few days to see the evolution in the field in a
number of sectors of national life.
Report on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar
The Council has before it a report (E/CN.4/2006/34)
entitled report by the Special Rapporteur on situation of
human rights in Myanmar, which states that throughout the
six-year period of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur had
received substantiated reports of grave human rights
violations on an ongoing basis. Little evidence was
available of the existence of a serious commitment by the
Government to addressing the culture of impunity for State
actors, with the vast majority of his communications to the
authorities not receiving a response. With regard to the
transition process, the National Convention, having been
suspended for a further nine months following its last
session held from 17 February to 31 March 2005, was
reconvened on 5 December 2005. The Special Rapporteur was
deeply dismayed to learn that no progress towards
instituting genuine democratic reform has been made since
the previous session.
The Special Rapporteur regrets that, according to
information received during the last reporting period, the
situation regarding the exercise of fundamental human rights
and freedoms remains grave. The intimidation, harassment,
arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of civilians for
peacefully exercising their civil and political rights and
freedoms continue. Members of registered political parties,
human rights defenders and pro-democracy advocates are
particular targets.
The Special Rapporteur draws attention to the marked
decline in socio-economic conditions, which has resulted in
increased poverty countrywide. Urgent reform is required to
prevent any further degeneration of an already severely
damaged economy.
The human rights concerns enumerated in the present
report are largely the same as those, which the Special
Rapporteur highlighted when he commenced his mandate, six
years ago. Despite early indications from the Government
that it was willing to address these problems, he regrets
that all such willingness appears to have disappeared.
The Special Rapporteur stresses that human development
and economic reform must be prioritized in order to defeat
the poverty that is at the root of Myanmar's many problems.
Rational management of the economy and substantially
enhanced budgetary allocations for the protection of
economic, social and cultural rights continue to be
essential priorities for tackling those problems. Any
progress towards resolving ethnic conflict in Myanmar is
unlikely to be possible or sustainable without tangible
political reform.
Presentation by Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in
Myanmar
PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in Myanmar, said that he had not
been permitted to conduct a fact-finding mission to Myanmar
since November 2003. However, he was pleased to observe that
in recent months, the Government had replied to a number of
official communications sent by him and by other mandate
holders of the special procedures. He considered it as a
positive indication of the Government's will to cooperate
with the Council. In the past two years, the reform process
proposed in the seven-point road map for national
reconciliation and democratic transition, which was meant to
become eventually open to various relevant actors, had been
strictly limited and delineated. The work of the National
Convention had been adversely affected by that evolution. He
however acknowledged with satisfaction the recent
announcements by the Government of the resumption of the
National Convention by October 10. The persecution of
members of political parties in the opposition and human
rights defenders showed that nowadays the road map for
democracy faced too many obstacles to bring a genuine
transition.
The stability of the country was not well served by the
arrest and detention of several political leaders or by the
severe and sustained restrictions on fundamental freedoms.
On 27 May 2006, the house arrest of the Secretary-General of
the National League for Democracy was further prolonged by
12 months. Grave human rights violations were indulged not
only with impunity but authorized by the sanction of law.
The criminalization of the exercise of the fundamental
freedoms by political opponents, human rights defenders and
victims of human rights abuses was a matter of grave
concern. He was worried by the on-going military campaign in
ethnic areas of Eastern Myanmar and by its effects on human
rights, especially on civilians who had been targeted during
the attacks. As a result of the military campaign, numerous
cases of forced evictions, relocations and resettlements,
situations of forced migration and internal displacement had
been reported. According to numerous and consistent reports,
there had been marked signs of deterioration in the economic
and social sectors that could aggravate the humanitarian
situation.
Statement from Myanmar as a Concerned Country
U NYUNT MAUNG SHEIN (Myanmar), speaking as a concerned
country, said that, although there were many contentious
chapters in the report of Sergio Paulo Pinheiro, the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar,
which Myanmar could argue against, Myanmar believed that in
his oral presentation today, he had updated the information
in his original report and highlighted important positive
developments in Myanmar. That update was indeed important as
events had superseded certain portions of the report. In
contrast to his past reports, and to Myanmar's deep
disappointment, the Special Rapporteur had only mentioned an
instance or two of positive developments in the human rights
situation in Myanmar in his report. Myanmar neither agreed
to accept the assertions nor felt it was possible to refute
each and every allegation owing to time constraints. He
would take up a number of cases to shed the light of truth
on the situation and to highlight the latest developments.
