Follow-Up to decisions of the Human Rights Council

Follow-Up to decisions of the Human Rights Council
Report by Benedikt Kaelin

Human Rights Council, 4th session, report from the 15.3.2007
Palais des Nations, salle XVII, 15.00 – 18.00

1. Replies of the mission’s rapport Visit to Darfur (presentation of Jody Williams on the morning of 15.3.2007), mandated by the HRC decision S-4/101

Short résumé: The debate on this afternoon was mainly around the question if the rapport presented by Ms. Jody Williams, chair-rapporteur of the high-level mission to Darfur, should be considered and what shall be its value.

Various members and member groups of the HRC now think, that the rapport is therefore not worth of being considered (mainly Arab League member states, Cuba, China, etc). According to them, the mission has exceeded its competences by visiting Ethiopia and Tchad and they reproach impartiality, lack of transparency and bias to the mission.

Western and Latin American countries mainly consider the rapport as being of great importance and call for action/implementation. They also complain about the increasing trend of lack of cooperation of concerned states and the therefore risk of a diminishing role of HRC decisions. (statements by Peru, Uruguay, Philippines, Czech Republic, Chile

Most interesting arguments and proposals (personal selection):

Liechtenstein
Asks about a list of foreign companies that have an adverse impact on the HR situation in Darfur.

Cameroon
Situation in Darfur is very serious and calls for urgent action of the international community. Rights of women and children are seriously jeopardized. Intolerable situation. High risk of destabilization of other regions in Africa. Shortcomings in the constitution of the high-level mission. African union has decided to provide a system of sending troops. HRC should not stand indifferent vis-à-vis the situation in Darfur.

League of Arab States
Establishment of the mission is detrimental to the HRC. World should be able to enjoy security. Ensure peace and security with the EU and the AU. Complex situation in Darfur, cannot talk about it. Many economic and security issues.

Iran
Willingness of the Sudan to cooperate. High-level not able to fulfil its mandate as stipulated. High-level mission has not visited Sudan as previewed. Outcome of the mission appear to face several problems. Credibility of the report seriously challenged, underlying conceptual confusion. Delegation unable to comment on the contain of the report.

Belarus
Mission has serious shortcomings, in no way biased as technical shortcomings. Serious political mistake. Discussion is not going to serve the interests of HR in the region.

Portugal
Report presents graveness and seriousness of situation in Darfur. Suffering of the people in Darfur cannot be ignored because of political bias. Victims must be protected. Work in a constructive way with the government of Sudan.

Palestine
Not merely talking about HR. Arguments driven by political arguments. Unprecedent media attendance. Problem: Sudan has oil, but Palestine has also oil, but OLIVE OIL!! (applause) Sudan is large, Palestine is not.. weak against the strong. Double standards. Citation of Shakespeare. (again applause)

Jordan
Mission: impartial and independent sources. Learn from the mistakes, not lament. Mission has chosen to deviate from its original mandate, that of fact-finding. Report should be withheld from consideration. But this should not hinder from looking at the Sudanese situation. Sudan is an LDC, Darfur people are Sudanese people. Give them support to handle with their situation.


Comments of NGOs

United Nations Watch
Disappointed by the statements by Arab League, OIC, various other states. Contrary to Israel, in this report the team reported violations by all sides. Sudan was given fair treatment. Sudan has not cooperated.

Amnesty International
High-level mission’s findings. Government of Sudan has primary responsibility for happenings in Darfur. One level of the high-level being biased?? Refusal of Sudan marks the 4th kind of refusal since the creation of the HRC. AI is deeply concerned that the negative attitude of states is contributing to a negative image of the HRC.

Members of the high-level mission reply

Mart Nutt, Estonian Parliament representative:
Solidarity more important than HR violation? HRC has to be critical. Solidarity to victims, not to violators

Patrice Tonda, Ambassador representative of Gabon:
Went to Addis Abeba, to collect information and to Tchad, the report was negotiated intensively.

Dr. Sima Samaar, Special Rapporteur to Sudan
1. there is a problem in Darfur, nobody denies
2. no military solution in Darfur
3. call on Arab countries to solve the problem, not to ignore
4. thanks to the government of Sudan for collaboration with HER mandate

Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams (chair-rapporteur of high-level mission):
- legality: mission was conscious of legality. Every action was within the mandate
- objectivity: if there are real doubts about the impartiality of the mission: why not send exactly the same mission to Palestine?
- Credibility: it is about the HRC’s credibility, not the mission’s! They only acted in good faith


2. Framework of follow-up to any other decisions taken

The resolution about the rights for indigenous people is postponed at the GA in New York. Norway wants to accelerate the process. Algeria sees no point in this idea. What further action should be taken? De Alba reminds the delegations that the Council should follow it’s own decisions. Various NGOs hint on the necessity of adoption of this resolution.

3. Varia

- This afternoon, some spontaneous reactions (applause) were shown by various delegations. Ambassador de Alba demands the delegations not to show their attachment to state statements in such an obvious way.

- The meeting of Monday morning on 1503 procedure will be closed, only members of the HRC participate

- Meetings next week will last 1.30h in the morning and midday. New schedule: 8.30-10.00 and 13.30-15.00. More informations will follow.