HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES GENERAL DEBATES ON HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS THAT REQUIRE THE COUNCIL’S ATTENTION, AND HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES AND MECHANISMS

The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its general debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention in which it heard from a series of non-governmental organizations about violations of human rights in countries around the world. It then held its general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms in which it statements concerning the Advisory Committee, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Forum on Minority Issues, and the Social Forum.

At the beginning of the meeting, the President of the Council, Ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi, said that the Council this morning held a private meeting under its Complaints Procedure during which they discussed the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan. As a result of the meeting, the Council decided to discontinue the consideration of the situation in Turkmenistan under this procedure. In conformity with the confidentiality of the procedure, he said members of the Council should make no reference in the public debate to the confidential decision and material concerning this country.

Speaking in the general debate on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention were the following non-governmental organizations: Society for Threatened Peoples, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, International Educational Development, Franciscans International, in a joint statement with Pax Romana, International Youth and Student Movement for United Nations, International Fellowship of Reconciliation, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, Union de l'action féminine, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Agir Ensemble pour les droits de l'homme, Centrist Democratic International (CDI) Cercle de recherche sur les droits et les devoirs de la personne humaine, Action internationale pour la paix et le développement dans la région des Grands Lacs, in a joint statement with Comite international pour le respect et l'application de la Charte africaine des droits de l'homme et des peuples, World Vision International, Catholic Organisation for Relief and Development, Liberation, International Peace Bureau, Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA), Reporters without Borders - International, and International Committee for the Respect and the Application of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Speaking in right of reply were Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka, Japan and China.

The Council then held a general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms. Last week, the Council had heard presentations by representatives of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Forum on Minority Issues. Under this agenda item, the Council is also considering the work of the Social Forum.

In the general debate, with regard to the Advisory Committee, one speaker said the Advisory Committee should endeavour to finish the work that had been started by the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Another said that the Advisory Committee was a think tank and its main task was to provide specialized knowledge on the requests of its superior body. It could not be a body that had its hands tied. One speaker said that there was no general derogation by the Council to the Advisory Committee to undertake initiatives on any matter within the mandate of the Council – the only latitude permitted on an issue of substance was that, within the framework of a reference already made, it could propose further research proposals. The Council could not automatically adopt the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, a number of speakers said. There had to be space to debate and amend the recommendations in a transparent manner prior to their adoption by the Council.

On the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a delegation wished to propose themes which could be studied by the Expert Mechanism, including violence against indigenous women and indigenous children under guardianship. Another delegation said that it considered that a thoroughly inclusive and participatory approach was paramount if a country wished to establish an educational policy which was answerable to the needs of indigenous peoples and which truly reflected their differentiated circumstances and expectations. There were serious concerns about the Expert Mechanism's lack of financial resources to implement inter-sessional activities, as this would hamper the implementation of its mandate and seriously hamper its work and expectations. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations should ensure it had the funding to carry out its mission.

On the Forum on Minority Issues, a speaker said denial of the right to education for minorities led to denial of civil and political rights, including rights to freedom of movement and of expression, and limited their meaningful participation in economic, social and cultural affairs. More attention should be paid to the possibility of the use of minority language for instruction, as reduction in the use of mother tongues would foster unequal social opportunities in countries. One speaker said that the situation of a number of minorities around the world was not satisfactory, and the protection of minorities and adequate resources provided to them needed to be ensured.

Regarding the Social Forum, a speaker appreciated the commitment and the ongoing efforts which had been geared towards the eradication of poverty and the furtherance of human rights, and hoped that given the recent global trends, the issues covered by the Social Forum would be further elaborated upon and a normative framework established to resolve many of the challenges faced. The Social Forum was an extremely important forum, open to States and other stakeholders, including civil society, to discuss social issues, but in particular to discuss poverty, which was not just an economic and social issue but also a security issue.

Speaking in the general debate was the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Chile on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Cuba, Switzerland on behalf of the Group on Education and Human Rights Training including Costa Rica, Morocco and Italy, India, Chile, Nigeria, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, Russian Federation, Bahrain, china, Slovenia, Mexico, Kuwait, Morocco, Austria, Finland on behalf of the Nordic Countries Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, Iran, Greece, Australia, Hungary, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United States, Algeria and New Zealand.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor on the agenda item on human rights bodies and mechanisms: Irish Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, Europe-Third World Centre, Soka Gakkai International, International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education, Indian Council of South America, France Libertes: Fondation Danielle Mitterand, Lutheran World Federation, OCAPROCE International, Cercle de la Recherche sur les Droits et les Devoirs de la Personne Humaine, Liberation, Action Canada for Population and Development, International Movement and Fourth World, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Arab Commission for Human Rights, Universal Esperanto Association, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, and International Institute for Peace.


The Council is meeting today in back-to-back meetings from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., including the closed meeting from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. When the Council holds its afternoon meeting at 3 p.m., it will follow-up on the Special Session which was held in January on grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the recent aggression of the occupied Gaza Strip.

Continuation of General Debate on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention

TENZIN KAYTA, of Society for Threatened Peoples, in a joint statement with Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said with regard to Tibetan independence from China, at the last meeting of Chinese and Tibetan officials, the Dalai Lama had presented a document, as requested by the Chinese, which was rejected by Chinese because it was calling for at least half independence or full independence. The international community should continue encouraging the Chinese to enter into honest negotiations. Even Nobel peace prizewinners had lent their voices to the fight for independence and were dismayed about the results that had been achieved so far.

KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said the lack of attention given to the situation in Zimbabwe left the international community to help prevent mass starvation. In Sri Lanka, the Tamils had been suffering in the country since 1948. In February 2009 at the invitation of the United States Senate, the speaker had made a statement on Sri Lanka. There was now support by Senators to address the need for humanitarian assistance for the Tamils, and that they not be driven by Sri Lankan authorities into concentration camps. The Council could not afford to abate genocide. The Council was urged to hold a special session in this regard.

