COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORT ON DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, REVIEWS MANDATES ON RIGHT TO FOOD, RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
The Human Rights Council this morning discussed a report by the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and then reviewed the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs on the right to food and on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.
Titinga Frederic Pacere, the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said that the situation in the country continued to be extremely worrying. Serious human rights violations, such as arbitrary executions, rape, torture and cruel treatment continued to be carried out throughout the territory in a spirit of impunity. Following the electoral process, political violence broke out. None of the serious crimes committed during the two last wars had been investigated in depth. The recent confrontations in the East of the Democratic Republic of the Congo could be interpreted as a consequence of the climate of impunity that prevailed in the country. It was vital for the authorities to show zero tolerance to human rights violations.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo, speaking as a concerned country, said that the democratic development of the country had moved on since the Independent Expert’s report. It would be utopian to believe that the country could function smoothly so soon after conflict in addition to decades of dictatorial rule. The Government had made the fight against impunity a priority. Major justice and police reforms had taken place. Disarmament of militias was under way through a national disarmament and demobilization programme.
Speaking in the interactive debate about the Democratic Republic of the Congo were the representatives of Portugal on behalf of the European Union, Canada, Belgium, Republic of Korea and Algeria. Also speaking were representatives of Commission nationale consultative des droits de l'homme of France, Germany and Morocco; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples (speaking on behalf of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; Association of World Citizens; and Europe-Third World Centre); International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples; and International Indian Treaty Council.
Resuming the process of review, rationalization and improvement of the mandates of the Special Procedures, the Council then took up the mandate of Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, who said that according to the Food and Agricultural Organization, the world already produced enough food to feed the double of the current world population. Those who did die from malnutrition today were being murdered. Ambassadors were voting at the World Trade Organization against the right to food and were voting for it in the Council. There was an inconsistency and this had to stop. Trans-national companies had much more power today than Governments and they were setting the rules. Another huge problem was the transformation of agricultural land for the production of bio-fuels in America.
Amongst issues raised in the debate about the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food was the fact that the figures cited by the Special Rapporteur were alarming. His mandate was strongly supported. The right to food was a universal right. Hunger and malnutrition were not inevitable, but were often due to the action or inaction of States. It had been established that policies and practices in the international arena had an impact on the right to food. It was unacceptable for people to suffer from hunger in a world richer that before. The roots of hunger and malnutrition rested on the lack of access to food, mainly due to poverty. Climate change could also have dramatic effects on the right to food.
Speaking in the debate on the right to food mandate were representatives of Cuba, presenting the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Portugal on behalf of the European Union, Brazil, Switzerland, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Bolivia, Senegal, Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, Nigeria, Uruguay, Bangladesh, India, China, Venezuela, Tunisia, Belgium and Ecuador. Also speaking were representatives of National Institutions for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights of Germany, France and Morocco; Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples; International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples and International Indian Treaty Council.
Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, said that he had sought to promote a constructive dialogue between governments and indigenous peoples, conducted 10 official missions and received hundreds of communications. He had worked to develop best practices and cooperated with other human rights mechanisms to coordinate action and avoid duplication of roles. Experience had shown that there were many opportunities for cooperation with other Special Procedures, particularly crosscutting mandates. The recent adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was an expression of international consensus on these rights and was welcomed by indigenous peoples around the world.
Guatemala took the floor to introduce the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.
When the Human Rights Council reconvenes this afternoon at 3 p.m. it will continue its discussion on the renewal, rationalization and improvement of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people and then hold a similar review of the mandates of the Independent Experts on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi.