First, relating to the democratisation process, the
National Convention had held three sessions since it
reconvened on 11 May 2004. It had completed 75 per cent of
its work and when it concluded its mandate the drafting of a
new Constitution would commence, which would be put to a
referendum and subsequently free and fair elections would be
held. Second, on forced labour, contrary to the report which
stated that relations between Myanmar and the International
Labour Organization were deteriorating, there had been
positive developments, and the two persons mentioned in the
report in this connection – Su Su Nway and Aye Myint – had
been released from prison. Third, regarding the economic
situation in the country, the Government had inherited an
economy in a state of alarming decline and had laid down and
implemented plans to halt the economic downturn and to
stabilize the economy. Fourth, Myanmar rejected the
allegation that there was a large presence of internally
displaced persons in the country. The perception that there
were vast violations of human rights in Myanmar was not
accurate and were entirely based on information collected
from or provided by a few remaining insurgent groups
confined to border areas and foreign-funded expatriates with
a hidden political agenda.
Interactive Dialogue on Situation of Human Rights in
Myanmar
ZHOU JIAN (China) said Myanmar was a small country that
was confronted with special difficulties, but the Government
had made consistent efforts to protect and promote the human
rights of its people. The Government had invited the
Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations to visit the
country, and cooperated actively with the ILO, which was
evidence of its international engagement. China hoped to see
Myanmar, through stabilisation, progress in its economy and
the domestic reconciliation process. The country should
solve its problems through its own people. China was not in
favour of stress and isolation, as this had a negative
impact on the human rights situation in a country. The
Special Rapporteur should play a positive role in the
development of Myanmar.
SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said that the Government of
Myanmar had been cooperating positively with the United
Nations system. India supported the reform taking place in
the country. There was an ongoing dialogue with the
International Labour Office with regard to labour issues.
India was against country specific resolutions because of
the fact that they went counter to the spirit of dialogue
and cooperation.
MIIA RAINNE (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European
Union, welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur and the
work he had accomplished in the past six years. The European
Union wished to reiterate its commitment to the
country-specific procedures. In that context, the European
Union strongly encouraged Myanmar to extend its full and
unconditional cooperation to the Special Rapporteur. It was
clear that Myanmar recognized that the protection and
promotion of human rights remained important, and the
European Union thanked Myanmar for the update on the
situation of political prisoners in the country. Among
others, the European Union wished to be updated on the
allegations of forced labour practices and forced
recruitment in the country involving children.
IDHAM MUSA MOKTAR (Malaysia) said the concerns expressed
by the Special Rapporteur on the basis of the national
reconciliation process were taken note of, and peaceful
reconciliation was hoped for. The challenges of the
Government were taken note of, and it was hoped there would
be speedy progress. The discussions with the ILO should lead
to a concrete programme on resolution of the forced labour
issue. Myanmar's participation in international affairs was
noted, in particular in South-East Asia. Given the
multi-faceted problems faced, continued international
support and cooperation was necessary for the country to
continue to progress.
FUMIKO SAIGA (Japan) said that there was still much to be
done in Myanmar with regard to human rights. Japan would
help the country to engage in dialogue with others and to be
able to strengthen its reform efforts. Japan regretted that
the Special Rapporteur was not able to visit the country.
TERRY CORMIER (Canada) commended the Special Rapporteur
on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, and shared his
concerns that the situation in that country had continued to
deteriorate over the course of his mandate, in particular
with regard to the situation of the large numbers of
internally displaced persons and refugees. The vast number
of the internally displaced persons demanded that the
Council also support those activities of non-governmental
organizations working within Myanmar and across the border
in neighbouring countries. In June this year, along with
other Members States, the General Assembly had adopted a
political declaration committing to renewed efforts in the
global fight against HIV/AIDS. In that context, Canada was
particularly interested in the statement in the report that
the Government of Myanmar was strongly concerned about the
spread of HIV/AIDS in the country.
HELEN HORSINGTON (Australia) said Australia was gravely
concerned at the lack of willingness of the Myanmar regime
to arrest the economic decline, and to install genuine
democratic reform. It should immediately and unconditionally
release all political prisoners. The regime should install
international standards of human rights, and resolve ethnic
conflict through a process of national reconciliation.