GOTZON ONANDIA-ZARRABE, of Franciscans International, in a joint statement with Pax Romana, said there was concern about the human rights situation and the increasing instability in Madagascar, where political tension and a series of violent incidents had led to the death of more than 130 people, and instability continued to increase. All actors should respect international human rights obligations and engage in a dialogue to find a solution. The situation in Sri Lanka continued to deteriorate, and the number of victims was increasing. According to local sources, the condition of civilians in Vanni was desperate. The Human Rights Council should hold a special session on Sri Lanka. The two provinces of West Papua and Papua also remained areas in need of the Human Rights Council's attention. Intimidation of human rights defenders continued.

Mr. M'HAMED, of International Youth and Student Movement for United Nations, said that all human rights were indivisible, interdependent and universal. The right to self-determination required particular attention in the region of the Western Sahara. The people there were oppressed and human rights defenders were especially targeted and paid with their lives. Several dozens of such prisoners were in Moroccan prisons and those that emerged were marked for life. Peacekeeping missions in that region should have a human rights aspect. The Western Sahara was the last colonized region in Africa.

TENZIN NORGAY, of International Fellowship of Reconciliation, said during the past decade the International Fellowship reported regularly to the Human Rights Council concerning the Chinese reparation campaign in Tibet. They were alarmed by the aftermath of the protests that took place in May, in which the Chinese authorities launched a crack down on Tibetan monks. The taking of one’s life was one of the most severe sins within the Tibetan beliefs. The International Fellowship urged China to seize pressures in Tibet, including the issue of religious freedom, and urged that the Council to engage with China to ensure that the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion made a visit to the country.

MAJID TRAMBOO, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said that the Association had to bring to the Council’s attention the gross human rights abuses that occurred regularly in Indian-held Kashmir as a matter of routine. A recent report released by local NGOs had highlighted the number of deaths and disabilities caused by land mines in Indian-held Kashmir. Seven hundred civilians had suffered some kind of disability due to landmines in Kashmir in the past decade. Disappearances were also continuing in India, in 18 villages in the Uri District in Kashmir alone 940 graves had been discovered. India consistently refused to hold an independent and impartial investigation into this matter.

EL MAGHNAOUI FATIMA, of Union de l'action féminine, said the people of Western Sahara were suffering a consistent violation of their human rights with the cooperation of those responsible for Algerian security. In the Tinduf camps, human rights were not respected, the Saharawi population lived in terrible conditions, subjected to the most inhuman methods, denied their fundamental freedoms, deprived the right to freedom of movement and information. Thousands had died under torture. Many women and children suffered from malnutrition, which led to serious illness. Infant mortality had risen in the camps, and most humanitarian aid was diverted to the personal needs of Algerian leaders. The Council should demand that the Government cease this, and put an end to the three generations of suffering. While a political solution was sought, there was a human drama that was unfolding.

DEKYI DOLKAR, of Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, said with regard to the events in March 2008 in Tibet, a joint communication to China by the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, concerning reports of violence during demonstrations in the Tibet autonomous region and surrounding areas in China, spoke of killings of an unconfirmed number of people and arrests of hundreds of demonstrators, which reflected immediate concern in the wake of violence in Lhasa on 14 March 2008. NGO reports documented over 130 incidents of protests across 52 countries by Tibetans since last March. Peaceful protests continued as this Council met. Furthermore, Amnesty International had reported, based on China’s own public statements, that the fate and whereabouts of over 100 Tibetan detainees remained undisclosed.

VO VAN AI, of Agir Ensemble pour les droits de l'homme, said there was great concern for Viet Nam's continuing incompliance with its human rights commitments. The Communist Party controlled the people. The Party passed laws that were in violation of human rights, including decrees forbidding demonstrations and restraining the freedom of the press and expression. The Party legalised arbitrary detention, and decided, against the views of the population, to exploit natural resources causing environmental degradation. The Human Rights Council should press the Government to issue an open invitation to the Special Rapporteurs on human rights defenders, freedom of expression, and religious freedom.

SEMLALI AABADILA, of Centrist Democratic International (CDI), said that there were numerous situations that required the Council’s attention. This should not hide the situation of the people kept in the Tindouf camps. The humanitarian assistance was destined for the sequestered people but it was stolen from them. The International Democratic Center called on Algeria to lift their state of siege so that the people could benefit from their right to free movement.

BELL HILAIRE, of Cercle de recherche sur les droits et les devoirs de la personne humaine, proposed that the Council consider adopting a universal declaration on the rights and duties of the individual. Studies showed that 89.9 per cent of violence in Cameroon against men was carried out by women. Human rights were also violated by peoples, and not just by Governments. There should be an elaboration of the duties and responsibilities of people. The Research Circle said they did not object that the duties and obligations of protecting and promoting human rights lay with States, but this could only be carried out if the duty of individuals was reinforced and elaborated as part of the process. The Research Centre recommended that the Council adopt a resolution to condemn violence against men by women, and to appoint a Special Rapporteur on violence against men.

MAURICE KATALA, of Action internationale pour la paix et le développement dans la région des Grands Lacs, in a joint statement with Comité international pour le respect et l'application de la Charte africaine des droits de l'homme et des peuples, said despite the resolutions of the Human Rights Council and the Security Council, a joint military operation by the Democratic Republic of Congo-Rwanda had been launched in secrecy to track down the militiamen of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda. This had not reached its goal. Rwanda was mentioned in a recent United Nations report as a support country for the armed groups carrying out heinous acts in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. New attacks had been noted in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with an outflow of civilians. The updating of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Democratic Republic of the Congo was urgent, as the current crisis was spreading.

JENNIFER PHILPOT NISSEN, of World Vision International, welcomed the continuing attention of the Human Rights Council to the critical human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. World Vision highlighted the great need to address the situation of sexually exploited children. Children, especially those who were orphans, displaced, or refugees, were particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation and abuse, many being forced into prostitution to survive. The exponential increase in displacement and violent killings since August 2008 had drastically increased the number of extremely vulnerable children. The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Government as well as local and international actors should immediately develop and robustly support programmes aimed at the prevention, recovery and the integration of child victims of sexual exploitation.

THEODOR RATHGEBER, of Catholic Organization for Relief and Development, said in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in particular in Kivu, people wanted to recover from the war that had lasted over 10 years. All the combatants were perpetrating acts of sexual violence, and the human rights situation was so alarming that even the justice system did not know how to deal with, among others, the cases of rape where women and girls were victims. The Catholic Organization said that transforming commitments into actual action was necessary to address the crisis. The re-establishment of the Independent Expert on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo would also contribute greatly in this regard, by shedding light on sexual violence, recruitment of child soldiers, and the situation of internally displaced persons, among other things. The culture of impunity needed to be stopped, stressed the Catholic Organization for Relief and Development.