Report on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Council has before it the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Titinga Frédéric Pacéré, (A/HRC/4/7) which states that the he political situation in the first half of 2006 was mostly dominated by the preparations for, and holding of, the presidential and legislative elections, and the accompanying election fever. However, violations occurred - in some cases extremely serious ones - in virtually all spheres of human rights. The weakness of the judiciary and its lack of independence vis-à-vis the executive branch, which also controls judicial decisions, are also regrettable. In such a context, the independent expert recommends, among other things, that the process of disarming militia and armed groups such as the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda, the Interahamwe, the “Rastas” and the Mai-Mai should be accelerated; that public freedoms should be respected in all circumstances, and mechanisms set
up to combat impunity; that all necessary measures should be adopted to ensure respect for the human person, in particular women and children; and that all trafficking and exploitation of all kinds should be stopped, especially the trivialization of sexual violence; and that the Government should strive to promote the independence of judges and magistrates and to provide the judicial system with a budget that will guarantee its independence.
Presentation of Report by Independent Expert on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic Republic of the Congo
TITINGA FREDERIC PACERE, Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo continued to be extremely worrying. Serious human rights violations, such as arbitrary executions, rape, torture and cruel treatment continued to be carried out throughout the territory in a spirit of impunity. The first democratic elections took place in a relatively peaceful setting, and were a vital step in ensuring the stability of this enormous country, which had been affected by long years of war. The situation of human rights continued, however, to be worrying. Following the electoral process, political violence broke out, marked by massive human rights violations that had still not been investigated by the judiciary to date.
In the first part of 2007, the situation also got worse in the East of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The situation was all the more serious in that the two parties were engaging in violations of humanitarian law, and humanitarian workers had difficulty reaching the area. Civilians were targeted by the parties to the conflict. In South Kivu, a large part of the province remained under the control of Rwandan Hutus, who were regularly perpetrating violence against the civilian population. There had only been a small number of prosecutions, despite 14,200 cases of sexual violence being reported in 2005. Eighty per cent of the perpetrators had never appeared in court. The penitentiary system remained precarious and grave. Prisons and other areas of detention were characterised by over-crowding, and lack of medical care. Urgent measures were required to deal with the extremely high number of cases of preventative detention.
The great majority of human rights violations had not been investigated. None of the serious crimes committed during the two last wars had been investigated in depth, and a large number of presumed war criminals continued to be promoted in the army. A main cause of impunity was the interference of political and military actors in the administration of justice. The situation of the judiciary power was very worrying, due to the lack of means, the insufficient number of magistrates, and the lack of tribunals to cover the whole territory. These flaws meant that justice only worked in rare instances, and human rights violations often remained unpunished. Impunity was the main focus during the visit of Louise Arbour, High Commissioner for Human Rights, to the Democratic Republic of Congo in May 2007. The recent confrontations in the East could be interpreted as a consequence of the climate of impunity that prevailed in the country. It was vital for the authorities to show zero tolerance to human rights violations.
Statement by Concerned Country
SEBASTIEN MUTOMB MUJING (Democratic Republic of the Congo), speaking as a concerned country, said the democratic development of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had moved on since the Independent Expert’s report was produced. He thanked the international community for its support in the consolidation of democratic institutions. Electoral problems had occurred but these were to be expected. It would be utopian to believe that the country could function smoothly so soon after conflict as well as decades of dictatorial rule. Through popular participation and public efforts, the Democratic Republic of the Congo would strive to overcome many of these irregularities.
The Government had made the fight against impunity a priority. Despite limited resources, it would undertake all necessary actions to bring sanctions against the guilty. Major justice and police reforms had taken place, including a draft law to criminalize torture. There were also new laws on sexual violence and the recent national initiatives, with international and UN support, had made progress in tackling the issue. New measures had been established to protect children. Officials had made visits to Kilwa to meet victims and witnesses of the 2004 atrocities. Other proceedings had been opened concerning incidents in the Bas-Congo. Disarmament of militias was under way through a national disarmament and demobilization programme. The Government had said it welcomed visits by the Independent Expert to assess the situation on the ground. But the Democratic Republic of the Congo had not benefited from technical cooperation in line with Resolution 2004/84 of 21 April 2004. Ending, he said wars were borne in the minds of men, and it was in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be built.
