Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

Rapport du Conseil des Droits de l’Homme – Débat de l’AG – Communiqué de presse (extraits) Français
Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Department of Public Information (DPI)
3 November 2010


General Assembly
GA/10967

              Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-fifth General Assembly
Plenary
42nd & 43rd Meetings (AM & PM)


GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSIDERS ANNUAL REPORT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Assembly President Expresses intention to Complete First Review of Council’s

Work during Current Session, Calls for Collaboration between Geneva, New York



/...

Background

The General Assembly met today to take up the report of the Human Rights Council (A/65/53 and Add.1), which contains the resolutions, decisions and President’s statements adopted by the Human Rights Council from 14 September 2009 through 18 June 2010 at its twelfth (14 September–2 October 2009), thirteenth (1-26 March 2010) and fourteenth sessions (31 May-18 June 2010), and thirteenth special session, held from 27-28 January 2010.  An index of topics considered by the Council in its resolutions, decisions and President’s statements appears at the end of the report.

/...

Statement by Human Rights Council President

Presenting the Human Rights Council’s annual report, SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW (Thailand), President of the 47-member body, ...

/...

During the reporting period, the Council had faced a number of “pressing” human rights situations around the globe, and as such, it had, for example, held a special session in January in support of the post-earthquake recovery process in Haiti, and had taken part in an urgent debate in response to the attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, followed by an interactive dialogue with the international fact-finding mission on that issue in its September session.  During that session, an interactive dialogue was also held with the Committee of Independent Experts to monitor and assess any domestic, legal or other proceedings undertaken by both the Israeli and Palestinian sides in light of Assembly resolution 64/254.  ...

/...

Statements

/...

MAGED A. ABDELAZIZ ( Egypt) ...

More effort was also needed to reiterate the central role of the Council ensuring respect for all human rights and international humanitarian law, particularly in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to ensure Israel fully complied with all its international obligations.  ...

/...

PEDRO NÚÑEZ MOSQUERA ( Cuba) ...   It was undeniable that the Council’s outcome had been positive, especially as it had consolidated effective practices to bring about universal scrutiny of human rights around the world and shown its ability to deal with emergencies, having analysed serious violations perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinians.


SAAD NAHAR ALHJERI ( Kuwait) ...

...   In closing, he said the “clear violations” of international laws by the Israeli occupation forces exercise against the Palestinian people had deprived an unarmed population of its basic human rights.  As that was the case, the international community must provide protection for the Palestinian people.


HAMZA OMER HASSAN AHMED ( Sudan) ...

/...

... As for the work of the Council, it had adopted “historic” resolutions, notably on the Goldstone Report and that of the Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, he said.

HAIM WAXMAN ( Israel) said it was with “dismay and disappointment” that he addressed the Assembly on the report of the work of the Human Rights Council.  The Council — one of the leading United Nations human rights bodies — was required to conduct its work based on its founding principles and in a fair an equal manner.  Therefore, it was most unfortunate that, time and time again, it betrayed its responsibility “by turning a blind eye to the worst human rights violations throughout the world while conveniently and obsessively focusing on Israel”, he said.  The report and the series of draft resolutions showed how far the Council had strayed from its founding principles.  Once again, the forum had been manipulated to serve “the most cynical of political motivations” and had failed to live up to its responsibility to address human rights abuses around the world, while at the same time pursuing a “narrow, politicized agenda”, he said.

He went on to say that an objective examination of the Council’s report would confirm its prejudices against Israel, noting that about half of the country-specific resolutions that do not deal with technical assistance were targeted exclusively at Israel, which he called a “glaring example” of the Council’s profound institutional bias.  Since the creation of the Council, 12 of its 15 regular sessions had adopted “one-sided” resolutions condemning Israel, and 6 of its 13 special sessions were devoted specifically to singling it out.  For example, agenda item 7 was the only item concerned with one country situation, singling it out from 191 other possible country situations.  That stood in stark contrast to the Council’s notion of fairness and impartiality and was inconsistent with the letter and word of the Council’s constitutive instrument. 

Moreover, he said the Council’s politicized nature was further demonstrated in the wake of the 31 May 2010 incident involving vessels bound for the Gaza Strip.  Indeed, the Council had adopted a resolution condemning Israel only two days later, without any verifiable information about what had occurred.  Its report on the flotilla incident, he said, embodied the same spirit of “wilful ignorance” making clear the body preferred to perpetuate inflammatory language and a politicized agenda instead of pursuing the truth.  “The biased manner in which the Human Rights Council handled this incident is simply unacceptable,” he said.  Consequently, an objective, thorough and independent investigation by the Secretary-General’s review panel of the flotilla matter was currently under way in Israel.