ANEZKA PALKOVA, of Liberation, said human rights were indivisible, interdependent and universal, applying in all situations and to all races without discrimination. The nations in the north eastern territories of South Asia suffered from denial of their fundamental rights. The human rights defenders who dared to raise their voice for the voiceless victims of torture in the north-eastern territories had also been subjected to torture, harassment and disappearance. The Council had the obligation to pay attention to torture, extrajudicial killings and detentions and disappearances in the north-eastern territories of South Asia currently held by the Indian Government.

ANNIGNA GENG, of International Peace Bureau, said that the Rohingya was a Muslim minority from North Arakan State which was systematically excluded and discriminated against by the Myanmar regime. Deprived of citizenship, the Rohingya were not allowed to travel from one place to another without permission and traveling beyond North Arakan was forbidden. They were subjected to forced labour, extortion, arbitrary taxes and land confiscation. Only their community had to apply for permission to marry which was only granted in return for high bribes and a declaration that the couple would have no more than two children. The Peace Bureau called on the Council to urge Myanmar to immediately end its policies of exclusion and discrimination against the Rohingya and to repeal the 1982 Citizenship Law.

ARUN KHOTE, of Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA), said over 300 million Dalits remained deprived of their most fundamental rights including the right to education and other economic, social and cultural rights. In addition, they were frequently subjected to torture and arbitrary detentions. In Tamil Nadu last month, two Dalit young men were beaten to death for entering a high caste temple for worship. Dalit women were frequently raped and killed. The Special Rapporteur on violence against women should also write a special report on the situation of Dalit women and children, 80 per cent of whom suffered from persistent denial of their right to education. Democracy should not be for flaunting political credentials and those who were violating the rights of the people through illegal killings, torture and enforced-disappearance should be made accountable.

GEORGE GORDON LENNOX, of Reporters without Borders International, said it expressed its shock in November last year at the seven-year jail sentences handed down to the editor and manager of a privately-owned newspaper in Myanmar. The two were only the most recent of a long list of journalists and bloggers, poets and activists silenced by the Government and now languishing in prison. The Council, the High Commissioner and the Special Procedures concerned, as well as other stakeholders, should add their voices to all those clamouring for freedom and democracy in Myanmar.

MALUZA WASILUADIO, of International Committee for the Respect and Application of the African Charter on the Human and Peoples’ Rights, said that the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo continued to be extremely worrying. Despite the appeasing efforts made by the Congolese Government, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (FDLR) still continued to bring horror over the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In a recent report, Rwanda was cited to be the aggressor by giving military support to Laurent Nkunda. Total impunity continued to be enjoyed by the heads of the military. In these circumstances, what credibility could one attach to the joint military campaign carried out by Rwanda in the east of the Congo? Mr. John Holmes had said that the humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was worse than that in Darfur.


Right of Reply

SAMIRA SAFAROVA Azerbaijan, speaking in a right of reply, referred to the statement made by the United States last week on freedom of expression and freedom to access information in Azerbaijan during the general debate on issues requiring the Council’s attention. Azerbaijan regretted that the United States did not take the opportunity to engage with it during the interactive dialogue and exchange which took place last month during the Universal Periodic Review. Azerbaijan also suggested that the United States refer to the report of the Working Group on freedom of expression and freedom to access of information with respect to Azerbaijan. The Government hoped that the approach States took to address matters was a cooperative one and not a confrontational one. Azerbaijan said they had listened in the past weeks with concern regarding several cases on killings and disappearances of reporters and journalists in the United States.

YASANTHA KODAGODA, of Sri Lanka, speaking in a right of reply, said the speaker for International Educational Development had continued to utter complete falsehoods regarding the prevailing situation in Sri Lanka - this organization only supported the LTTE, which was now going through its final round of terrorism. The LTTE lobbying was not uncommon at the Council. The situation in Sri Lanka, as clearly observed by the United Nations coordinator on humanitarian affairs, was an exceptional one. There was no genocidal situation - the Government was engaged in a legitimate humanitarian and military operation aimed at liberating its own people from LTTE terrorists, who did not even spare the people they falsely claimed to represent, and were abusing the humanitarian gestures of the Government. It had positioned itself inside the no-fire zone that was observed by the Government of Sri Lanka and was attacking the security forces who were fast approaching the shrinking territory. The LTTE was using people as a human shield. Sir John Holmes had personally visited the villages being administered by the Government, in which persons were being sheltered and ensured decent conditions of living. It was a complete falsehood to refer to these shelters as detention camps.

AKIO ISOMATA, (Japan), in a right of reply, said that the abduction of innocent people was one of the extreme cases of grave violations of human rights, and merited a serious discussion in the Human Rights Council. Justification of such grave human rights violations based on a groundless assertion regarding Japan’s attitude towards the events of the past was unacceptable. Japan agreed upon the overall objectives and concrete modalities of the investigation on the abduction issue in August last year, but no concrete action had been taken by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to date. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea should move forward in making good on this promise by establishing an authorized investigation committee and commencing investigation, as agreed, without further delay.

QIAN BO (China), speaking in a right of reply, said China rejected the statements made by the Society for Threatened Peoples and other organizations that made similar statements on Tibet. Those organizations, China said, made groundless accusations and distorted information with respect to the situation in Tibet. China stressed that the issue of Tibet was a separatist issue, and was not linked to religion, culture, ethnicity or human rights issues. The Chinese Government would continue to safeguard national integrity and sovereignty. If those non-governmental organizations were truly concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet, they should acknowledge the democratic process established over 50 years ago in Tibet, and what the Chinese Government had contributed to that effect.

General Debate on Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms

TOMAS HUSAK, (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said General Assembly resolution 60/251 clearly stated that the common commitment of the Human Rights Council was to strengthen the United Nations' human rights system, with the aim of ensuring the effective enjoyment of human rights by all. The Human Rights Council should have at its disposal all necessary tools and mechanisms in order to be able to shoulder this comprehensive mandate. The European Union traditionally attached great importance to the Council's system of Special Procedures, which were at the core of the United Nations Human Rights Council machinery. Thematic procedures provided valuable conceptual analysis, while country procedures could give a voice to those victims who could not speak up for themselves. The Advisory Committee had finished its initial year of work - its suggestions could provide inspiration to States for their work on the Council, but it should be up to States to decide whether and if to take their work forward. It was of utmost importance for the effective work of the Council to enhance dialogue with the outside world, and there were a variety of ways in which this difficult task could be achieved.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN, (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Group highly appreciated the work of the Advisory Committee. The African Group understood that the Committee might propose any suggestions to the Council within the scope of their mandate and that the Council could then provide further information to the Advisory Committee. The African Group encouraged the Advisory Committee to continue its work. The Advisory Committee should endeavour to finish the work that had been started by the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, said with regard to education in the field of human rights, the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries said this education was essential for the realization of all rights and fundamental freedoms. Human rights education contributed significantly to promoting equality and preventing conflict and violations of human rights. Education also promoted participation and democratic processes, and helped societies develop without difference of any kind. The Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries observed that education facilitated the different elements necessary to live among human beings, and to favour education was necessary to promote the understanding of different groups. Using formal education as a tool to integration was necessary. The Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries urged States to encourage a draft declaration on the right to education, and called on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue support and training on human rights, through the technical cooperation programme for countries that had requested so.

IMRAN AHMED SIDDIQUI, (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that education was a basic human right for all and yet in all regions of the world, minority children continued to suffer disproportionately from unequal access to quality education. Denial of the right to education for minorities led to denial of civil and political rights, including rights to freedom of movement and of expression, and limited their meaningful participation in economic, social and cultural affairs. Education should serve the dual function of supporting the efforts of communities to self-development in economic, social and cultural terms while opening pathways by which they could function in the wider society and promote social harmony. The Organization of the Islamic Conference welcomed the Expert Mechanism on Indigenous People's expression of support to the Durban Review process. The Organization of the Islamic Conference also welcomed the hard work done by the Advisory Committee. The Council should carefully consider the recommendations and suggestions made by the Committee, and provide guidance for further course of action on these issues. The Committee should be able to suggest additional issues for the consideration of the Council - it should complete the outstanding work initiated by the Sub-Commission on Human Rights.

MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA (Cuba) welcomed the fruitful work of the Advisory Committee in its first year of work. It had been a particularly intense phase in which the Committee had dedicated a large part of its time and effort to its own institution building on the basis of the mandate given to it by the Human Rights Council. The Advisory Committee was a think tank and its main task was to provide specialized knowledge at the request of its superior body. The character and function of a think tank did not require further discussion. It could not be a body that had its hands tied. It was a subsidiary body to the Council. The Council had presented recommendations that were of interest, the Council should now consider each of these recommendations.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland), speaking on behalf of the Group on Education and Human Rights Training, which included Costa Rica, Morocco, Italy and Switzerland, said many activities had taken place in 2008, and 2009 was the International Year for Human Rights Training. Switzerland recalled that with regard to the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in Paris in December 2008 held a round table discussion on human rights education and training which aimed towards implementation of human rights training. Switzerland highlighted the active role played by civil society, among others, in this regard. Before the next session of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee in August this year, the group on education and human rights training would present its report. On the draft declaration on human rights education and training, Switzerland said that it would be finalized in December 2009. Switzerland urged members of the Council to give their views on the initial phases of the World Programme. The World Programme and the draft declaration on human rights education and training were two strong messages, and would contribute to ending violations of human rights.

ACHAMKULANGARE GOPINATHAN (India) said India attached importance to the work of the Advisory Committee as a think tank of the Council working under its directive and guidance, and the Council should ensure that its initial steps were in the right direction and did not stray from the provisions of the institution-building package of June 2007, which defined the function of the Advisory Committee as providing expertise to the Council. There was no general derogation by the Council to the Advisory Committee to undertake initiatives on any matter within the mandate of the Council - the only latitude permitted on an issue of substance was that, within the framework of a reference already made, it could propose further research proposals. The Advisory Committee should be advised that in future it should give its expertise only upon a specific request by the Council. The report of the Advisory Committee on its first session should only be taken note of, and its other recommendations made in response to specific Council resolutions should be considered separately under the relevant agenda item. It was imperative that the Advisory Committee, in the nascent stages of its existence, should not repeat the mistakes of the former Sub-Commission which finally led to its being wound up.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile) said that the Advisory Committee did important work as a think tank. There was room to strengthen their work and coordinate with the Council. Concerning the right to food, other bodies were not taking specific arguments into account, in particular agricultural subsidies or tariffs. Chile thought that it was important and essential to call on developed and industrialized countries to take measures to eliminate distortions. This had not been sufficiently stressed by the Council. Another element was human rights and human rights education which had been mentioned by the Swiss representative. The means to facilitate had to be strengthened to ensure a greater participation of civil society to complementing the work on the guidelines of poverty and human rights, which were very important. Concerning the Committee’s recommendations on poverty, Chile pointed to its national programmes to fight poverty.

IFEANYI NWOSU (Nigeria) commended the report submitted by the Advisory Committee which was in line with its mandate. The Advisory Committee, within the context of the institutional-building text, exercised the right to propose suggestions as well as make recommendations to the Council. Nigeria noted that almost all the draft recommendations of the Committee to the Council, including its agenda of work, were adopted without a vote. This “consensus approach” to their work gave room to objective and substantive concerns by all stakeholders. The Council, Nigeria believed, stood to gain from the expertise and work of the Advisory Committee. Nigeria was of the view that the Advisory Committee should continue to perform its functions in accordance with the institutional-building text, including its recommendations to the Council.

DANIEL ULMER (Canada) said with regards to the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Canada was delighted to have co-sponsored the resolution which led to its establishment, and for having participated in the opening meeting of the Expert Mechanism. The Council was clearly aware of the ongoing need to pay attention to the rights and needs of indigenous peoples wherever they may be, and the need to take protective measurements where necessary. Canada had recently submitted its data on education for indigenous peoples so that the Expert Mechanism could consider this as it analysed best practices, looking for lessons learned. The Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, the Permanent Forum and other United Nations bodies and programmes should ensure maximising output without overlapping and repeating work. Canada wished to propose themes which could be studied by the Expert Mechanism, including violence against indigenous women, and indigenous children under guardianship.