Interactive Dialogue on Report of Independent Expert on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic Republic of the Congo
CARLOS PEREIRA MARQUES (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that recent incidents in the Democratic Republic of the Congo had shown the need for efforts towards peace and security for all. Would it not be feasible to put in place an international tribunal for the Democratic Republic of the Congo? If not, mixed criminal chambers could also be put in place. What had been done to prevent massive recruitments of child soldiers? What could the international community undertake to strengthen the judiciary in the country?
TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said the detailed reports and the recommendations of the Independent Expert made it possible to draw the attention of the members of the Government and of the international community to grave and serious violations which were continuing to take place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Independent Expert mentioned arbitrary executions, rape, torture, cruel and degrading treatment, and a major series of challenges which lay ahead. He should develop further on the idea of having mixed criminal chambers to deal with crimes perpetrated before 2002.
NATHALIE RONDEUX (Belgium) said the Independent Expert had referred to mechanisms for suspending members of government forces for violations of human rights, and for mapping past violations. These steps had already been supported by the Congolese authorities. Belgium and others in the international community also supported the measures. Belgium asked how those who came forward to testify would be protected against reprisals, and what measures there would be to protect human rights defenders. Also, what role could MONUC play in the matter.
KIM PIL-WOO (Republic of Korea) announced that the Republic of Korea would join with other governments to help finance the mapping efforts to develop cartography of human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It was hoped that this would become a key element in strengthening the fight against human rights violations.
MOHAMMED BESSEDIK (Algeria) said in the light of the report, it seemed that the role of the African Union in the context of the restoration of peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo had gone un-noticed, and Mr. Pacere should give his views on that whole matter, elaborating on the role of the African Union in the settlement of matters in general terms. The recommendations of the Independent Expert focussed on general matters. Given that the mandate was one of technical assistance, identification of those fields where an Independent Expert should make specific recommendations was expected, and this whole matter was not clearly addressed in the report, nor in the statement made by the Independent Expert. It could be more objective, comprehensive and complete were he to dwell more on matters, given that he had identified a number of problems, giving more specific recommendations, including to the international community on how to strengthen the peace process, with a view to complying with the mandate entrusted to him.
KATHARINA ROSE, of Commission nationale consultative des droits de l'homme, said one of the recommendations was to watch over the implementation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The National Human Rights Observatory had been subjected to attacks on its staff and premises. The Independent Expert recommended to Parliament that a law be drawn up concerning the organization and functioning of the new national human rights institution. It should be based on the Paris Principles and provided with adequate resources to allow it to function independently. This was a key element in establishing confidence in the human rights institutions within the country.
JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said that the Independent Expert’s report had referred to the importance of consolidating he authority of the State as a key element of the creation of a stable society, but Human Rights Watch was concerned that consolidation of state authority was sometimes a pretext for human rights abuses, including arrests and torture of political opponents. Human rights Watch was particularly concerned over the lack of accountability for past crimes, including war crimes, and the ongoing culture of impunity that undermined progress in other areas.
Concluding Remarks by Independent Expert on Situation of Human Rights in Democratic Republic of the Congo
TITINGA FREDERIC PACERE, Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo, responding to the questions and comments, said many serious and significant questions had been asked. The various speakers had found in the report elements which merited support so that human rights and peace could, once and for all, be erected in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The representative of the latter country was thanked for the statement made; at the beginning of his presentation he had said that he had been in the Democratic Republic of Congo twice since 2004, and Mr. Pacere had in fact been there more often that that. Some of the visits of the Independent Expert to the country had been prevented due to security reasons, which was regrettable.
As Portugal had noted, with regards to the International Criminal Court and joint or mixed chambers and the advantages of these, it should be borne in mind that simply in North Kivu there were some 2,000 women violated in a year, which implied 2,000 criminals. The heads of courts were earning $ 22 a month - and they had not drawn their salaries for two years, which clarified the destitution of the system, and why it was difficult for the system to respond to major crimes. The International Criminal Court should be involved in establishing the mixed courts, as this would help resolve the situation. This would be more flexible, and would be more in line with the needs of the country; courts could be established to investigate crimes and appeals. The point of the courts would be to avoid the cost and burden of a special criminal court.
