Human rights situation in the southern Lebanon – CHR/57th session – Summary record (excerpts)

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Fifty-seventh session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 62nd MEETING

Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,

on Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 3 p.m.

Chairperson : Mr. DESPOUY (Argentina)

CONTENTS

THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT ( continued)

QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD, INCLUDING:

 (a)  QUESTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CYPRUS (continued)

The meeting was called to order at 3.40 p.m.

/…

QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD, INCLUDING:

 (a)  QUESTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CYPRUS (agenda item 9) ( continued)  (E/CN.4/2001/L.2/Rev.1 and L.13)

Draft resolution on the human rights situation of the Lebanese detainees in Israel (E/CN.4/2001/L.2/Rev.1)

38. Mr. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), introducing the draft resolution, of which the representatives of Indonesia, the Syrian Arab Republic and Viet Nam had become sponsors, drew particular attention to the preambular paragraphs referring to the Lebanese detainees in Israeli prisons without trial and to the question of the landmines left behind in southern Lebanon. There were two changes to be made to the text: the sixth preambular paragraph should read: “Deploring the failure of the Government of Israel to submit all the maps showing the deployment of those landmines” and, in paragraph 4, second line, the word “deployed” should be replaced by the word “laid”.

39. Mr. NASR (Observer for Lebanon) urged the Commission to adopt the draft resolution, which had everything to do with human rights. Civilian detainees were held incommunicado and tortured in Israeli prisons – some having been abducted from their homes and subsequently transferred to Israel, in violation of international law – and denied visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

40. Equally important was the question of the approximately 150,000 landmines still in Lebanese soil, which not only claimed victims daily but also prevented farmers from cultivating their fields. If that was not a matter of human rights, he wondered what was the point of the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction. It was notable that there had been no cases of landmine accidents when the Israeli army was circulating throughout the area, which meant that Israel must possess detailed maps. It had not delivered all of them to the United Nations. The accusation by the Permanent Mission of Israel that the landmines had been planted by the Lebanese resistance was absurd. It was beyond belief that the resistance could deploy thousands of landmines under the watchful eyes of the Israeli army.

41. Mr. LEVY (Observer for Israel) recalled that his Government had unilaterally withdrawn its forces from Lebanon on 24 May 2000, as confirmed by the Security Council and the Secretary-General. It had handed over to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) maps of the landmines laid in southern Lebanon, as confirmed by a senior UNIFIL officer on 1 June 2000; a copy of the transfer certificate appeared in his Government’s note verbale of 11 April 2001 (E/CN.4/2001/154). The Lebanese Government had the responsibility to maintain the minefields, once the maps had been transferred, but had failed to do so for its own reasons. Verbal condemnation of Israel by the Commission was therefore inappropriate.

42. Under Security Council resolution 425 (1978), Lebanon was obliged to establish effective authority in the area. Yet the Government still allowed terrorist groups, such as the Hezbollah, to operate freely against Israel; and when Israel was attacked it was bound to respond. Any Israeli action in southern Lebanon must therefore be put in the context of its response to attacks and shelling by the Hezbollah.

43. There were always glaring omissions in texts and debates in the Commission regarding the Middle East. At the current session, one omission concerned the four Israeli detainees – three soldiers and one civilian – kidnapped in Israel by the Hezbollah in October 2000. By allowing an armed group to hold Israeli detainees incommunicado for the past six months on its sovereign territory, the Lebanese Government was failing to discharge its responsibilities under international law. Such facts should be included in any resolution. A vote in favour of the resolution would contribute to the distortion of reality and thus fail to bring peace to the region.

44. Mr. AMAT FORÉS (Cuba) said that Cuba had been inadvertently omitted from the list of sponsors of the draft resolution.

45. Mrs. IZE-CHARRIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the draft resolution had no financial implications.

46. Mr. MOOSE (United States of America), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that the draft resolution was another unbalanced response to the tragic events in the Middle East. It would have been more appropriate to welcome Israel’s compliance with Security Council resolution 425 (1978), thus marking a successful conclusion to the consideration of the human rights situation in southern Lebanon and west Bakaa. The draft resolution merely echoed earlier resolutions without taking cognizance of the fundamental change which had occurred in the region since the Commission’s previous session. The failure to mention that the Secretary-General had certified Israel’s withdrawal behind the “blue line” reflected badly on the Commission. Moreover, the “singling out” of Israel only undermined efforts to rebuild confidence and to restart negotiations between the parties. The tragic events of the previous weekend showed that realistic negotiations were the way forward.

47. Mr. MERCKX (Belgium) explaining the position on the draft resolution of the European Union and the associated countries of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia, said that although the Union had supported resolutions on the human rights situation in southern Lebanon and west Bakaa during the Israeli occupation, it was unable to support the draft resolution under consideration, since it dealt mainly with issues which either lacked a clear relation to its title or fell within the competence of other United Nations bodies. The Union reiterated its endorsement of the Secretary-General’s certification of the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon and urged the Government of Lebanon to resume its effective authority in that area.

48. The Union continued to be concerned at the imprisonment of several Lebanese citizens who had been arrested in the then occupied area and transferred to Israel in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It urged the Government of Israel to allow the ICRC to visit the two Lebanese citizens who continued to be detained without charge.

49. Mr. CHUNG Eui-yong (Republic of Korea) said that his delegation took a keen interest in the situation in the Middle East, as evidenced by its record of support for resolutions aimed at furthering human rights in the region. His delegation would have supported the draft resolution under consideration if it had not been for the paragraphs referring to anti-personnel landmine issues – which had little relevance to human rights.

50. At the request of the representative of the United States of America, a vote was taken by roll-call on the draft resolution.

51. Canada, having been drawn by lot by the Chairperson, was called upon to vote first.

In favour :   Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Burundi, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia.

 Against:   United States of America.

Abstaining:   Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

52. The draft resolution was adopted by 33 votes to 1, with 19 abstentions.

/…

The meeting rose at 5.55 p.m.