INDAH NRUIA SAVITRI (Indonesia) reiterated the need for the Advisory Committee to stay focused on the issues assigned to it as requested by the Council and as stipulated in the institution-building package. Furthermore, the institution-building package clearly specified that the Advisory Committee should not adopt resolutions or decisions. It was necessary to stress the need to avoid drifting back to the modus operandi of the erstwhile Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of the Council . The Advisory Committee should function effectively and efficiently as the new think tank body of the Council. Regarding the Social Forum, Indonesia appreciated the commitment and the ongoing efforts which had been geared towards the eradication of poverty and the furtherance of human rights. Indonesia hoped that given the recent global trends, the issues covered by the Chairperson would be further elaborated upon and a normative framework established to resolve many of the challenges faced.

AKIO ISOMATA (Japan) said Japan appreciated the work of the members of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee thus far. They had been actively working on the tasks with which they had been entrusted by the Human Rights Council. Japan expected that the Advisory Committee would continue to make a useful contribution to the Human Rights Council by working effectively on a variety of human rights issues, in keeping with resolution 5/1 of the Human Rights Council, taking into full account the structural change from the Human Rights Commission Sub-Commission to that of the Advisory Committee of the Council now. Japan had addressed the issue of discrimination against persons with leprosy and their family members at great length in the Human Rights Council and had gained cooperation from many countries on this issue. Japan expressed its gratitude to all the members of the Advisory Committee, and extended its sincere appreciation to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for compiling the information of stakeholders and for convening this January the consultation on discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said the Advisory Committee was thanked for its work and its first report. Argentina supported the establishment of a body to support the work of the Council and to a certain extent replace the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Argentina wished to stress the importance of the issue of disappeared persons, which was in the report of the Advisory Committee. The Council should not set aside previous work which had been done on this, and it should be taken into account in the work done, in order to avoid duplication and a weakening of standards. There should be clear maintenance of the difference between disappeared persons and forced disappearances, as these were not the same. Existing standards on disappeared persons should be maintained and considered. The Sub-Commission worked on this subject in a very positive and constructive way. The Advisory Committee should take account of precedence in this field, and carry out a study that would give importance to the issue of disappeared persons. The right to truth was an important issue, and the Advisory Committee should take into account resolutions adopted with regards to this right, which was applicable in times of peace and war when there was violation of international humanitarian law.

MURILO VIEIRA KOMNISKI (Brazil) said Brazil wished to comment on the contents of the study under preparation by the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples concerning the right to education. Much had been done to promote access to education to indigenous peoples in Brazil. Specific legislation and programmes had been enacted and implemented. Data from the 2006 school census showed that enrolment of indigenous children in basic education increased over 48 per cent between 2002 and 2006. Despite the progress achieved in recent years, the provision of education for indigenous communities was, nonetheless, far from comprehensive in terms of coverage at the national level. That was why Brazil considered a thoroughly inclusive and participatory approach to be paramount if Brazil wished to establish an educational policy which was answerable to indigenous peoples needs and which truly reflected their differentiated circumstances and expectations.

ROMAN KASHAEV (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation appreciated the work of the Advisory Committee, as the Committee was an expert mechanism which did important work. The Russian Federation urged the Council to make greater use of the potential of the Advisory Committee. The Social Forum and the Expert Mechanism on Minority Rights were also important bodies to address, as the topicality and relevance of subjects chosen by those bodies in combating extreme poverty and the indigenous peoples rights to education were of particular interest. Moreover the work of the Independent Expert on minority issues provided a good basis for a good quality and detailed study of this issue. The Russian Federation urged the Council and other relevant bodies to pay greater attention to the possibility of the use of minority language for instruction. The Russian Federation was convinced that the reduction in the use of mother tongues would foster unequal social opportunities in countries, among other things.

ABDULLA ABDULLATIF ABDULLA (Bahrain) said the Social Forum was an extremely important forum, open to States and other stakeholders, including civil society, to discuss social issues, but in particular to discuss poverty, which was not just an economic and social issue, but also a security issue. Bahrain appreciated debate in the Social Forum to discuss the issue of poverty and raise awareness on the issue, in particular regarding international cooperation to meet the Millennium Development Goals. The fact that Bahrain had received a prize at the Fourth International Urban Forum held on 6 and 7 November 2008 for its work with UN-HABITAT was a demonstration of Bahrain's commitment in this area.

CHEN YINGZHU (China) said that the Advisory Committee and the Social Forum had carried out various thematic studies which had enriched the work of the Council. China expressed its gratitude to their work and appreciated the efforts made over the last one and a half years. It hoped that the Advisory Committee would play a greater role in the work of the Council. Poverty was a very important issue which needed the cooperation of countries around the world. China supported the recommendation of the creation of a solidarity fund. Regarding indigenous peoples, China supported the effort to enlarge the scope of the task of the United Nations voluntary fund, which would support the indigenous peoples in its work with the United Nations. Minority groups around the world all faced the challenge to further their right to education. China supported the Independent Expert in this regard and looked forward to concrete recommendations.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia) commended all who made the United Nations inaugural Forum on Minority Issues a success. The Human Rights Council needed to deal with ethnic or linguistic minorities as previous bodies addressing minority rights had been abolished. The situation of a number of minorities around the world was not satisfactory. Experts, representatives of minorities, States and other stakeholders had to be a part of the discussion on minorities. The protection of minorities and the provision of adequate resources provided to them had to be ensured. Furthermore, Slovenia said that preserving language, among others, required access to education and in particular education in the mother tongue.

MARIANA OLIVERA WEST (Mexico) welcomed the expert mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, on the one hand, as advisory bodies specialized in the promotion and protection of human rights with a focus on economic, social and cultural rights, but also as privileged spaces for dialogue among civil society, States and other interested parties on issues of essential importance for human rights. Mexico was particularly pleased that education was one of the principal crosscutting focuses of those mechanisms. Mexico had often stressed the primordial role of education as the backbone of development in society, as well as to counter underdevelopment and poverty, some of the biggest obstacles to human rights. In that context, Mexico was eagerly awaiting the report on human rights education to be prepared by the Advisory Committee, which emphasized the human rights of groups with the least access to education, such as migrants, indigenous persons, disabled persons, minorities and children affected by armed conflict.

JAWAHER AL-SABAH (Kuwait) said concerning the Social Forum that Kuwait agreed that poverty was one of the fundamental issues facing the world today. Assistance and cooperation at the international level were vital in combating poverty. Kuwait continuously extended assistance to developing countries. For example, soft loans were extended. It was extremely important to alleviate poverty. Kuwait had also established a fund to help alleviate poverty, including for countries that had been hit hard by the world food crisis.

OMAR RABI (Morocco) said Morocco attached great importance to the subject of human rights training and education. The draft declaration on human rights training and education was crosscutting in nature as it touched on economic, social and cultural rights. Morocco welcomed that Costa Rica and Italy joined the group. Morocco echoed Switzerland’s call for the organization of a seminar in which all interested stakeholders were invited to participate, and of which the outcome would be a fundamental step in realizing the draft declaration on human rights training and education. The seminar would also help the Advisory Committee to identify needs and measures to be addressed in this regard.

CHRISTINA KOKKINAKIS (Austria) said Austria was convinced that the system of Special Procedures was the backbone of the Human Rights Council. They were the "eyes and ears" of the Council, in particular owing to their capacity to undertake country visits, and the Council had to make every effort to keep them healthy and active. The extension of open invitations to all Special Procedures should be the goal of all States, in particular Member States of the Council. The Council also had to find a way to deal with States that had a longstanding refusal to accept such visits.

HANNU HIMANEN (Finland), speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, said that they welcomed the dedicated work of the Expert Mechanism on Indigenous Peoples on education. All countries still had a lot to do in this regard. On cooperation, important work had been carried out in the field of education. A few months ago, the Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted a comment on indigenous children. The right to education covered many areas and the broad perspective of the Expert Mechanism was a good approach. Attention should be given to the difference in urban and rural situations. Finland asked the Expert Mechanism to give guidance to the Council how Member States could assist in the follow-up. Finland also asked what the Expert Mechanism’s role would be in this regard.

Mr. ANSARI (Iran) welcomed the establishment of the Forum on Minority Issues based on the Human Rights Council resolution 6/15 28 September 2007 in order to provide a platform for promoting dialogue and cooperation on minority issues. Iran congratulated the convening of the inaugural session of the Forum in December 2008 to provide concrete and tangible outcomes in the form of thematic recommendations of practical value to all stakeholders. The 20 year Economic Outlook and the National Development Plan of Iran paid special attention to the promotion of education as the basis of the development of the country in all areas.

YANNIS PLOTAS (Greece) thanked the Independent Expert, Gay McDougall, for her work with regard to minority issues, and more particularly for her report on the first Forum on Minority Issues held last December. That session had produced thematic recommendations of practical value to many stakeholders. Greece had appreciated the thematic focus given to that session on minorities and the right to education, in which Greece had participated with extensive comments. Greece reiterated that it deemed it of the utmost importance to promote the integration of persons belonging to minorities into the societies they lived in while respecting their particularities and agreed with the Independent Expert when she said that education should serve the dual function of supporting the efforts of communities to self-development in economic, social and cultural terms while opening pathways by which they could function in the wider society to promote social harmony.

However, at the inaugural session of the Forum, a few stakeholders had intervened with political declarations, rather than contributing to the discussion by commenting on the draft recommendations. Greece believed that that kind of disorientation of the discussion did not help the purpose of the exercise.

HENRY WINTER (Australia) welcomed the report of the first session of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Australia welcomed the practical focus of the Expert Mechanism and looked forward to further engagement with this body on issues that would advance the promotion and protection of indigenous rights. Australia was especially pleased to have been able to contribute to the study on lessons learned and the remaining challenges in achieving the implementation of the right of indigenous peoples to education. Australia considered that this was an important field in which Australia had considerable experience. It welcomed the opportunity to share its knowledge with other countries.

ISTVAN LAKATOS (Hungary) expressed its gratitude for the tireless work of the Independent Expert, Gay McDougall, and congratulated her on the very positive outcome of the first Minority Forum dealing with the topic of minority education as its first thematic issue. Hungary was proud that Ms. Viktoria Mohacsi, a minority politician of Roma descent, was chosen to chair the very first session of the Minority Forum. The remarkable professional achievements of Ms. Mohacsi were credible proof that someone’s origins did not necessarily predestine a whole life, and also demonstrated the great importance of adequate education. Hungary wished to emphasize again that the right to education should be guaranteed to everyone, regardless of his or her national or ethnic origin, religion or mother tongue.

GEORGI AVRAMCHEV (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) praised the Council for establishing the Forum on Minority Issues and commended the Independent Expert on minority issues, Gay McDougall, for her work during the preparatory process, and welcomed the unprecedented cooperation between the Forum and other United Nations bodies, as well as the recommendations emerging from the Forum, which required only the minimum necessary to ensure minority access to education. Access to education was essential for integration of citizens. In their country, education was free and compulsory. The country’s education programmes for its minority communities aimed to fulfil the criteria set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the UNESCO conventions in this area, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, among others.

MELANIE KHANNA (United States) said that the United States had listened with interest to the discussion regarding the Advisory Committee. This session was a critical opportunity for States to give feedback to the Committee on its early work. Decision 5/1 mandated the Committee to “provide expertise to the Council in the manner and form requested by the Council.” It was stipulated that such expertise was to be rendered only upon the latter’s request. The United States shared the concerns of those who believed that much of the substance of the work of the Committee to date was less research-based and more advocacy-oriented than envisioned in Decision 5/1 and that the form of the work, often styled to resemble resolutions and presented as recommendations, was not fully consistent with the parameters set out by the Council. The United States was concerned about both the substance and the form of the Committee’s output and requested the Committee to take these concerns into account in its future work. The United States was further concerned by proposals that the work of the Committee should be put to the Council automatically as recommendations for adoption. The research and expertise of the Committee should be available upon the Council’s request to be taken up for consideration by the Council or its members when they so choose.

SELMA MALIKA HENDEL (Algeria) expressed Algeria’s full appreciation for the way in which Mousa Burayzat led the first session of the Social Forum, and for the variety of questions that were examined. On the Advisory Committee, Algeria thanked the members of the Advisory Committee for their work, and in particular thanked the work of Miguel Alfonso Martinez. Algeria said that the Council needed to give more support to the Advisory Committee in order for it to continue to pursue its work, and could also suggest future work of the Committee by transmitting topics sent to it. Algeria further stressed that it was important for the Advisory Committee to complete the work started by the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of the former Human Rights Commission.

WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) said New Zealand supported previous speakers in respect of the need for the Council to consider the recommendations of the Advisory Committee prior to their adoption. In New Zealand's view, the recommendations of the Advisory Committee could not automatically be adopted by the Council. There had to be space to debate and amend the Advisory Committee's recommendations in a transparent manner prior to their adoption by the Council. Recommendations could be considered and incorporated into the corresponding thematic resolution in the Council, as was already the case with some of the Advisory Committee's recommendations. In some cases, it might be appropriate to act upon the recommendations through a presidential decision. In respect of the Advisory Committee's recommendations on gender integration, New Zealand appreciated the commitment of the Advisory Committee to integrating a gender perspective and supported its efforts in that regard. New Zealand would see the Advisory Committee's recommendations on gender integration as being more appropriately discussed and acted upon in the relevant thematic resolution on the integration of a gender perspective in a future session of the Council.

KATHARINA ROSE, of Irish Human Rights Commission, supported the elaboration of a declaration on human rights education and training. The Irish Human Rights Commission submitted a report to the Advisory Committee in the response to its questionnaire to the national human rights institutions. A declaration on human rights and education and training needed to clearly include the important role of the national human rights institutions in this area. Further, it needed to establish the parameters of the subject in relation to other value education such as citizenship education, education of sustainable development, etc. A declaration should address the question of why human rights education as opposed to any similar education was independently important, or what distinct value an explicit human rights element could bring to related education’s pedagogy, content, philosophy, etc.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, in a joint statement with Lutheran World Federation and Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, said that human rights bodies and mechanisms depended on cooperation with individuals and organizations to fulfill their mandates. At this session, the Council heard about the tragic killings of three persons. Edwin Legarda was shot dead on 16 December 2008 by members of the Colombian armed forces shortly after his wife, Aida Quilcué, had been active at the third session of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group in connection with its review of Colombia. Amnesty International condemned those killings, and looked forward to the completion of the investigations into their killings and the prosecution of those persons responsible.

MALIK OZDEN, of Europe-Third World Centre, in a joint statement with severals NGOs¹, said, with regard to the Advisory Committee, that although its members had been elected scarcely a year ago, that body had already done some remarkable work. In fact, the Advisory Committee had made progress on issues referred to it by the Council, notably on education, on human rights training and on the right to food. The Advisory Committee had called for a study on the food crisis, the right to food, agricultural subsidies and the rights of farmers. That was a topical issue given the current context of starvation and malnutrition in the world and the monopolistic power of transnational corporations. Violations of the right to food undermined the right to life. Respect for that right required sufficient production of food and foodstuffs. In that context, small farmers were marginalized when they were pushed off their land. The violations of the rights of farmers could be one way to tackle that issue in the Human Rights Council.

KAZUNARI FUJII, of Soka Gakkai International, in a joint statement with several NGOs², said that human rights education contributed to the promotion of gender equality, the rights of the child, women, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, elders, migrants, and all other vulnerable groups. The organizations called on Member States to ensure that the proposed United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training incorporated a broad definition of human rights education; accountability by reference with duty bearer and rights-holders; linkages between the declaration and treaty bodies, special procedures and the Universal Periodic Review; and the important role of civil society actors and non-governmental organizations. With this in mind, the organizations supported the recommendation in the progress report of the Advisory Committee on holding an informal seminar in Geneva.

CLAUDIA NEURY, of International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education (OIDEL), in a joint statement with several NGOs³, said human rights education was an essential agenda for all nations, and was a sustainable approach to all human rights issues and a lifelong process, irrespective of people's age. Children, women indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, elders, migrants, and all other vulnerable groups, as well as officers of Government, law enforcement and judicial systems were relevant to the implementation of human rights education. All Member States should not fail to take the necessary steps to ensure the final evaluation as provided for by the Plan of Action of the World Programme for Human Rights Education, and should assist and collaborate with all stakeholders, particularly non-governmental organizations, for gathering information relevant to the first phase, making the evaluation process accessible and transparent, as well as providing feedback on the final evaluation to all stakeholders.

TOMAS CONDOR, of Indian Council of South America, said that more than 30 years had passed since the first indigenous delegates had come to the United Nations to obtain full and official recognition of indigenous nations of the Western hemisphere by the United Nations as well as the full recognition of the treaties and other agreements between the indigenous nations and States in accordance with international laws and principles. Those had been the proposals of the delegates of the six nations and the Lakota nation at the international conference of non-governmental organizations in 1977. That recognition would mean a special representative status within the United Nations. But what had been offered was the acceptance of consultative status by some nations as non-governmental organizations, treating indigenous peoples as if they were a sector of civil society that needed special attention, such as children, women and religious minorities. Despite many years of debate and the fact that they now had a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Matters, and other forums, the demand for international recognition of the sovereignty of indigenous people had never really been taken into account.

PAULINE LAVAUD, of France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, said that during the last 25 years France Libertes had been approached repeatedly by indigenous peoples to fight on their behalf for their right to self-determination and their right to dispose of their wealth. Once again, France Liberte repeated their rights and stated that although each of these indigenous peoples had their own realities, all made claims of the same rights. Indigenous peoples had the right to own, dispose of and use the lands they lived on. For example in the Amazon, indigenous peoples were often denied access to their lands because of patents. The organization called on Governments to take effective measures and to fully guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples.

FRANCESCA TRAGLIA, of Lutheran World Federation, said the issue of the completed and submitted studies from the former Sub-Commission on Human Rights was still outstanding. The referral of the completed studies was not addressed in the institution-building package, and it was high time that the issue was properly dealt with by the Council, to avoid losing some of the valuable completed work of the Sub-Commission. It was up to the Council to take an initiative to avoid losing this work - and the Council should address this matter, which was purely procedural in nature, by publishing the completed and submitted studies as United Nations documents and sending them to the Council for its consideration, as it could then consider them on their merits and determine the appropriate response according to its programme of work.