Myanmar should work with the Human Rights Council in order
to provide a safe environment for all people in Myanmar.
AMY LAURENSON (New Zealand) said the Special Rapporteur
was thanked for his report and update on the human rights
situation in Myanmar. There was great concern for many of
his findings, in particular the assessment of the situation
of human rights and fundamental freedoms. There should be
resumption of dialogue with all political actors and
representatives of ethnic groups. All political prisoners
should be freed, and all allowed to participate in the
political process.
WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) thanked Paulo Sergio
Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights in Myanmar, for his well-informed report. The
situation of human rights in Myanmar continued to be a
source of great concern for the United States. The situation
of hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally
displaced persons was worrisome, as the Government had
failed to assist them. Furthermore, the situation as stated
by the Special Rapporteur had deteriorated. The United
States asked the Special Rapporteur how could the
international community assist the work of civil society and
human rights defenders in Myanmar, and how to attain the
release of all political prisoners.
ELIANA BERAUN ESCUDERO (Peru) said that the report of the
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
Myanmar had been comprehensive and had dealt with the
serious and systematic violations of civil and political
rights and the alarming humanitarian situation in that
country. Peru agreed with the Special Rapporteur's
assessment that there had been no tangible progress on human
rights in the country. Peru, however, was most concerned
about the lack of a true desire for cooperation and dialogue
that had been shown on the part of the Government. Also, the
non-compliance of Myanmar with the ILO Convention regarding
forced labour was of particular concern. In September the
Security Council had decided to include the subject of
Myanmar on its agenda, and she would like to know the
Special Rapporteur's view on that decision. In addition,
after six years of work, did the Special Rapporteur consider
that the situation in Myanmar constituted a threat to the
whole South East Asian region?
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said the efforts made by the
Government of Myanmar to engage with the international
community had been noted. The positive elements referred to
by the Permanent Representative of Myanmar had been noted.
In this transitional phase, the Human Rights Council should
remain engaged with the Government, and not engage in
selective finger-pointing.
Concluding Remarks by Special Rapporteur on Human
Rights in Myanmar
PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in Myanmar, thanked the Ambassador
of Myanmar for his kind words, and also other Members of the
Council. He assured China that the Special Rapporteur was
always ready to play a constructive role in the
participation of the international community in promoting
human rights in Myanmar. The Special Rapporteur agreed with
India on the need to encourage the political process in the
country.
With reference to forced labor, the Special Rapporteur
had continued to receive allegations of cases of forced
labor. There was a dialogue underway between the Government
and the ILO, and some improvement had taken place.
To improve cooperation with Myanmar, it was essential to
have a coordination of policies vis-à-vis Myanmar.
Coordination had been lacking. In addition, the
international community did not need to wait for democracy
to arrive before engaging in selective partnerships to
promote democracy or combat HIV/AIDS, for instance. The
Special Rapporteur had repeatedly told the Government that
there could not be a meaningful political transition while
there still remained political prisoners.
With reference to the issue of Myanmar having been under
consideration in the Security Council, the Special
Rapporteur said that it was important for this matter to be
discussed in different forums.
Report on Human Rights in Extreme Poverty
The Council has before it the report of the Independent
Expert, Arjun Sengupta (E/CN.4/2006/43) on human rights and
extreme poverty which explores the link between human rights
and extreme poverty and aims at showing the distinct added
value of looking at extreme poverty in terms of a violation
or denial of human rights. In section I, the Independent
Expert describes the value added of looking at development
in terms of human development and making the elimination of
poverty an explicit objective of economic development. In
section II, he explains that viewing extreme poverty as a
deprivation of human rights would add a further value to
efforts to combat extreme poverty, making poverty
eradication a social objective which would "trump" other
policy objectives. The Independent Expert makes the case
that, apart from appealing to moral entitlements to a life
in dignity, it is possible to appeal to "legal obligations",
as poverty can be identified with the deprivation of human
rights recognized in international human rights instruments.