With respect to the issue of the mapping project, that was something of the greatest importance. States were requested to end impunity, and ensure that those responsible for human rights violations and major violations of international humanitarian law were prosecuted as per international standards. To fight impunity, the High Commissioner was asked to contact the Office of Human Rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo and identify how to combat this, and to make means available to the Government with regards to this. With regards to the issue raised by the representative of Algeria, the Independent Expert’s mandate did relate to technical assistance, and the report did identify targeted areas that required technical assistance. The Government was what had been identified, and hoped that this would open up avenues. The international community had decided to give support, and could be contacted to provide funding.
Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Right to Food
Opening Statements
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), introducing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said the mandate had always been based on the conviction that food insecurity had worldwide dimensions and was an outrage against human dignity. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur involved receiving information on all aspects of realization of the right to food, cooperating with governments and international and intergovernmental organizations, and identifying problems in food insecurity. There had been numerous General Assembly resolutions on the right to food. The mandate did not give priority to punitive approaches, but rather allowed for developing solutions for countries’ difficulties in ensuring enjoyment of the right to food for its citizens. His role involved promoting international cooperation as an inseparable component of the application of the mandate. Cuba had established numerous consultations on the matter aimed at ensuring the revision and extension for three years of the mandate. A draft revised resolution L.5 had been submitted to the Council. The reasons behind the proposal to extend the mandate were not open to question. Special Rapporteur Jean Ziegler had shown himself to be a champion in the fight against hunger, upholding the noble cause of his mandate and moving forward international cooperation.
JEAN ZIEGLER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said that the right to food was defined as having regular, permanent and unrestricted access, either directly or by means of financial purchases to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food. He regretted that he was unable to report a reduction in the numbers of persons suffering from violations of this right today. Despite real advances realised in certain countries, there had been little overall progress around the world. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, the world already produced enough food to feed the double of the current world population. Those who did die from malnutrition today were being murdered.
In Geneva, Mr. Ziegler said, every country had ambassadors and the same that were voting at the World Trade Organization against the right to food were voting for it in the Council. There was an inconsistency and this had to stop. New non-state actors were playing a role today, trans-national companies, like Nestlé, had much more power today than African or Latin American governments. The 500 largest world companies were setting the rules and they did not have to follow the rules of this Council. These companies said that it was not their role but the Council’s role to tackle these problems.
Mr. Ziegler noted that another huge problem was the transformation of agricultural land for the production of bio-fuels in America. This had resulted in the rise of the price of corn, especially in Mexico. This would lead to massive hunger in the world. United States President George Bush was right by wanting to move away from bio-fuels. It was right and legitimate. But the right to food had to prevail. Bio-fuels had to be produced in some other way. In Europe the emerging agro-fuels were also deadly for countries where food production was declining. The problem of hunger refugees in Africa was also important. Those trying to cross the Mediterranean and dying on their way were not fleeing from the economic situation but were hunger refugees and had to be recognized as such. New laws and instruments should be created for them. The plurality of opinions on the topic was respected, like the neo-liberal idea that market forces could eliminate hunger, but evidence showed the contrary.
Interactive Dialogue on Mandate of Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
AMR ROSHDY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group strongly supported the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, as without this right, many other human rights became impossible. The Group was alarmed at the figures cited by the Special Rapporteur as to the number of people living in hunger - if there were no other reasons, these figures alone validated the extension of the mandate.
CARLOS PEREIRA MARQUES (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union considered the famine that affected hundreds of millions all over the world was an affront to human dignity. The numbers had been increasing every year since 1996, despite government commitments at the World Food Summit and the Millennium Summit. The European Union supported the mandate in full and remained committed to the fight against hunger and malnutrition, and believed the mandate was an important way to help States improve their food security policies and strategies. The Special Rapporteur was asked how he evaluated the work undertaken so far under his mandate, what challenges he had faced in discharging his mandate, and what adjustments or improvements could be made.
SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said that since 2003, the Government of Brazil had kept up an open dialogue with the Special Rapporteur. The right to food was a universal human right. As part of the Brazilian Government’s zero hunger programme, a number of measures had been adopted. Several social programmes had been included which had resulted in impressive results in a country, which still had a high number of poor people. The zero hunger programme was vital and it was reminded that these social programmes were open to international cooperation. The Bio-fuel programme in Brazil had shown good results, and contrary to the view of the Special Rapporteur it should provide improvements in the agricultural sector. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was supported.
ANH THU DUONG (Switzerland) said eating one’s fill was a right which almost a billion people every day found denied them, including millions of children. The negative effects of insufficient diet were overwhelming. Hunger and malnutrition were not inevitable, but were often due to the action or inaction of States. Without this right, the right to life could not be attained. The pertinence of the mandate, the extension of which was warmly supported, rested, among others, on the need for an integrated and coordinated approach for the protection and promotion of the right to food, and on the identification of the problems impeding the realisation of the right.
ALICIA MARTIN GALLEGOS (Nicaragua) said the rationalization and improvement of mandates were of great importance and the Council should endeavour to improve the balance of rights among the mandates. Established in 2000, the right to food mandate acknowledged the global dimension of food insecurity and malnutrition. According to the Special Rapporteur’s reports, the problems were even greater today, with 854 million people lacking enough food. The Human Rights Council should continue to give priority to the right to food and should renew the mandate. Recent studies had enabled the problem to be better understood. Nicaragua invited Special Rapporteur Jean Ziegler to visit the country, where he would see the zero hunger programme, actively combating poverty and food insecurity among the population, at work.
PAVEL CHERNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation shared the importance of combating hunger and the goals set out in the Millennium Development Goals. An extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was supported. The enormous work of the Special Rapporteur in the strengthening of the mandate was felicitated.
ANGELICA NAVARRO LLANOS (Bolivia) said concerning the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, the Government of Bolivia attached great importance to the retention and strengthening of that mandate, as it had made possible a change from a policy of intensive agriculture to environmentally-sound agriculture in Bolivia. There should be an analysis of the positive and negative effects of food aid, not merely in terms of disruption of markets and changes in the food standards of the population, but also with regards to other issues. Emergency humanitarian aid should not have negative consequences over the long term, among which was continuing dependency on imported products. Stress should be made on policy measures and disbursement by developed countries which made difficult the right to food in developing countries, such as agricultural subsidies, which distorted the markets. A fraction of these subsidies would be sufficient to attain many of the Millennium Development Goals. Developed countries should reduce their subsidies, and change their development policies so these were more consistent, and more sustainable.
ABDUL WAHAB HAIDARA (Senegal) said the Special Rapporteur had described a disturbing state of affairs. The link between rights to food and matters of international trade was especially interesting. The Special Rapporteur might provide practical suggestions for synergy between the right to food and areas of investment, international trade and development assistance. It had been established that policies and practices in the international arena had an impact on the right to food. Senegal would support the extension of the mandate.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that it was unacceptable for people to suffer from hunger in a world richer than ever before. The OIC was committed to the right to food. The OIC urged that the mandate should be extended.
OZO NWOBU (Nigeria) said the right to food was an important issue which touched every human being. Fundamentally, the roots of hunger and malnutrition rested on the lack of access to food, mainly due to poverty. Human rights could not be fully guaranteed unless the subject of hunger and the right to food was secure. To achieve this laudable objective, there should be the concerted efforts of all, the resolution of armed conflicts, and the international community should intensify the assistance to poor countries, especially in Africa, to develop capacity to deal with issues such as climate change and desertification which could eventually impact negatively on the right to food. The mandate should be extended for another three years.
ALEJANDRO ARTUCIO RODRIGUEZ (Uruguay) said Special Rapporteur Jean Ziegler had presented a dramatic panorama. The right to food should not be an aspiration but a right that could be demanded. The Special Rapporteur had shown the need to work to combat the scourge of hunger. Uruguay supported the extension of the mandate.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that the Special Rapporteur’s picture of the situation was disturbing. It was imperative to look into these issues. The international community had a responsibility to ensure the right to food. Synergy and action of the different systems was essential. The Special Rapporteur’s splendid job was appreciated and the extension of the mandate was strongly supported.
MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said the Special Rapporteur was thanked for his statement. India attached importance to his work on the right to food, and had received a fruitful visit by him in 2005. India supported the proposal of Cuba to extend the mandate for three years. This issue should remain under the attention of the Council.
ZHAO XING (China) said the rights to survival and development were fundamental rights and linked to the right to food. Despite the volume of food production in the world, over 800 million suffered from lack of food. Special Rapporteur Jean Ziegler’s work was highly appreciated and China supported a three-year extension of the mandate, and hoped the Council would prioritize the right to food in its discussions.
ENZO BITETTO GAVILANES (Venezuela) said that the right to food was closely related to the right to life. The international community could not be indifferent to the situation. The adoption of measures to combat hunger should become a reality. The progress made during the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in the past years was spectacular and Venezuela believed that it was of vital importance to extend the mandate.
ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) paid tribute to the Special Rapporteur for his commendable efforts and his exhaustive statement. The establishment of the mandate on the right to food reflected a universal aspiration that every person should be able to eat to their fill. It was unacceptable that the lack of food continued to ravage the world - the food deficit was a challenge which the international community would have to confront in the years to come, pooling efforts to ensure that the attainment of the right to food be accomplished. This matter should be given the highest priority by the Council. The efforts of the Special Rapporteur to promote an approach in favour of enhanced international cooperation were supported - such an approach also underscored the silent tragedy affecting children who suffered and died from malnutrition. Hunger was not inevitable, and efforts should continue until there was complete implementation of the right to food.
BART OUVRY (Belgium) said one of the main developments in recent years had been global warming. Climate change could have dramatic effects on the right to food. Could the Special Rapporteur provide some ideas and suggestions on how this could be integrated into the mandate? Mr. Ziegler had often referred to the work of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The link between this body and his mandate was important and Belgium supported an optional protocol on individual complaints. Could the mandate holder comment on justiciability of the right to food?
JUAN HOLGUIN (Ecuador) said that Ecuador firmly supported the mandate’s extension. The whole question of world poverty was dramatic. The role of the Special Rapporteur was vital. Why did the situation continue to worsen every year?
KATHARINA ROSE, of Commission nationale consultative des droits de l'homme, said hunger and malnutrition were on the rise, and although efforts had been made, a growing number of people in the world did not have sufficient food, or suffered from malnutrition. The mandate of the right to food was therefore of ever-increasing importance in the world of today, and should be renewed.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, speaking on behalf of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; Association of World Citizens; and Europe-Third World Centre, said Special Rapporteur Jean Ziegler had earlier highlighted contradictions in the policies of some developed countries towards developing countries. These countries defended subsidies for their agricultural export sectors, leading to distortions in the international markets. This duplicity created contradictions within the United Nations system. Problems were exacerbated by new technologies such as bio-fuels, sometimes forcing entire peoples to migrate. Should a special status of refugee – the hunger refugees – be considered?
MATHIEU CRETTENAND, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, commended the Special Rapporteur’s work. He had conveyed what was at stake to implement the right to food. Economic domination and existing imbalance between the north and south were the source of hunger today. The inconsistencies between decisions taken at the United Nations with those taken in other organisations were noted. Bio-fuel was also a new challenge.
CLAIRE CHARTERS, of International Indian Treaty Council, said for indigenous peoples the right to food encompassed not only the ability to eat, but also the ability to maintain culture, knowledge, traditions and customs. It also encompassed the right to ancestral lands. The report included situations both in the North and South, where situations caused by Governments could impinge upon indigenous peoples’ ability to achieve their right to food.