SANULLAH BALOCH, of Organisation pour la communication en Afrique et de promotion de la coopération économique internationale (OCAPROCE International), urged the Special Rapporteur to undertake a fact-finding mission to investigate the recent atrocities in Balochistan. This statement was ruled out of order.

BELL HILAIRE, of Cercle de recherche sur les droits et les devoirs de la personne humaine, thanked Switzerland and Morocco for their constant support in the drafting of the declaration on human rights education and training. If the correlation of rights and duties were not taken into account, the Research Circle was concerned about the impact of the declaration. It asked: How did they teach their children the right to health of they did not know how to ensure public health? How did they teach dignity, if they did not teach children to respect others and their parents? It had to be made clear that rights and obligations had to be included. The NGO would like to join the Committee in the elaboration of the declaration.

ANEZKA PALKOVA, of Liberation, said it was evident that indigenous peoples across the world continued to be the most isolated and oppressed peoples, and the Council should note the situation of those in the north-east region of India, where they had been reduced to microscopical minorities in their own lands.

SANDEEP PRAS, of Action Canada for Population and Development, in a joint statement, brought to the Council's attention Advisory Committee recommendation 2/4, which requested the Human Rights Council to give the Advisory Committee a mandate to look at gender mainstreaming within the Council and all other United Nations organs. They were pleased that the Advisory Committee would like to take up in earnest that issue, but were concerned about the proposed scope suggested, i.e. to look at the issue in all other organs of the United Nations system. Other United Nations entities also had the responsibility for gender mainstreaming in the United Nations system, and many had also developed guidelines for integrating a gender perspective into their work.

JANET NELSON, of International Movement and Fourth World, in joint statement, said that the Social Forum was very useful and allowed to compare the views of different stakeholders. The organizations supported the establishment of a fund in order to allow non-governmental organizations to participate in future deliberations. The first condition was to go out and find the poorest. A repeated error was not to integrate the poor in decision about measures to combat poverty. Assessments needed to be made based on field experiences to correct negative effects of globalization, while taking into account the efforts that had been made by persons living in extreme poverty. While the international community could create global policies they also had to protect people from falling into extreme poverty when crises occurred.

THEODOR RATHGEBER, of International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, said the mandate of the Expert Mechanism on Indigenous Issues provided unprecedented opportunities for the United Nations and indigenous peoples to work together towards the realisation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and for the mainstreaming of indigenous issues in the United Nations' work and framework. The fulfilment of the Expert Mechanism's mandate would only be possible if Governments participated actively and there was a political commitment to implementing the necessity to ensure the realisation of indigenous rights on the ground. The Expert Mechanism's recommendation to include the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a separate item in the programme of work was endorsed. There were serious concerns about the Expert Mechanism's lack of financial resources to implement inter-sessional activities, as this would hamper the implementation of its mandate and seriously hamper its work and expectations. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations should ensure it had the funding to carry out its mission.

ABDEL WAHAB HANI, of Arab Commission for Human Rights, welcomed the progress made by the Advisory Committee in its work, in particular with regard to a declaration on human rights education and training. Particular attention should be accorded to highlighting the positive aspects of all cultures and religions without falling into that cultural relativism, so dear to certain repressive States. The universality of human rights was not a diktat of any particular nation, but the result of a mutual enrichment among nations, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a work that had continuing meaning and was not fixed in time. In that regard, the Arab Commission recalled the importance of teaching the historic process of development of the body of international human rights law. Often Western media and their booklets talk about the role of Eleanor Roosevelt or Rene Cassin in the drafting of that fundamental text, but often forget the role of the Lebanese, Charles Malik, or the Iranian, Fadhel Jamali, not to mention other Arabic drafters. Presenting the Universal Declaration as a work of a group of Westerners was not only contrary to historical reality, but also counterproductive in this time of international crises and identity clashes.

STEFANO KELLER, of Universal Esperanto Association, said that it worked to promote the respect for language rights. It believed that this right was an inherent human right. The President ruled the statement out of order.

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, said the report of the Advisory Committee was welcome - the Committee had put forward three important issues: absolute poverty in developing countries and the indigenous peoples and minorities; the need to look in greater depth to the causes of the food, environmental and financial crises; and the need to examine the right to self-determination. The Council should authorise the study on the right to self-determination by the Advisory Committee, in particular the rights of indigenous peoples to freely determine their existence. In terms of cause and effect, the food crisis and speculation on basic foodstuffs was a violent infringement of those living in extreme vulnerability, and was a result of the economic liberalisation and anarchic and unequal distribution of wealth, and was very sad to see.

STEPHAN CICCOLI, of International Institute for Peace, said that the Internet revolution, which had created the global market, also undermined the affiliations of citizens to their States. It fell to the United Nations to help civil society to regulate and mitigate the effects of the Internet on the poorer countries. In the current system, the third world stood to be marginalized more than ever. Yet, decisions to take over the Internet to increase prices, such as oil, affected people throughout the world. One of the paradoxical effects of the Internet on the poor countries was to increase their need to access to credit. With regard to minority issues, the International Institute welcomed the work of the Forum on Minorities and the Independent Expert on minorities. Certain minorities in South Asia, such as the Baloch in Pakistan, needed to be the focus of case studies in the future.
__________

¹Joint statement: Europe-Third World Centre; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; International Association of Democratic Lawyers; African Association of Education for Development; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; AND International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements.

²Joint statement on behalf of: Soka Gakkai International; Pax Romana; International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education (OIDEL); International Federation of University Women; CIVICUS - World Alliance For Citizen Participation; International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD); Worldwide Organization For Women; Al-Hakim Foundation; International Alliance of Women; International Catholic Child Bureau; World Federation of United Nations Associations; and World Student Christian Federation.

³Joint statement on behalf of: International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education (OIDEL); Soka Gakkai; Pax Romana; CIVICUS - World Alliance For Citizen Participation; International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD); Al-Hakim Foundation; International Alliance of Women; International Catholic Child Bureau; and World Student Christian Federation.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC09044E