mardi 12 juin 2007

5th session HRC, 12.06.07, 12 to 15pm

At midday the special reporteurs on adequate housing and on extreme poverty were still answering the questions and remarks from the delegations.
Mr. Kothari (adequate housing) said that the situation in Zimbabwe was particulary worring. He is also studying the possibility of a mission in Angola. He recommands an expert seminar on landing.

Mr. Sengupta (extremepoverty) stressed that the main problem is the lack of political will concerning this question. It should really be accepted that this is a fundamental question to be able to face the important lobbies in the economic world. States should therefore start programms of coordinated measures allowing to consider extreme poverty as a violation of Human rights and not only as a cause or consequence of such violations.

Zimbabwe took its right to answer and criticized the statement of Germany (according to him, Germany was speaking on behalf of Great-Britain) and said that Grest-Britain is trying to recolonize Zimbabwe and that Germany had still "deep nazi gene". The question of alimentation can not be politicized.
Angola said that the report was not realistic because they started many programs of social housing bulding. The special rapporteur didn't look at credible sources (government informations).

Australia took the floor to precise the exactly amount of money that she pays for every issue in Zimbabwe trying to explain that she remains concern about the situation in the country even if she stopped direct cooperation. Zimbabwe took the floor again, a little bit later and said that the money only goes to certain sectors that put pression for a change of the regime.

Algeria intervened responding to a petition that is circulating. According to the ambassador of Algeria, western based NGOs are demonizing the statements. The propsal that Algeria made earlier was not an algerian one but one in the behalf of Africa. NGOs should conform to the UN rules. (apparently an NGO wrote directly to the head of state of Algeria)

Cambodge and China rejected the allegations of the report. The remarks on China concerned the expropriations made in the context of the preparations for the Olympic Games 2008.
RPDK once again, stated that Japan was trying to drive the Council in a faulse direction regarding the treatment of immigrants from Korea.

We then passed to the report of Mr. Severin on the situation in Belarus. He mainly stated his disappointment regarding the lack of cooperation from the governement of Belarus since 3 years. he was not permited to visit the country and thus, had to base his report on other sources (coming from neighbour states for exemple). The problem is that the political system is not compatible with the Human rights. There are many situations of harrasment and persecution of individuals and international organizations. It is the last country in Europe to maintain death penalty and cases of torture and inhuman treatment are also reported. It is thus scandalous that the Belarus is a candidate for the HRC.

Belarus answered saying that the report was politicized and therefore distortion appear. The report contradicts about 10 other reports from the UN and ONGs. It is the perfect example for why we need codes of conducts.

Observations from states were then aligned on the positions we already know. Russia, Cuba, Algeria, South Africa, DPRK, Pakistan, India, Iran, Sudan, Indonesia.... are opposed to the country mandates and want their termination. The main critics were also directed against one sentence that the special reporter used, where it stands that the special rapporteur have "no limits". Many found that he was going beyond his mandate. The need of codes of conduct were repeated.
The other group, composed of Lithuania, Germany, Sweeden, Poland, Canada ans the USA found the report very good and objective. Poland asked interesting quesitons about the influence of the propaganda and activist politicians in the universities on the young people. They also noted the lack of progress in trade union freedom.

Mr. Severin answered that his mandate was to assess the situation of Human Rights in Belarus. Thus, he has to assess all facts related directly or not, and look in details. But for the victims to assess is not enough, they need effective changes and it is important to find ways of improvement and not just to describe the situation. This is the signification of the "no limit" of his mandate. He recommands to use dialogue, and is trying to do so in order to reach consenus in a situation where both parts have so different views, but he has no optimistic vision of the future.

Finally we listen to the report of Ms. Chanet on the situation in Cuba. She has never got any contact with the autorities of Cuba. She related the injust incarceration, conditions of detentions but also noted the effort of Cuba in education and health despite the blocus. She concludes that the mandate is for many years now coming to nothing and that the Council should review its terms in the context of the new procedures and the UPR. Cuba should be submited to the UPR before the end of its mandate in the Council.

Here again the positions are well known. The main critics were the politization of the mandate, the need of codes of conduct, the problem of 2 weights-2 measures, the consequences of the blocus on the situation of Human rights and the so generous actions of Cuba that distributes medicins in South America, teaches, works and progress a lot despite what is said in the report. The majority wants to terminate the mandate, and Russia even interpreted the words of Ms. Chanet and said that she was very courageous to recognize the need to put an end to her own mandate.

The special rapporteur answered correcting this immediatly. She didn't said the Council had to terminate her mandate but to review its terms. The population can not be kept out of the international community just because the governement doesn't want to report to the Council. She also made it clear that the embargo was not the cause of the violations of Human rights in Cuba, and, that she could do nothing about this situation but, that she expressed clearly her opinion on it (because Algeria said that they find it strange, that the special rapporteur on Belarus evaluates himself capable in such situation and not Ms. Chanet)

EAD

Aucun commentaire: