5th Session of the HRC, June 11th, Afternoon

The council started this session by concluding with the remarks on the reports previously presented in the morning.

The representative of Iraq took the floor to respond to the remarks made by Mexico concerning the prevalence of the death penalty. He stressed that though Iraq wanted to abolish it, the country was facing a very difficult situation that did not allow it. He stated that it would be the case as soon as the problems were overcome.
Chile commended the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on his report, for it would be very helpful to those countries seeking the establishment of a sound judicial system. The representative agreed, with the Special Rapporteur on racism and discrimination, on the ancient roots of racism and the unfortunate attempts to legalize it through political means. He thanked Mr. Diène for his endeavour in Latin America and expressed his gratitude for the particular attention given to Chile.
Algeria aligned its remarks on the declaration made earlier by Djibouti on the artificial distinction that was being made between racism, islamophobia and anti-Semitism. He stated that criticizing a Muslim government for its wrong doing was not being islamophobic nor was it anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli government in similar circumstances. He consequently urged the Special Rapporteur to reconsider both distinctions as forms of racism.
The African Union commended Mr. Diène for his report and his effort to warn the world against all forms of discriminations. He expressed concerns of the African states concerning the legitimization of certain forms of racism through political channels and urged the council to take steps in the prevention and the eradication of such forms of racism.

Thereafter, several Non Governmental Organisations took the floor.
The National Human Rights Commission of India stressed the usefulness of national human rights institutions in the fight for the respect of human rights at the national level. The representative also contradicted the ambassador of India, who had denied the discriminatory nature of the system of caste prevalent in India and expressed regrets that the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons could not present her report.
Nord-Sud XXI, the Union of Arab Jurists and the General Arab Women Federation pointed out the shortcomings of judicial system in Iraq, which was controlled by the United States of America, whose unfair legal procedures had been source of many reports without any noticeable change however. Recommendations were given to the council and the international community to help change if not improve the situation.
Amnesty International raised the issue on how the council should react on the application of a parallel system of justice when terrorism is involved, leading to the non respect of international human rights laws. Additionally, it was asked to Mr Diène the measures that could be taken to fight against xenophobia and racism in general arising with the creation of new political systems rejecting the notions of intercultural integration.
The Asian resource Centre depicted the problems facing the judiciary in Sri-Lanka, with the politicisation of the office of the Chief Justice, which deprives the judges of their independence.
The International Federation for Human Rights reported a case filed in 2004 by a group of Iraqi citizens to the German Federal prosecutor accusing American officials of torture, which it considers was dismissed for political reasons. It urged therefore the participating nations to grant their prosecutors the ability to perform their duty as impartially and objectively as possible.
The International Commission of Jurists expressed its concerns over the declaration of states of emergency and asked for a clarification of the purpose and content of the declaration in such cases. The commission also asked for further information on the situations in Zimbabwe, Sri-Lanka and Pakistan.
United Nations Watch expressed its concerns over the racism and racial discrimination prevailing in Iran and asked for ways to help improve the situation of the minorities subjects to them.
Finally, the Indian Council of South America asked for the Special Rapporteur on racism to pay more attention to the discriminations faced by the indigenous people in America, and particularly in the United States of America.

In his concluding remarks, Mr. Doudou Diène, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, started by replying to the Russian Federation, who had felt his report lacked objectivity. Mr. Diène expressed his concerns about the Russian declaration, which denied the existence of racism when his report mention 10 000 to 20 000 victims of racism, according to governmental sources. In his view, the representative made a mistake by not acknowledging the link between the notion of national identity and racism; as national identity should not be a static concept by should evolve to reflect the historical processes undertaken by the Russian society. Acknowledging the declaration of the representatives of South America, Mr. Diène agreed that the labelling of “Latin America” was discriminatory as it did not take into consideration the heritage of the Indian people, as well as the African people leaving in that part of the world. Responding to the request of the European Union concerning the Danish cartoons, the Special Rapporteur recommended the Union to review its official documents, in order to restore a balance between all forms of freedom, in this case freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Finally, on the question of integration, Mr. Diène expressed his apprehension about the “striptease” type of integration, which obliged the immigrant to let go of his culture and heritage and adopt that of the host country and which fails to recognise the benefits of a multicultural integration.

The Special Rapporteur on the Independence of judges and lawyers, Mr. Leandro Despouy responded the debate on his report by thanking the countries that had allowed him to conduct his mission and appealed to the international community to help them undertake the various recommendations. He stated that the concerns expressed on the judiciary situation in Iraq had been answered in previous reports and that he was still waiting for an invitation to visit Sri-Lanka. Finally, Mr. Despouy recognised that major steps had been achieved on the international level and that consensus would guarantee the implementation of the international human rights instruments.

Thereafter, four reports were presented to the council.
Mr. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, reported that though the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations recognises that the world produces enough food to feed every human being the victims of hunger are increasing ever since 1996. He insisted that the priority should be given to the protection and fulfilment of the right to food of children in the fight against hunger and malnutrition. Mr. Ziegler acknowledged the existence of African famine refugees and urged the council to create a new international law instrument to support them. He made distinction between the traditional economic refugee seeking improvement of his economic and comfort standards and the famine refugee subject to a high level of necessity and urgency. He consequently asked for the creation of an international standard on the right to temporary refugee-ship in cases of famine.
The Special Rapporteur on adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, Mr. Okechukwu Ibeanu, regretted that though an number of measures at the international level had been undertaken, the dumping of hazardous waste and products continued to increase. He acknowledged that the increasing level of toxic wastes to be disposed of was proportionate to the economic growth and demand for energy and consumer product. In industrialised countries, the traditional means of disposal being subjected to restrictions, there was an additional pressure to export those wastes to poor and remote areas. In his report, Mr. Ibeanu stressed the link between armed conflict and the spread of toxic and dangerous products and wastes. A direct effect of armed conflicts on the environment and human rights had been the large amount of oil released in marine environments, oil fires and war debris which discharged toxic products in the environment. Further, he noted the indirect consequences due to the trafficking of dangerous products and their illicit dumping and the lack of access to information by the population due to the absence of rule of law. In this matter, the Special Rapporteur recommended the facilitation of immediate access of clean-up crews and broadcasting of health warnings to the population. Mr. Ibeanu announced that the report on his visit in Ukraine would be available for the next session and gave an account of the initial observations given to the government at the end of his mission.
Mr. Miloon Kothari, Special Rappoteur on adequate standard of living, stressed the practical approach he had always sought to give to the promotion of this right. He expressed the need for the elaboration of an operational framework for the realisation of the right to adequate housing. In his mandate, Mr. Kothari made three country visits. In Australia, he noted a number of policies and tools to address the problem of adequate housing though they did not make a significant impact on the conditions of people, especially indigenous people, across the country. He recommended the government to adopt a comprehensive and coordinated national housing policy to overcome the housing situation. In Spain, the Special Rapporteur admitted the efforts made by the government, but did not fail to acknowledge the low affordability and rise in prices in housing, the domestic violence against women impending their right to adequate housing and the lack of alternative housing possibilities. He recommended the government to review the impact of economic and social policies that affect housing and related issues. He noted the existence of good practices in South Africa but also some mater of concerns, which would be the subject of a forthcoming report.

Dr. Arjun Sengupta, Special rapporteur on human rights and extreme poverty, defined poverty as a composite of income poverty, human development poverty and social exclusion, extreme poverty being an extreme form of them. These concepts are acknowledged to be interdependent and interrelated, although each brings a different dimension to the concept of poverty. Measurable indicators for each of them already exist or can be easily established by social consensus. He expressed for a human rights approach to the notion of extreme poverty, the issue being whether extreme poverty was a consequence of human rights violation or was in itself a violation. Dr. Sengupta noted the differences between the amounts of resources devoted to the eradication of poverty compared to those spent on wasteful consumption. He stated that a consensus on extreme poverty as a human right violation would entail an obligation to remove poverty, through the design and implementation of a program of policies for eradicating extreme poverty.

The presentation were followed by statement of the concerned countries
Ukraine commended Mr Ibeanu for his report, assured him that the authorities were taking all possible measures to protect the population and looked forward to his report.
Australia reported that the report on the right to adequate housing was unbalanced, contained a number of inaccuracies and failed to take into account the information provided by the Australian government.
Spain thanked the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing for his energy, expressed gratitude for the recognised effort it undertook and looked forward for the final report.
Brazil stated the efforts undertaken to eliminate hunger through the launch of the zero-hunger program in 2003 and underlined the fact that fighting poverty was not only about increasing the GDP but also human development thus decreasing the level of inequality.
Cambodia regretted that the Special Rapporteur emphasised only the negative aspect of the housing situation in the country and included inaccuracies in his report.
Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, commended the efforts made by Mr. Ziegler on the issues of hunger and malnutrition. It advocated the council to take into account the report in order to undertake actions to help bring a final note to hunger and malnutrition.
Sudan thanked Mr. Ziegler on his report and assured him that access to food in Darfur had improved.

Finally, a number of nations exercised their right of reply before the session was ended.
Zimbabwe stated disagreement on some of comments given earlier on, accused the United Stated, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada of double standards concerning Zimbabwe, and refuted any accusation of racial discrimination within its borders.
Sudan sustained that the conflict in Darfur was not of religious or ethnic cleansing and that the Janjaweed were outlawed groups from several tribes.
Iraq responded to the Arab Jurists that Saddam had come to power through a bloody revolution and that his regime had killed thousand of people, which legitimated his condemnation.
Japan rejected the statement made by the Democratic republic of Korea claiming that Koreans were facing racial discrimination in Japan. Korea later on replied by stating that such violations were becoming harsher and had been criticised in many United Nations forums.
The Russian Federation refuted the report of Mr. Diène which they said was incorrect, lacked accuracy and revealed a politicised approach. Russia also stated that they were no form of discriminations committed on Georgians, proof being that they are the immigrants subjects to the least number of deportation.

AG