In section III, the Independent Expert stresses that a
distinct advantage of looking at extreme poverty is that it
reduces the number of persons involved to a manageable
subset of the population and focuses on the need to give
priority to the poorest of the poor. Referring to the
distinction between "core rights" which a State needs to
implement with immediate effect, and rights which may be
implemented progressively over a period of time, the
Independent Expert proposes that removing the conditions of
extreme poverty should be treated as a core obligation which
should be realized immediately and given the same high
priority as other human rights objectives.
An addendum to the above report (E/CN.4/2006/43/Add.1)
contains an account of the Independent Expert's mission to
the United States.
Presentation of Report on Human Rights and Extreme
Poverty
ARJUN SENGUPTA, Independent Expert on the question of
human rights and extreme poverty, introducing his report,
said that removing poverty had been accepted in practically
all societies, their Governments, religious authorities and
civil societies, as a cherished objective, at all times and
in all forms. In spite of that, poverty existed in most
countries as a failure of social action. In his reports, he
had tried to indicate how a human rights approach could
contribute to the removal of poverty. His purpose was not to
blame or shame anybody or any Government authority, although
that often played a major role in a human rights approach.
He had tried to be constructive – to find ways to solve the
problem. Towards that end, he had tried to provide a working
definition of "extreme poverty", building on the earlier
work of the Sub-Commission and Special Rapporteurs on this
subject as "basic insecurity" so that the existence of
extreme poverty could be seen as a violation of human
rights.
Mr. Sengupta very much welcomed resolution 2006/9 of the
Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights on "implementation of existing human rights norms and
standards in the context of the fight against extreme
poverty" of 24 August 2006. That resolution had been adopted
some time after his reports had been circulated, but it had
incorporated much of the thinking reflected in them. If
those guidelines were followed, they would go a long way
towards ending the state of extreme poverty.
One of his major contentions, Mr. Sengupta stressed, was
that most societies with or without international
cooperation could eliminate poverty by adopting specific and
targeted policies to remove extreme income poverty,
deprivation of particular indices of human development such
as health, education and shelter and discriminatory social
exclusion, within their existing institutions. What was
lacking was political will. To demonstrate that, he had
chosen the case of the United States as a country which was
no doubt committed to eliminating extreme poverty and had
all the resources in the world to do so, but was still
allowing the conditions of extreme poverty to afflict 12 to
14 million of its population. When it was possible for the
authorities to take feasible steps to remove those
conditions, but they were still not doing so and the
conditions of extreme poverty persisted, it became a
clear-cut case of human rights violations.
Statement by the United States as a Concerned Country
STEVEN HILL (United States), speaking as a concerned
country, said the United States had been pleased to welcome
the visit of the Special Rapporteur to the country, and that
he had the opportunity to visit. His report had been read
with great interest, and it was noted with satisfaction that
it mentioned over 80 anti-poverty programmes at the Federal
level, and that it was also a major priority of the
Government. There were also many programmes at the State and
local level. On the report's methodology, at times it drew
conclusions that were based on limited information, and it
had been hoped that the Special Rapporteur would include a
wider range of information that was available, such as from
academia and private sources.
Transparency was a key or part of the solution to
problems. It was hoped the Special Rapporteur would visit
the country again, and take advantage of the broad array of
information available. What were the Special Rapporteur's
intentions to address this severe problem as it appeared in
other countries throughout the world?
Interactive Dialogue on Human Rights and Extreme
Poverty
IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) thanked Arjun Sengupta,
Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, for
his outstanding report. Poverty was a human rights issue
because poverty was an issue of empowerment. The
non-material aspects of poverty were the ones more difficult
to address. They had to do with the lack of imagination of
policy makers in unleashing the whole potential of small
farmers and fishermen. An added difficulty was constituted
by international policies such as those of rich nations,
such as subsidies, that had a negative impact on the lives
of the poorest communities of the world, especially the
lives of small farmers and agriculturalists in West Africa.
FATOUMATA DIALL (Mali) said that Algeria, in its
comments, had already expressed some of the ideas that Mali
had wished to make. Mali welcomed the report of the Special
Rapporteur. The Government of Mali had a strategic plan to
fight poverty and exclusion, which included a wide range of
social policies. Mali noted that its agricultural community
in rural areas faced severe climactic challenges. In that
connection, the subsidies that rich countries gave to their
farmers impacted negatively on the brave farmers and their
living conditions in countries such as Mali. Indeed, Mali
had been surprised that the Independent Expert on the
question of human rights and extreme poverty had chosen to
go to one of the richest countries in the world to make
conclusions for his report. It would have been more
appropriate, she felt, if he had gone to poorer countries
where his concrete and targeted suggestions and innovative
ideas could have been of most help.
SÉRGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said the report
was innovative, as was the view that "when development was
seen as human development, its objectives were described in
terms of freedoms comparable to human rights", and this was
the view of Brazil on development and on the fight against
poverty. Extreme poverty still existed in Brazil, however,
the country had achieved some concrete results, with 11.2
million families or 44 million people covered in a total
population of 185 million. Social investment had increased
to 2.5 per cent in 2006, as part of a very focused social
policy. Brazil also participated in different initiatives at
the international level. How could focused policies to fight
poverty be created with the idea of broadening the concept
of extreme poverty by incorporating the human rights
perspective?
JESUS ENRIQUE GARCIA (Philippines) thanked Arjun
Sengupta, the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme
poverty, for his very important report, and constructive
approach. The Philippines considered key the participation
of the international community in the eradication of extreme
poverty. The Philippines asked the Special Rapporteur on the
possible role of civil society and the private sector in
programmes aimed at eliminating extreme forms of poverty;
and also on suggestions on how to articulate and promote the
elimination of extreme poverty in a participatory manner.
DEDE A. RIFAI (Indonesia) welcomed the recognition in the
report of the Independent Expert of extreme poverty as a
human rights violation. For its part, Indonesia stood ready
to fulfil its commitment to the promotion and protection of
all human rights – including that of eradicating the
phenomenon of extreme poverty. Even the richest country
could not claim that its population was free from the
scourge of extreme poverty. The political will to address
that challenge was what was needed.
ODETTE MELONO (Cameroon) said the Independent Expert's
report was of high quality. Poverty, in particular extreme
poverty, continued to be present around the world. In the
context of poor and highly indebted countries, what were the
specific concrete measures which could be taken to alleviate
the conditions that caused extreme poverty?
ALEJANDRO NEYRA (Peru) thanked Arjun Sengupta, the
Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, for
the important analysis offered in his report. It was
important to provide a legal approach to the issue by
defining poverty in terms of deprivation of human rights as
those affected by poverty were also deprived of their human
rights. It was necessary to go beyond the diagnosis of
extreme poverty to attain the full respect by States of
their obligations on social and political rights. A set of
indicators on the right to food, education, drinking water,
and health, among others, could be set up as a way to gauge
the effectiveness of social policies towards the elimination
of extreme poverty.
ABDOUL WAHAB HAIDARA (Senegal) said there was one reality
that no one had ever denied: that there were millions of
individuals living in extreme poverty and social exclusion.
Those living on under $1 a day were effectively deprived of
their civil, political and cultural rights. Extreme poverty
was one of the issues at the heart of the concerns of the
international community. The challenge of effectively
eradicating that phenomenon, however, was still one that was
highly topical in today's increasingly polarized world. It
needed sustained and coordinated efforts of the whole of the
international community in order to overcome it.
Furthermore, those living in extreme poverty were
stigmatized, which was dangerous, because their feelings of
frustration and abandonment had consequences that were
impossible to predict. The Council needed to take concrete
actions to ensure progress in the fight against extreme
poverty within a human rights context.
MIIA RAINNE (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European
Union, said the report was welcomed. The Special Rapporteur
should express his views on the fact that persons affected
by extreme poverty were often victims of social exclusion,
and had no access to social justice. What measures did he
consider appropriate to ensure that those suffering could
access social justice; and what concrete measures should be
applied to tackle extreme poverty?
GALO LARENAS SERRANO (Ecuador) thanked Arjun Sengupta,
the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty,
for his excellent report. Ecuador underlined that poverty
was the result of the failure of economic models, in
particular the neo-liberal model. There was an obligation of
the international community, in particular the developed
world, to help combat extreme poverty in developing
countries.
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said Cuba agreed
with the comments made by Mali. Indeed, it would be
appropriate to have a study on third world countries where
the degree of poverty was infrahuman. However, he also felt
that it had been worthwhile for the Independent Expert to
have visited the United States. Indeed, there was a third
world within the United States, where an underclass was
deprived of its rights. Following his visits to places like
New Orleans, had the Independent Expert formulated any
specific recommendations for those people, including the
victims of Hurricane Katrina? Had he observed the existence
of a racial pattern in terms of poverty in the Southern
States?