Concluding Remarks
JEAN ZIEGLER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, responding to the questions and comments, said there had been progress around the world: China was now self-sufficient in food; India had resisted liberalization and retained the public distribution system; Cuba and Latin America had made great strides; and there were also Brazil’s family grants programme and the zero hunger programme in Guatemala, to name others. There was growing awareness of the issue of the right to food. Ten years ago there was a sense of inevitability. Today, the fight against hunger was a number one development goal. Recent agreements made in the European Union were catastrophic for developing countries. The European Union and the European Commission were not yielding. If the new agreement between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries came into force, it would be disastrous.
On bio- and agro-fuels, he said the scale of sugar cane plantations was spreading to the detriment of domestic agriculture in Brazil. The landless peasants in Brazil had campaigned against bio-fuels – all 6 million of them – and he disagreed on the way forward in Brazil. He said that figures globally for those suffering were high but the issue was not only one of numbers and statistics. He commended those who had tackled hunger with zero tolerance. He agreed that desertification was a serious problem – the Sahara continued to extend southwards. Structural adjustment in the International Monetary Fund was indeed generating famine. He thanked the many delegations for their support. In answer to the civil society organizations, he said he supported a mandate on the right to water, was concerned about hunger-driven migrations, and was disturbed at the debt of countries of the south. Debt reduction was a major issue of critical relevance to the right to food.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the Special Rapporteur had provided the conclusion of the debate himself and Cuba reiterated its support to extend his mandate for another three years.
Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People
Opening Statements
CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking also on behalf of Mexico, introducing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, said the mandate had focussed on thematic investigations, country visits, and communications with Governments. The context of the mandate was set forth by the Commission on Human Rights. The content was specific issues related to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, studied by the office holder, including implementation of national legislation related to indigenous peoples, and shortcomings in such legislation, bilingual rights, preservation of cultural heritage, access to justice, the interface between indigenous cultural law and national law, international standards for the protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples, poverty, and the Millennium Development Goals.
Thanks to the work of the Special Rapporteur, there was greater awareness among States of the importance of promoting and protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, as well as the need to ensure that they were implemented in practice, and to fill shortcomings in this respect. Thanks to his country visits and his annual reports to the Commission, the General Assembly and the Council, the Special Rapporteur had been open to constructive dialogue with States, indigenous communities, and other relevant organizations. His work had caused an impact both in developed and developing countries, showing the universal nature of his mandate. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur offered clear possibilities that it would increase the level of respect for and protection of the human rights of indigenous peoples. Globally, the mandate had had a positive impact, and it should be extended.
RODOLFO STAVENHAGEN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, said the mandate covered a wide range of civil and political, economic, social and cultural rights, and implementation gaps between existing norms and daily life. He had sought to promote constructive dialogue between governments and indigenous peoples. He had also conducted 10 official missions and received hundreds of communications. He had worked to develop best practices and cooperated with other human rights mechanisms to coordinate action and avoid duplication of roles. He recommended that periodic exchanges of information be held between the Special Rapporteur and the successor body to the former Working Group on indigenous populations. Cooperation with regional bodies in Africa and the Americas had been fruitful.
Experience had shown that there were many opportunities for cooperation with other Special Procedures, particularly cross-cutting mandates such as those on racism or minorities, and those on housing, health, food and water. Joint missions like those in Nepal and Mexico showed that a plurality of thematic approaches was not only justifiable but sometimes essential. The Special Rapporteur had cooperated with other specialized agencies too: ILO, UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO and others whose mandates were of special interest to indigenous peoples. The recent adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was an expression of international consensus on these rights and was welcomed by indigenous peoples around the world. The Declaration gave the mandate added moral and political force and a clear nominative framework to guide its activities. There was room for improvement, depending on available resources in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, but it would not be erroneous to claim that the mandate was a fundamental reference and deserved to be renewed and strengthened.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC07068E