In closing, he described Israel as a vibrant democracy that demonstrated time and time again its strong commitment to engaging in a candid dialogue with various United Nations bodies, including the Council’s Universal Periodic Review.  “However, one cannot accept such a misguided report,” he said, adding that while countless victims of human rights violations around the world cried out for their plight to be heard, “all too often, the Human Rights Council is silent”.  That should not come as a surprise, he added, “considering that some of the world’s worst human rights violators sit on this Council and all too often dictate its proceedings”.  By failing to fulfil its mandate the Council not only undermined its own legitimacy, but undermined the Organization’s ability to effectively promote and protect its founding values.

FREDERICK D. BARTON (United States), ...

/...

However, he said the United States was disappointed with the Council’s unbalanced and one-sided approach to the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories.  It should treat all situations in an unbiased manner.  The Council had passed multiple resolutions targeting Israel, which the United States did not support, as those texts attempted to delegitimize Israel and failed to mention human rights law violations by Hamas.  That had also been seen in the decision to create a fact-finding mission with a “flawed” mandate on the flotilla incident, and the resolution to follow up on its report.  The United States also opposed the idea that the Assembly consider that report.  He commended the Secretary-General’s constructive initiative to convene a panel to review the reports of Israel and Turkey on the flotilla incident, saying it should be the one to review the matter.

/...

ERTUĞRUL APAKAN ( Turkey) welcomed the Council’s report, saying it contained important resolutions and decisions.  In particular, resolution 15/1 (2010), on the follow up to the report of the Fact Finding Mission on the 31 May incident involving the “Freedom Flotilla”, had endorsed the recommendation to investigate violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law.  During the attack on the flotilla, Israeli forces killed 9 civilians.  The Fact Finding Mission had issued its report after having interviewed 112 witnesses of 120 nationalities.

Thus, its findings and conclusions reflected a meticulous analysis of the situation.  It had made “compelling” arguments vis-à-vis international human rights law and international humanitarian law.  The Israeli military used disproportionate and unnecessary violence.  Such conduct could not be condoned on security or other grounds.  It was a “grave violation” of international human rights and international humanitarian law.  Continuing, he said the report also described various violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law and noted the illegality of its blockade of the Gaza Strip.  The vast majority of the international community supported the report.

Also, Turkey’s commitment to the Panel of Inquiry established by the Secretary-General continued, he said.  On 1 September 2010, Turkey had submitted an interim report to the Panel, with substantive attachments that included autopsies and witness accounts gained by a Turkish investigation of the ships involved.  Having received the interim report, the Panel submitted its own report to the Secretary-General in mid-September.  However, Israel had not submitted its report.  The sooner the Israelis acted responsibly, the faster relations would normalize.  In the meantime, Turkey would follow developments closely.  Depending on Israeli attitudes, Turkey could revisit its position on how to pursue the issue in the General Assembly.  If Israel did not address the issue until March 2011, it would appear on the agenda of the Council’s sixteenth session.  Welcoming Council resolutions 15/6 (2010) and 13/9 (2010), he said Turkey would continue to follow-up on the implementation of recommendations made in the Goldstone Report.  With that, he underscored importance of fighting impunity and ensuring accountability.

/...

ABDUL GHAFOOR MOHAMED ( Maldives) ...

His country had worked closely with Mexico and Colombia to establish a new human rights mechanism to promote gender equality, while endorsing the follow-up to the report of the Independent Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza flotilla attack and co-sponsoring various resolutions to strengthen institutions protecting democracy and the social rights of its people.  ...

/...

IBRAHIM O. A. DEBBASHI ( Libya) ...   He commended the role played by the Special Rapporteurs who helped promote and consolidate the principles of human rights, which he hoped all States would take into account, particularly as regarded addressing the daily violations seen in the Palestinian territories under the Israeli occupation.

Libya had the honour last year of being elected to the Council, and had supported peace and security as a member of the Security Council. It would assume responsibilities to promote human rights at international level, he said.  There remained enormous challenges in human rights, particularly in areas of conflict.  Yet, violations of Palestinian rights were unique and required the Council’s constant attention in order to put an end to the killing of Palestinian people, destruction of and expulsion from their own lands and, more importantly, to prosecute and put an end to war crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.  There should also be monitoring of recommendations of the Goldstone Report, he said, adding that he looked forward to implementation of the Council’s recommendations in the report.

/...


* *** *

For information media • not an official record

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter