|
Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON
27 March 2007
Considers Extrajudicial Executions, People of African Descent and Racism; Concludes Debate on Freedom of Religion, Opinion and Arbitrary Detention
The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted a resolution in which it called for the implementation of its resolutions and the dispatch of two urgent fact-finding missions to the occupied Palestinian territory. It also adopted a resolution in which it requested the Coordinating Committee of the Special Procedures to extend until the closure of the fifth session of the Council the deadline for the submission of comments on and inputs to the draft manual of Special Procedures; and requested the Working Group on the Review of Mandates to present to the fifth session the outcome of its deliberations on the code of conduct regulating the work of the Special Procedures.
In the resolution on the follow-up to the Human Rights Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, adopted without a vote, the Council, noting with regret that Israel, the occupying power, had not implemented to date these two resolutions and hindered the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions specified therein, called for the implementation of its resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, including the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions. It also requested the President of the Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council at its fifth session on their efforts for the implementation of the resolutions and on the compliance of Israel.
/…
Action on Resolution on Follow-Up to Council's Resolutions Concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory
In a resolution (A/HRC/4/L.2) on the Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: follow-up to the Human Rights Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, adopted without a vote, the Council, noting with regret that Israel, the occupying power, has not implemented to date these two resolutions and hindered the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions specified therein, calls for the implementation of its resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1, including the dispatching of the urgent fact-finding missions; and requests the President of the Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council at its fifth session on their efforts for the implementation of Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 and on the compliance of Israel, the occupying Power, with these two resolutions.
Introduction of Resolution on Missions to Occupied Palestinian Territory
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab Group, presenting draft resolution L.2, said resolution S/1 had been adopted by the first special session of the Human Rights Council. In it, the Council had decided to dispatch an urgent fact-finding mission headed by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, to report on the situation of the Palestinian people. The Council had also decided in resolution S-3/1 to dispatch a high-level mission to investigate the situation in Beit Hanoun, and to suggest ways and means of protecting Palestinian civilians from further assault. Last week, Mr. John Dugard, who was to have headed this mission, and Professor Christine Chinkin, who was to have been on the second mission, had told the Council how they had not been able to accomplish their missions. It was the goal of the Council to ensure the implementation in full of all its resolutions. It was hoped the Council would adopt draft resolution L.2 by consensus.
Statements by Concerned Countries
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said that resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 were prominent examples of selectivity, politicization and double standards. In conspicuous contrast to the broad, inclusive and intentionally vague language in the operative paragraphs of another resolution, which had been adopted by consensus, the language of those two resolutions was narrow, restrictive and very precisely delineated. Israel was never opposed to engagement with the international community through dialogue and consultation, rather the imposition of inequitable and unbalanced resolutions. Should the sponsors of those resolutions adhere to the Council's stated goals of impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, Israel could assure them that there would be a commensurate shift in the Israeli approach to engagement as well. The adoption of the resolution contained in document L.2 was in marked contrast to the wish delegations had expressed to see the Council changing its course for the better. Israel urged delegations to consider that in casting their votes.
MOHAMMED ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, said Palestine renounced its right to speak as a concerned country and that aligned itself with the statement made by Germany on behalf of the European Union.
Other Statements on Missions to Occupied Palestinian Territory
MICHAEL STEINER (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in a general comment, said the European Union remained concerned at the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and had repeatedly called on both sides to protect civilian life. The European Union had not been able to support Council resolutions S-1/1 an S-3/1, as they had not called for a cessation of the violence from both sides. But the need for full cooperation with the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council was a matter of principle. The European Union asked that the President propose the adoption of draft resolution L.2 without a vote.
GWYNETH KUTZ (Canada), in an explanation after adoption of the text, said Canada supported the substantive principle of the Council, and urged all parties to cooperate with the Council and its mechanisms. The Council had the important task of ensuring that when it took on situations, it did so in a fair way, taking into account the actions of all parties involved. The capacity of the Council to influence behaviour was a function of its standing, which was itself based on the standing of its resolutions. When taking decisions, the Council should be mindful of the call in General Assembly resolution 60/251 for universality, equality, and non-selectivity.
Had the previous resolutions been more even-handed and objective, then Canada would have supported them. However, endorsing follow-up compounded the original problem. The Council would have to move beyond scrutiny of one country. Canada disassociated itself from the Council's decision in this regard.
BOUDEWIJN VAN EENENNAAM (Netherlands), in an explanation after adoption of the text, said the outcome of the Council's special sessions did not constitute a balanced approach, but the Netherlands joined in the decision to show support for the need for all States to cooperate with Council decisions.
/….
|