DRISS ISAYENE (Morocco) said the Independent Expert's
report was excellent. The question of human rights and
extreme poverty was one of human dignity in terms pf proper
employment and others. It was also an international
challenge, which all should act to remedy, in this
interdependent world. The King of Morocco had launched a
National Initiative for Development, which integrated the
economic, social and cultural development with different
stages for methodological follow-up. Morocco supported Mr.
Sengupta in his efforts to go further into detail on this
topic.
ABDUL AZIZ AL-HUNAIDI (Saudi Arabia) thanked Arjun
Sengupta, the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme
poverty, for his report. Saudi Arabia underlined the
importance of international cooperation in addressing
extreme poverty. Poverty was one of the worst threats
endangering humanity. It was also important to develop
educational programmes to combat ignorance and thus empower
poor people. Saudi Arabia endorsed the Indian programmes and
said that they should be applied elsewhere.
SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) welcomed the report of the
Independent Expert on the question of human rights and
extreme poverty and the degree to which he had gone to
establish the linkage between extreme poverty and human
rights. That was historic. In India that concept had been
institutionalised. As the Council began to address issues of
human concern, he asked the Independent Expert how the
Council should take on board that linkage between poverty
and essential human rights and fundamental freedoms and
institutionalise it.
ZHANG YI (China) thanked Arjun Sengupta, the Independent
Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, for his report.
China disagreed with the Independent Expert over the fact
that there was a link between poverty and civil and
political rights. In China there were a number of poor
people in spite of the numerous efforts made by the
Government, and they enjoyed their civil and political
rights. China asked the Independent Expert how he viewed the
elimination of poverty in relation to the realization of
civil and political rights.
CHERI HONKALA, of Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions,
said that the Centre was a multi-generational movement of
the poor and homeless from the United States. She knew what
it was like to sleep in cars and in stairwells and stated
that every day people in the United States died of
preventable causes owing to poverty. For that reason the
Centre welcomed the report of Independent Expert on the
question of human rights and extreme poverty.
XAVIER VERZAT, of International Movement ATD Fourth
World, in a joint statement with International Association
against Torture, International Council of Women and
International Federation of Social Workers, said that
extreme poverty was a challenge to many countries. Men,
women and children were condemned to live in absolute
poverty. What public steps should be taken in order that the
rights of those poor people were respected?
VIJAV K. SAZAWAL, of Interfaith International, said that
the work of Arjun Sengupta, the Independent Expert on human
rights and extreme poverty, deserved the full support of the
Council. However, the definition of poverty went beyond the
realm of economic deprivation. As the Secretary-General
himself had noted, poverty was not only a deprivation of
economic or material resources but a violation of human
dignity too. The Commission of Human Rights had noted that
the eradication of poverty was inter-related with the full
enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and civil
and political rights of disenfranchised people around the
world. A case in point was the fate of Kashmiri Pandits, the
aboriginal people of the valley of Kashmir.
Concluding Remarks by Independent Expert on Human
Rights and Extreme Poverty
ARJUN SENGUPTA, the Independent Expert on the question of
human rights and extreme poverty, responding to questions
and comments on his report, noted that the reason he had
chosen the United States and not a developing country was
because he wanted to point out that the problem of extreme
poverty was not one of per capita income or development, but
it was essentially one of societal and political will. He
was glad the comment had been made that human rights were
essentially a question of empowerment. If every country
implemented civil, political and cultural rights, the
problem of extreme poverty would disappear. He called for an
international consensus to work together to eliminate
extreme poverty. All it required was the identification of
the mechanisms to do so, combined with the political will.
Mr. Sengupta also drew attention to the phenomenon of
social exclusion, which went hand in hand with extreme
poverty. It was necessary to take a human rights approach
and the Council should try to work out such methods. He
agreed with Mali that there was a need for a variety of
approaches and to pay attention to the interlinkages between
all rights and extreme poverty. Those were the kinds of
issues they could tackle right now in the Council. An
example of a concrete problem was the suffering of Tanzanian
peasants, who were dying because of a lowered price of
cotton. In that connection, they needed to review the
various national policies that could correct that situation.
Regarding Hurricane Katrina, the failure to protect the poor
population in the rescue efforts could be taken as a case in
point and important lessons could be drawn from that
experience. The richer were taken care of and the poorer
people had remained untouched. Americans could take that as
an opportunity to review the mechanisms that had caused that
situation and prevent it in the future.
CORRIGENDA
In press release HR/HRC/06/48 of 26 September, the
statement by Itzhak Levanon of Israel, speaking as a
concerned country, should read as follows:
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country,
said that for over a decade, Israel had persisted in saying
that there could be no value in a report pursuant to a
one-sided and imbalanced mandate that did not conform to the
reality on the ground, a mandate that prejudged key issues
and which was in direct contrast to the current wave of
reforms at the United Nations. The report, like its
predecessors, was characterized by errors of omissions as
well as distortions of both fact and law, while advancing a
one-sided political agenda. Particularly regretful was the
report's depiction of the complex situation in the
territories in an oversimplified manner without providing
essential contextual background. At a time when Israelis
continued to face the daily threat of Palestinian terrorism,
there was an alarming disconnect between the story told by
the report, and that experienced by the people on the
ground. While it had never been Israel's intention to
disengage from Gaza only to return to it, clearly Israel had
the fundamental right and duty to defend and protect its
citizens. However, none of the Rapporteur's reports so far
gave any indication of what measures to defer acts of
terrorism were permissible in his view. By placing the
entire blame on Israel actions, the report absolved the
terrorists that had taken Palestinian society hostage, from
even the most minimal responsibility.
Alongside the international community, Israel continued
to believe that the Road Map remained the best – if not the
only – hope for arriving to a solution to the conflict. That
carefully phased-approach plan, proposed by the Quartet, had
been accepted and endorsed by the Security Council. Its
underlying rationale was the recognition that peace was
drawn from the vision of the two States, living side-by-side
in peace and security. To advance towards that objective,
any Palestinian Government should renounce violence,
recognize Israel and accept the existing Israeli-Palestinian
agreements. To that end, it was disturbing to see that the
Rapporteur's report did not only dismiss that agreed upon
framework, but went even further in accusing the Quartet of
engaging in a strategy of political appeasement. Israel
believed that Israeli-Palestinian relations were, of
necessity, a zero sum game. Not every Israeli interest was
at odds with Palestinian interests. Any progress began with
a genuine dialogue amongst those committed to peace, and
genuine determination to confront enemies.
In press release HR/HRC/06/48 of 26 September, the
statement by Dong-Hee Chang of the Republic of Korea should
read as follows:
DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea) said the report was
detailed and useful. The initiatives of the Special
Rapporteur were appreciated, and the Government of Korea
welcomed recent positive events in Cambodia, including
Parliamentary events. The assertion that the Government
would consider decriminalising defamation, which would
constitute a very positive element in the increase in
democracy, was appreciated. The Government was expected to
make further efforts to solve issues related to land
management in an impartial and fair way, taking into account
the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. The
Government should be encouraged to strengthen its progress
in democratic elements through cooperation with the Special
Rapporteur and other international mechanisms.
In press release HR/HRC/06/47 of 26 September, the
statement by Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri of Interfaith
International should read as follows:
SARDAR SHAUKAT ALI KASHMIRI, of Interfaith International,
referring the report of the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of human rights while countering
terrorism, said that Interfaith International saw that
States were using the process of countering terrorism to
advance anti-democratic agendas and the excuse had become a
handy weapon to strangulate the human rights movement. Some
States were using it as a cover to perpetuate their
undemocratic tenures and to bluff the world community.
In press release HR/HRC/06/47 of 26 September, the
statement by Melik Ozden of Centre-Europe – Tiers Monde
should read as follows:
MELIK OZDEN, of Centre Europe – Tiers Monde, said the
organization was not surprised by the content of the report
of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on
the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and
other business enterprises, given that this mandate did not
measure up to the challenges posed. As well, the Special
Representative affirmed that his ideas were supported by
eminent jurists and experts from three countries. Those
experts and jurists belonged to the same juridical system
and shared with the Special Representative the same visions
of globalization and the role of transnational corporations.
Many studies showed the importance of having an
international judicial framework for transnational
corporations. The Council should consider urgently the Norms
concerning the conduct of transnational corporations adopted
in 2003 by the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights and put in place a monitoring
system.
