I - First session of the Human Rights Council - 19 - 30 June 2006 Geneva
The Internationa lFederation for Human Rights (FIDH), which had lengthily been involved in the negotiations on the creation of the Human Rights Council, took part in a substantial way in its first session. Its actions focused on four objectives (A-B below). These were carried out in an overall satisfactory way at a time of reform and establishing new grounds. However, there remains important issues at stake for mobilsation at the next sessions, in particular to ensure the protection mandate.
A. Implementing the mandate of protection as of the first session
On the eve of the first session of the Human Rights Council, the FIDH published a position paper, inviting the Member States to make effective the mandate of protection which is conferred to them as of the first session (see the document of position in Appendix 1).
The danger was ever present that the session would turn into discussions on methods of work, rather than on debates of the situations of human rights in the world. Certain States indeed did seek to avoid the examination of the situations in order to avoid criticism.
In order to reach this objective, the FIDH took part in many meetings with the President of the Council, sent letters to the Council members and met several diplomatic missions, and took part in meeting organised by European Union. In Brussels, the FIDH lobbied the members of the COHOM as well as the delegation of the European Parliament in the United Nations, in orderto influence the position of the European Union. The assessment is rather satisfactory.
the agenda of the session, proposed by the President of the Council (the ambassador of Mexico) and adopted by the members of the Council left a substantial place for discussions on the situation of the humans rights.. Among those, presentation and debate around the report of the High Commissioner, in which Mrs. Louise Arbour brought up various country situations (Darfour, Nepal, Myanmar, Somalia, occupied Territoires of Palestine);
presentation of work of the normative working groups as well as the day’s discussion on the situations of human rights violations.
Importantly and as asked by the FIDH, two instruments normative were adopted: the Convention on Enforced Disappearances and the Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous people (see FIDH press release of 16 June 2006). The FIDH also intervened orally on various items of the agenda (see oral statements in Annexes 3 and 7)
a - The Convention on Enforced Disappearances
The adoption of Convention on Enforced Disappearances is without question one of the strong points, if it is not the most outstanding point of this first session. The text of convention prohibits and criminalises the practice of enforced disappearances, and constitutes a crime against humanity when it is widespread or systematic.
Moreover the Convention is innovative in that it recognises the importance to prevent enforced disappearances. It contains provisions related to the transparency of legal detentions. In addition the right of victims and their family is finally recognised. The text poses the right to know the truth, which will result concretely in the right to information, freedom to inform and to be informed. The Convention fills a gap in law and contributes to the fight against impunity.
Finally, the Convention proposes the establishment of a committee of 10 experts who ensures its implementation. This committee will have as a function, in addition to traditional periodic supervision in other conventions, an early warning function which is meant to prevent enforced disappearance. In addition to visits on the spot, a procedure of individual complaints are also planned, however with regard to these two last functions prior agreement of the State is necessary.
In spite of the consensus, certain States made hear their dissension with the text at the time of its presentation on 27 June without exactly going against it on 29 June.. India was not convinced that a specific treaty on enforced disappearances is necessary.. It is it even less with regard to the committee which would be set up, a simple Optional Protocol on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would have sufficed. As for the United States, they transmitted a written note containing their interpretation and their reservations.
b - Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
The negotiations preceding the adoption of this Declaration were more difficult. The Working Group in charge of drafting the text had charged its President with presenting a final version. Several States appeared against this final version, by indicating that it was not consensual (in particular and initially Canada, but also the Federation of Russia, Australia, New-Zealand, the United States). Fault of consensus, the text subjected to the States was adopted following a vote1.
.
In practice, under pretext of absence of consensus, the States being opposed to the text sought to decrease its protective capacity. The FIDH thus welcomes the adoption of the text which it had called for together with the very broad coalition NGOs and representatives of indigenous people present at the session.
B. Ensuring an effective and substantial participation of humans right defenders
The FIDH intervened to require a substantial and increased participation human rights defenders at the onset of the first session of the Council. This statement was made to the President of the Council, as well as several Member States of the Council.
In the end, the place of NGOs appeared all the more important than in the last sessions of the Commission on Humans Right, since in addition to their participation in the debates as observers, NGOs could intervene during the High Level Segment (reserved normally exclusively for ministers and heads of State).. Four renowned human rights defenders spoke, among which one of the two prize winners of the Martin Ennals Award,, Arnold Tsunga, of the Zimrights organisation, which had been proposed by the FIDH2, Following the speeches of the defenders, the President asked the observance of one minute of silence in homage to all the victims of human rights violations.
C.Advancing the safeguard and strengthening of mechanisms and instruments of humans rights protection
The session also allowed for progress on reform: the future of the special procedures, and on the establishment of the periodic universal review. Two working groups were formed, one dealing with the review of mandates and mechanisms (i.e. special procedures, the Sub-Commission, and the 1503 procedure), the other to set up the universal periodic review (UPR).
I In order to reinforce the weight of its positions, the FIDH privileged joint statements with other NGOs. Thus, each statement on UPR and on special procedures, were done jointly with NGOs working on the protection of humans right present in Geneva (see Annexes 1-7).
The FIDH also co-organised two parallel events on both subjects. It chaired the meeting on the "rationalization" of the special procedures, where Hina Jilani, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Human Rights Defenders spoke, as well as Doudou Diène, Special Rapporteur on Racism. More than 150 people (diplomatic missions, NGOs, UN personnel and journalists) attended this meeting. The FIDH was also implied in the parallel event on the role of NGOs of the South in new Council.
D.Reinforcing the dialogue with States
As previously with each session of the Commission on the Human Rights, the FIDH benefited from the presence in Geneva of various governmental officials in order to reinforce its dialogue and to contribute to the progression of the situation of human right in their countries
The President of the FIDH, Sidika Kaba, thus went to Geneva to meet several officials: the Algerian Foreign Minister (first meeting of the FIDH with a representative of this level in Algeria), the Minister for the Justice of Morocco and Burundi, the Under-Secretary of State to the Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Ministers for Humans Right of Togo, of Senegal, ambassadors of France, and Francophonie.
II. Special Session on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territoires 5-6 July 2006
In reaction to the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories during the operation "Summer Rains" carried out by the Israeli army in reaction to the removal of a corporal of the Israeli army and to the shootings of rockets against his territory, the Human Rights Council met in a special session, pursuant to its mandate allowing for such urgent sessions.
The request for the session was made by Tunisia in the name of the group of the Arab States It was voted by 21 Member States of the Council3. It lead to the vote of a resolution S-1/Res Situation of the human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, which decided to dispatch an urgent investigation directed by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of the humans right in the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 1967.
Although it is positive that the Council met on this situation, the course of the session and its results are not free from criticisms:
Following a remark of procedure made by Pakistan, NGOs were prevented from taking part in the debates,
the resolution, although it condemns the violations of human rights and of humanitarian law made by Israel, it overlooks the violations committed by the Palestinian activists, in particular the shootings of rocket affecting of the Israeli civilians. This deliberated lapse of memory was the origin of the recorded vote of 28 votes for, 11 against, and 5 abstentions.4.Such imbalance in the treatment of the violations is to be regretted and condemned.
Though the FIDH regrets such an imbalance, it questions the reasons for which this situation prevailed. The FIDH regrets that the European Union was not initially behind the special session, which would undoubtedly have allowed that a more balanced text be deposited on the table of the negotiations.
It is also important to raise that the European Union, except for France, did not require the release of the Palestinian members of the Government and the Parliament, arrested by the Israeli army. France made an incidental statement with that of the European Union to take up this request.
III.Second Special Session of the Council on Lebanon 11 august 2006
At the request of Tunisia, in the name of the group of the Arab States and the OIC, a special session of the Council on "the massive violations of human rights by Israel in Lebanon" convened on 11 August. The request for the session was supported by 16 States to which 7 others then joined.
The FIDH intervened orally during this one day session (see Annex 8). The statement was co-signed with Lebanese associations: Solida, Frontiers Center, and Lebanese Association for Human Rights. It is important to note that the FIDH was the only international NGO to express itself jointly with Lebanese NGOs. The intervention of the FIDH was appreciated by other NGOs which noted, inter alia, that it was the only intervention which required the withdrawal of the Israeli troops (provision added at the last moment following the consultation of our Lebanese association partners or members).
The resolution adopted by 27 votes "for", 11 votes "against" and 8 "abstentions"5 has very limited value because it denounces only the violations of human rights made by Israel. The resolution will thus have a weak political weight and carries damage to the Council by giving it an image of partiality.
However, with this play, nobody is gaining. Indeed for the Lebanese and those which wanted, rightly, that the massive human rights violations and violations of the humanitarian law by Israel are condemned, it would have been preferable to arrive to a consensual resolution by almost the whole of the international community. Adopted by quasi consensus, this resolution would have indeed made it possible thus to denounce with credibility and weight the Israeli attacks. It is thus a failure for the Lebanese which obtains certainly a resolution condemning Israel but to which the United States, the European Union, Canada, Israel and Japan are likely to feel isolated. It is moreover a failure for all those who anted that the rocket attacks by Hezbollah against civilians be condemned, and that the Council Resolution condemns all the violations of humanitarian law and human rights, whether committed by Israel or Hezbollah.
Finally it is a failure for the Council which is likely to lose any credibility if the Arab States’ opposition and the States "of the South" versus the West prevent any negotiation and any consensus, each remaining camped on its positions
In this respect, the European Union would have an essential role to play. Indeed, in this type of configuration which is likely to reproduce regularly; and with 9 members of the Council (7mbs EU + 2 candidates), the EU should be able to incite negotiations with the Arab States in particular, in order to exceed this cleavage which will make the Council politically impotent. It is already difficult for the Member States of the EU - or the West in general - to find a satisfactory joint position between them. It is a shame they seemed persuaded in advance that they would not be able in any event to influence "the bad States" who have the majority seat in the Council.
These difficulties could however be overcome, partly at least, if the European Union anticipated these situations of blocking by requesting itself the convocation of a special session and by writing its own draft resolution. In the case of Lebanon in particular, the urgency of the situation and the duration of the crisis would have amply justified that the Member States of the European Union represented in the Council to convoke such a special session, and it is likely that it would certainly have been supported by most of the Member States of the Council.
FIDH Geneva Delegation
August 2006
Délégation FIDH, Genève
Août 2006
ANNEXE 1
UN Human Rights Council : Challenges For the First Session
Written Statement for the first session of the Human Rights Council
At the first session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) urges the Council’s member-States to settle the necessary procedures and rules for efficient protective action.
FIDH welcomed the « potential for increased protection and universality of the principal UN body dealing with Human Rights ».6 Yet, the protection mandate could today be diverted if Member States of the HRC do not take seriously the responsibility which was conferred to them following their accession to the Council. The HRC’s effective capacity to protect is the test of its future credibility.
Potential improvements - Member States are all subject to international scrutiny
The first election showed how a number of authors of gross human rights violations refrained from putting forward their candidature, while others were not elected. The obligation for candidates to present publicly their human rights commitments (pledges) was another occasion for improvements as a number of countries committed to ratifying international human rights instruments. Yet, other States were elected while carrying a poor human rights record. They will however have to open their territory to international scrutiny, some of them for the first time, through the universal periodic review.7
Challenges - Guaranteeing the independence of human rights assessment
FIDH takes note of the setting-up of a "universal periodic review" mechanism (UPR), and welcomes its « universal » character, an examination of human rights situations in all countries, without exception, including all members of the HRC. Yet, safeguards are necessary for the good functioning of such a procedure. Indeed, there is a danger that countries’ self-assessment lead to their self-absolution.
DI.In this respect, FIDH calls the UPR to fully base its evaluation on all the findings of the Special Procedures (independent special rapporteurs and working groups) and other independent sources, including UN treaty-bodies and other mechanisms as well as NGOs, and only discuss measures that should be undertaken at the national, regional and international levels to fully implement the recommendations from these independent sources.
Implement now : increase protection !
With the reform process taking much time, the UN member States have not met to discuss the situation of human rights throughout the world since December 2005 at the General Assembly. The mandate to protect from human rights violations should be implemented as early as the first session of the HRC. In particular, the reports made by the Special Procedures have not been reviewed at the last session of the Commission on Human Rights, in March 2006, nor were situations of gross human rights violations discussed.
FIDH calls on the HRC to make sure that the Special Rapporteurs’ reports are updated prior to their examination, which should take place no later than September 2006 (when second session of the HRC meets). Further postponing the examination would carry a high risk to the HRC’s capacity to protect, of which the Special Procedures should remain the main instrument. FIDH further calls on members of the HRC to discuss situations of gross human rights violations that have occurred over the past months, including in Darfur, Guantanamo, Iraq, Iran, Nepal, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Colombia, and Uzbekistan.
Adopt the new international instruments
Finally, this first session of the UN HRC should be the occasion to adopt the new norms that drafted by the Commission on Human Rights, in order to widen the international normative framework related to the protection of human rights.
FIDH calls upon the members of the HRC to adopt at their first session the Draft Convention on Enforced Disappearances, as well as the Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples.
ANNEXE 2
Déclaration commune relative au point 4 de la résolution 60/251
Joint Statement
Human Rights Council First Session
Item 4: implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251
Geneva (Monday 26 June): As the Human Rights Council convenes today, all attention is on Geneva in the hope that this new body will prove a true and effective advocate for those who face abuse of their human rights. As non-governmental organizations, we try to bring those voices to the Council, and to urge you not to disappoint those expectations. In implementing Resolution 60/251, this body must build on the successes of the Commission on Human Rights, and address its shortcomings. I cannot be timid, and it must be quick. The Commission’s problem was not that it dealt with too many situations of human rights violations, but too few, too late. By meeting more frequently, and with the ability to convene special sessions more easily, the Council has the tools to answer the cries of human rights victims more effectively.
The issues that require this body’s attention are numerous, and far exceed the time available in this session. We applaud the High Commissioner for Human Rights for her impressive and balanced report which signaled some of the situations which would require the attention of the Council in the coming months. That list includes Uzbekistan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iraq, Myanmar, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Sudan, Somalia, and the abuse of human rights in counter-terrorism, as well as countries with field offices, such as Colombia and Nepal. The situations in many other countries, such as Iran and Ethiopia, also need to be addressed. This body will need to use all the tools available to it given the diversity of the human rights situations it must address. Technical assistance and capacity building are essential components of that strategy, and cooperative dialogue is crucial. But we cannot deny that there are human rights situations which cannot be tackled only by cooperative means -this Council should not forget the Commission’s role in addressing violations in apartheid South Africa, for example. Two human rights situations identified by the Chair for discussion today -the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Sudan- also illustrate this.
This preliminary discussion is useful to highlight some of the situations that will require further attention by this body in short order. However, this discussion also illustrates where this Council needs to improve on the work of the Commission. We cannot seriously address five topics of such diversity and complexity in the limited time available today. And unfortunately, the list of topics for today is only a small piece of pressing work which faces this Council -a quick count by our organizations arrived at no less than two dozen pressing human rights situations which deserve this body’s prompt response. We call on the Human Rights Council to put those who face human rights abuses at the center of your agenda, and to ensure that the human rights situations noted for discussion today receive real attention and effective responses tomorrow.
ANNEXE 3
Déclaration commune concernant le projet de Déclaration sur les peuples autochtones
1st Session United Nations Human Rights Council
United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland
19 to 30 June 2006
Agenda Item: Reports of mechanisms and mandates (WG on draft Indigenous Declaration)
27 June 2006
I am Peter Splinter of Amnesty International and am making this statement on behalf of 35 Human Rights NGOs, which complete list is attached to our written submission.
As non-governmental organisations working in the field of human rights, we have seen time and again that the promise of universal respect for and protection of human rights remains unfulfilled for the world’s Indigenous peoples. We witness in every region of the world, Indigenous peoples suffering gross violations of their fundamental human rights as the consequence of systemic discrimination, historic injustices and ongoing marginalization.
Mr. President, as the General Assembly resolution highlights, the Council is responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind, and in a fair and equal manner. It is therefore most fitting that this historic first session of the Council has the opportunity to propose to the General Assembly for adoption one of the most urgently needed and long overdue standards for the recognition and protection of human rights, the draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
We join Indigenous representatives in the conviction that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is ready for adoption at this session. The proposed text that emerged from the 11th session of the U.N. Working Group on the draft Declaration (E/CN.4/2006/79) is the culmination of lengthy and exhaustive deliberations among states and Indigenous peoples. Given the broad support for the Working Group proposal among states, as well as Indigenous peoples, there is no justification for any further delay.
For these reasons, we fully support the resolution submitted by the Government of Peru and the co-sponsors, calling for the adoption of the draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
We are calling on states not to pursue short term political interests by posing options which would undermine the confidence of Indigenous peoples, and the agreement reached with them, in the course of the more than two decades worth of the negotiations on the draft Declaration. We urge the members of the Council to seize this historic opportunity to ensure, that at long last, the Declaration is put forward for adoption by the General Assembly this year.
By adopting the Declaration, the United Nations will strengthen the whole universal human rights system by setting crucial standards for the survival, dignity and well-being for the world’s Indigenous peoples.
Thank you, Mr. President. Première session du Conseil des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies
Nations Unies, Genève, Suisse
Du 19 au 30 juin 2006
Point à l’ordre du jour : Rapports sur les mécanismes et les mandats
(Groupe de travail sur le projet de Déclaration sur les droits des peuples autochtones)
Le 27 juin 2006
Je me nomme Peter Splinter, d’Amnistie internationale et je lis la présente déclaration au nom des 35 ONG de défense des droits humains dont la liste complète est jointe à notre déclaration écrite.
À titre d’organismes non gouvernementaux œuvrant dans le domaine des droits humains, nous avons vu encore et encore le respect universel et la protection des droits humains demeurer une promesse non tenue pour les peuples autochtones du monde. Dans chaque région, nous sommes témoins des peuples autochtones qui souffrent des violations flagrantes de leurs droits fondamentaux, lesquelles découlent d’une discrimination systémique, d’injustices historiques et d’une marginalisation continue.
Monsieur le Président, comme l’Assemblée générale le souligne dans sa résolution, le Conseil est chargé de promouvoir un respect universel pour la protection de tous les droits humains et libertés fondamentales, pour tous sans distinction d’aucune sorte, et d’une manière juste et égale. Il est tout à fait approprié que cette première session historique du Conseil soit l’occasion de présenter pour adoption une norme parmi les plus nécessaires, et qui tarde depuis longtemps, en vue de la reconnaissance et de la protection des droits humains, le Projet de déclaration de l’ONU sur les droits des peuples autochtones.
Voilà pourquoi nous appuyons entièrement la résolution présentée par le gouvernement du Pérou, qui demande l’adoption du Projet de déclaration de l’ONU sur les droits des peuples autochtones. Nous louons tous les co-parrains de cette initiative qui a une importance vitale.
Nous faisant l’écho des déclarations des représentants autochtones, nous sommes certains que le Projet de déclaration de l’ONU sur les droits des peuples autochtones est prêt à être adopté à cette session. Le texte proposé à l’issue de la 11e session du Groupe de travail de l’ONU sur le Projet de déclaration (E/CN.4/2006/79) est le point culminant de débats longs et exhaustifs entre les États et les peuples autochtones. Compte tenu du large soutien donné à la proposition du Groupe de travail par les États, et par les peuples autochtones, rien ne justifie un délai additionnel.
Nous demandons aux États de ne pas chercher des intérêts politiques à court terme en offrant des choix qui mineraient la confiance des peuples autochtones, et l’entente conclue avec eux, au fil des vingt années, et plus, qu’ont duré les négociations sur le projet de Déclaration. Nous exhortons les membres du Conseil à saisir cette occasion historique et à s’assurer - après une si longue attente - que la Déclaration soit proposée à l’adoption par l’Assemblée générale cette année.
Ce faisant, l’ONU renforcera le système global des droits humains, dans son ensemble. Elle fera aussi avancer de manière importante la cause urgente de la reconnaissance, la protection et la promotion des droits humains de ceux et celles qui ont le plus besoin de voir protéger leurs droits. La Déclaration fixe des normes décisives pour la survie, la dignité et le bien-être des peuples autochtones du monde.
Merci, Monsieur le Président.
Primera Sesión del Consejo de Derechos Humanos
Naciones Unidas, Ginebra, Suiza
19 al 30 de junio de 2006
Punto de la agenda: Informes de los mecanismos y mandatos (GT sobre el proyecto de Declaración de derechos de los pueblos indígenas)
27 de junio de 2006
Soy Peter Splinter de Amnistía Internacional y quiero presentar esta declaración en nombre de 35 organizaciones no gubernamentales de derechos humanos cuya lista completa se adjunta a nuestra presentación por escrito.
Como organizaciones no gubernamentales que trabajamos en el campo de los derechos humanos, hemos visto una y otra vez cómo la promesa de respeto y protección universales de los derechos humanos no se cumple para los pueblos indígenas del mundo. Somos testigos, en todas las regiones del mundo, de cómo los pueblos indígenas sufren graves violaciones de sus derechos humanos fundamentales como consecuencia de la sistemática discriminación, las injusticias históricas y la marginación actual.
Señor Presidente, como subraya la resolución de la Asamblea General, el Consejo tiene la responsabilidad de promover el respeto universal hacia la protección de todos los derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales para todos, sin distinción de ninguna clase y de un modo justo y equitativo. Es, por tanto, muy adecuado que esta primera sesión histórica del Consejo tenga la oportunidad de proponer a la Asamblea General para su adopción una de las normas de reconocimiento y protección de los derechos humanos que se necesitan con más urgencia y que está pendiente desde hace mucho tiempo: el proyecto de Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas.
Compartimos la convicción de los representantes indígenas de que la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas está lista para su adopción en esta sesión. La propuesta de texto resultante de la 11ª Sesión del Grupo de Trabajo de las Naciones Unidas sobre el proyecto de Declaración (E/CN.4/2006/79) es la culminación de deliberaciones largas y exhaustivas entre los estados y los pueblos indígenas. Dado el amplio apoyo a la propuesta del Grupo de Trabajo entre los estados y también entre los pueblos indígenas, no hay justificación para ningún aplazamiento.
Por estas razones, apoyamos plenamente la resolución presentada por el Gobierno del Perú y los co-patrocinadores, pidiendo la adopción del proyecto de Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas.
Pedimos a los estados que no persigan intereses políticos a corto plazo, presentando opciones que minarían la confianza de los pueblos indígenas y el acuerdo alcanzado con ellos en el curso de las más de dos décadas de negociación del proyecto de Declaración. Pedimos a los miembros del Consejo que aprovechen esta oportunidad histórica para que, finalmente, la Declaración se presente a adopción por la Asamblea General este mismo año.
Al adoptar la Declaración, las Naciones Unidas fortalecerán el sistema universal de derechos humanos en su conjunto estableciendo normas básicas para la supervivencia, dignidad y bienestar de los pueblos indígenas del mundo.
Gracias Señor Presidente
ANNEXE 4
Declaration commune relative à l’examen périodic universel
Joint Statement
Human Rights Council First Session
Item 4: implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251
The Universal Periodic Review Mechanism
Geneva (Wednesday 28 June) The creation of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is one of the most significant innovations in this new Human Rights Council. Under this system, for the first time, the human rights records of all U.N. Member States regardless of their size, wealth, or military or political importance will be regularly examined through a common mechanism. In establishing the universal review, the General Assembly acknowledged that all states have human rights problems, and room for improving their human rights record. It is crucial in this first year that the Council designs a mechanism that meets the high goals set for it in GA resolution 60/251.
The resolution requires that the review be based on "objective and reliable information." We propose that the Council designate a session rapporteur, or a panel of experts, from a list of independent experts provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to assemble all relevant recommendations of treaty bodies and special procedures, reports of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant U.N. components, as well as NGOs and national human rights institutions reports, and prepare a background note and questions for the state under review. The rapporteur’s background note should be guided by the fundamental human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and customary international law, as applicable to all states, as well as all other commitments made by the state under review in treaties, U.N. declarations and conferences, and pledges made while campaigning for election to this Council.
After the State under review prepares its response to the background note and initial questions, the Council itself should engage in a dialogue with the State to examine how well the State is meeting its human rights obligations and implementing recommendations for improvement from special procedures or treaty bodies. It should also consider how the U.N. and other member states might assist the State in improving human rights protection. The process should allow for both presentations and questions by member and observer states of this Council as well as national human rights institutions, regional mechanisms, and nongovernmental organizations. The time demands of UPR, if done right, will be substantial. It is therefore important that the examination of States under the UPR take place outside the Council’s regular sessions.
Each UPR should have an outcome document with appropriate conclusions and recommendations. The session rapporteur, or independent experts, should prepare an initial draft, subject to review and adoption by the Council. The outcome document should identify measures which could assist and encourage the state to meet its human rights obligations, including technical assistance and capacity-building, and where appropriate the appointment of a country rapporteur.
The crucial work of designing the process for UPR should be entrusted to an open-ended working group including all stakeholders. The meetings should be open and transparent and consider a full range of views. The working group should make a progress report to this Council at each session, leading to the formal adoption of the UPR mechanism no later than spring 2007.
The establishment of Universal Periodic Review presents a historic opportunity for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights. This Council must seize this opportunity and design a UPR process that will assist states and address the needs of human rights victims in all countries of the world in the decades ahead.
ANNEXE 5
Declaration commune concernant la revue des mandats et des procédures spéciales
Joint Statement
Human Rights Council First Session
Item 4: implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251
Review of mandates and mechanisms (OP6 of GA Res 60/251)
Geneva (Wednesday 28 June) General Assembly resolution 60/251 decided that the Council should maintain a system of special procedures. The special procedures have evolved into an integral part of the United Nations human rights machinery. They were the backbone of the Commission on Human Rights. Their importance was emphasized in the seminar on "Enhancing the effectiveness of special procedures of the CHR," organized by the Office of the High Commissioner in October 2005. The goal of the review should be to strengthen - not weaken - the system.
There is no set formula for rationalizing the special procedures system. Any process must keep in mind that special procedures play many roles including providing independent information on violations of human rights, monitoring ongoing crises and formulating concrete recommendations based on independent expert advice, affording protection and remedies to victims, and addressing non-compliance. In pursuing this review, the Council must look at issues of substance and not merely at numbers.
Based on the record of the existing system and the diverse needs for expert support for the Human Rights Council, special procedures will likely need to be expanded to suit the demands of human rights protection and assistance worldwide, on both thematic issues and country situations. The Council will look at overlaps but it should also identify gaps in human rights issues currently covered by existing mandates with the view to filling them.
A new dynamic should be established between the Council and special procedures and increased interactive exchanges should be a distinct feature of the upgraded body. There should be more country visits, more interaction between mandates, more joint initiatives, more coordination, more follow up, greater visibility and publicity to special procedures’ work, and increased human resources in order for the rapporteurs and other experts to carry out their work effectively. Special rapporteurs, independent experts and working groups should be able to call on the Human Rights Council to place a situation on the Council’s agenda. The findings of special procedures should form an integral part of the examination of States under the UPR, along with the treaty bodies.
Special procedures should be invited to contribute to the review process, in particular through continued interaction with their Coordinating Committee. Finally, for the review to embrace all mandates, the Council should extend for one year the mandates of those special procedures expiring in 2006.
ANNEXE 6
Declaration commune concernant les défenseurs (Observatoire)
1.THE OBSERVATORY
for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
L’OBSERVATOIRE
pour la Protection des
Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme
EL OBSERVATORIO
para la Protección
de los Defensores de Derechos Humanos
Joint oral statement of the World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
in the framework of their joint programme,
the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
UN Human Rights Council First Session (19-30 June 2006)
Item 4 : Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 entitled "Human Rights Council"
Pressing issue (5): Role of Human Rights Defenders
Geneva - Paris, June 26, 2006
Mr. Chairman,
The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), in the framework of their joint programme, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, express their deep concern about the fact that the repression human rights defenders are subjected to worldwide continues and indeed is growing and, consequently, point out the ongoing importance to widely recognise the legitimacy of their action and their increasing need for further protection.
In all regions of the world, in a context when human rights suffer a serious setback in the name of the fight against terrorism, human rights defenders continue to pay a heavy price for their commitment to the defence of universal rights, and the variety of means of repression against them is wide: assassinations, forced disappearances, acts of torture, ill-treatments, death threats, arbitrary arrests and detentions, judicial proceedings, adoption of restrictive legislation, etc.
Indeed, techniques of repression against defenders are becoming more and more widespread, while the authors of such violations enjoy complete impunity. Thus, in 2005, human rights defenders continued to face multiple acts of reprisals because of their activities: in its Annual Report8, the Observatory documented the situation of 1,172 defenders repressed in about 90 countries around the world.
In 2005, human rights defenders involved in the fight against impunity were more than ever subjected to acts of retaliation. This repression is multifaceted, from assassinations (Brazil, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), etc.), death threats (Central African Republic, Guatemala, Peru, Uzbekistan) to arbitrary detentions (Ethiopia, Iran, Tunisia).
In many countries, defenders of economic, social and cultural rights were not spared by acts of violence, in particular trade union leaders (Colombia, which continued to hold the sad world record for the number of trade activists assassinated, Djibouti, Philippines) and defenders of indigenous communities and of environmental and land rights (Chile, China, Zimbabwe). Furthermore, defenders of sexual minorities remained to be subjected to repeated acts of harassment and intimidation, such as in China, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Turkey and Uganda.
Furthermore, once again, in 2005, many States made extensive use of legislation in order to control the independent civil society, and in particular to toughen conditions for NGO registration, facilitate their suspension or dismantling, or limit their access to foreign financing (such as in Belarus, Iran, Nepal, Rwanda, Russian Federation, Sudan, Tunisia, Uzbekistan).
Finally, defending human rights during political or armed conflicts remained extremely dangerous: not only general insecurity rendered the defenders’ activities of monitoring and investigation very risky, but also their denunciations and protective efforts were also increasingly considered as being opposed to the government or to one of the parties to the conflict (Afghanistan, Chechnya, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, DRC, Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian Occupied Territories, Nepal, Philippines, Sudan).
Mr. Chairman, as no continent is immune from the phenomenon of repression against defenders, an increased mobilisation, in particular at the regional and international levels, is more than ever necessary in order to save what lies at the heart of human rights: respect for the dignity of all.
After six years of remarkably rigorous and extensive activity, Ms. Hina Jilani’s mandate as Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations on Human Rights Defenders is coming to an end. Much has been achieved, yet much remains to be done: two reasons to not only renew the mechanism, but also to strengthen it with increased resources for fulfilling its mission.
Mr. Chairman, the Observatory would like to conclude by urging the Human Rights Council to:
– Support the mandate of the United Nations Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders by renewing it and providing necessary material and financial support, and ensure that there is no protection gap within the review process;
– Strengthen the role and functions of the UN Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders, notably by allowing more interaction and cooperation with the Human Rights Council, including interactive dialogues and special sessions
– Encourage States to invite to country visits and co-operate with the UN Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders. In particular, all States that are members of the Human Rights Council should abide by their responsibilities and commitments by extending standing invitations to all Special Procedures, including the UN Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders;
– Call upon States to fully implement the principles included in the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom through the adoption of the Declaration by national parliaments, the dissemination of the Declaration, the implementation of awareness-raising and solidarity campaigns with defenders, and the developments of mechanisms that provide safe havens for those under threat;
– Urge States to ensure that national security measures, including those taken in the name of the fight against terrorism, comply with international human rights norms and standards and are not used to justify disproportionate limitations on freedoms or impair the legitimate work of human rights defenders;
– Ensure the dissemination of the Declaration at the international level by including it in the United Nations plans and training programmes for State officials, with a particular focus on the issue of women human rights defenders.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
FIDH LOGO HERE
International Federation for Human Rights
17, Passage de la Main d’Or
75 011 Paris, France
World Organisation Against Torture
Case postale 21 - 8 rue du Vieux-Billard
1211 Geneva 8, Switzerland
ANNEXE 7
Declaration commune concernant le projet de Convention sur les disparitions forcées
Intervention écrite conjointe de Amnesty International, la Commission internationale de juristes, la Fédération Internationale des ligues des Droits de l’Homme et Human Rights Watch
Convention INTERNATIONALE pour la protection de
toutes les personnes contre les disparitions forcées
Amnesty International, la Commission internationale de juristes, la Fédération Internationale des Droits de l’Homme et Human Rights Watch lancent un appel à tous les Etats membres pour que, lors de sa première session en juin 2006, le Conseil des droits de l’homme adopte le projet de Convention internationale pour la protection de toutes les personnes contre les disparitions forcées et le transmette à l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies pour son adoption finale. Ces organisations leur demandent également d’envisager la ratification de cet instrument dans les plus brefs délais.
Ce projet de Convention a été préparé par le Groupe de travail suite à la résolution 2001/46 de la Commission des droits de l’homme. A sa cinquième session tenue en septembre 2005, le groupe de travail a adopté un projet de texte par consensus. Ce projet est à présent devant le Conseil des droits de l’homme pour examen.
Nos quatre organisations remercient toutes les délégations qui ont contribué à ce succès et souhaitent également féliciter tout particulièrement le Président pour son travail inlassable, sa ténacité et son engagement en faveur des victimes.
Il s’agit d’un pas d’une extrême importance pour la lutte contre les disparitions forcées et la protection des victimes et de leurs familles. Dans son ensemble, le texte adopté répond aux attentes des ONG. Nous voudrions exprimer notre satisfaction à l’égard des points suivants :
Tout d’abord, il s’agit d’une convention autonome dotée d’un organe propre. Ce choix constitue pour nous une juste reconnaissance de l’extrême gravité de cette violation multiple des droits de l’homme et de ce crime international que constitue la disparition forcée. Il s’agit également d’une juste reconnaissance de la souffrance des victimes de disparition forcée et de la lutte inlassable menée par leurs familles et leurs proches pour les retrouver. Ce texte représente aussi, selon nous, une garantie d’efficacité pour l’avenir, y compris dans l’hypothèse d’une réforme du système des comités.
La convention constitue un grand pas dans une histoire déjà longue. Elle constitue en effet un développement considérable du droit international en la matière, tout en s’appuyant sur des normes solidement établies en droit coutumier. La Convention vient combler un vide juridique important : l’absence d’un traité pour faire face à cette violation multiple des droits de l’homme et ce crime international que constitue la disparition forcée. On ne peut que se féliciter, en particulier, qu’elle reconnaisse le droit de ne pas être soumis à une disparition forcée et qu’elle fasse obligation aux Etats d’interdire et d’incriminer cette pratique dans leurs droits internes. La Convention prévoit des dispositions relatives à la responsabilité pénale des subordonnés et des supérieurs, la répression nationale et internationale, l’extradition et la coopération internationale.
La convention reconnaît par ailleurs que ce crime peut, dans certaines circonstances, être qualifié de crime contre l’humanité et être par conséquent l’objet d’une action pénale internationale, voire d’une réaction de la communauté internationale dans son ensemble par l’intermédiaire des organes des Nations Unies.
Cette convention établit un ensemble d’obligations en matière de prévention de grande importance, tels que la prohibition de la détention secrète ; le placement uniquement dans des lieux de privation de liberté officiellement reconnus et contrôlés, dotés d’un registre détaillé sur les détenus; et des recours indérogeables d’habeas corpus et pour d’obtenir des informations sur les détenus.
La Convention reconnaît le droit à la vérité et à réparation pour les victimes et leur famille, ainsi que le droit de former des organisations et des associations pour lutter contre les disparitions forcées. Elle adresse également la question de la soustraction d’enfants de parents victimes du crime de disparition forcée, la falsification de leur identité et leurs adoption.
En matière de mécanisme et de procédures internationaux de surveillance et protection, la Convention innove. Elle établit un Comité des Disparitions forcées qui - outre les fonctions de surveillance et de communications interétatiques et individuelles - dispose d’une procédure urgente à caractère humanitaire, d’un pouvoir d’enquête sur le terrain et d’une procédure de saisine de l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies pour les situations de pratique généralisée ou systématique de la disparition forcée. La compétence obligatoire du Comité en matière d’appel urgent nous paraît particulièrement fondamentale pour la prévention et la protection.
La convention constitue un outil inestimable pour la lutte contre l’impunité des auteurs de disparitions forcées. Elle constitue, pour nous ONG, une plateforme de travail inestimable.
Nos organisations souhaitent rendre hommage aux familles des disparus qui les ont inspirées par leur courage durant ces années et leur ont permis de garder l’espoir. Car si elles l’ont, cet espoir, il nous est interdit de ne pas l’avoir.
Amnesty International, la Commission internationale de juristes, la Fédération Internationale des Droits de l’Homme et Human Rights Watch considèrent qu’en adoptant le projet de Convention internationale pour la protection de toutes les personnes contre les disparitions forcées, le Conseil des droits de l’homme apportera une contribution essentielle à la lutte contre les disparitions forcées et affirmera également son mandat et sa volonté de protéger et de promouvoir les droits de l’homme.
Joint written intervention of Amnesty international, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and the International Federation for Human Rights
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS
FROM ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and the International Federation of Human Rights call on Member States of the Human Rights Council to adopt the draft International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance at its first session in June 2006 and transmit it to the General Assembly for its final adoption. The organisations also call on States to aim for prompt ratification of this instrument.
This new draft standard has been drafted by a working group established pursuant to resolution 2001/46 of the Commission on Human Rights. At its fifth session in September 2005 the working group adopted the draft text by consensus. This draft text is now before the Human Rights Council for its consideration.
Our four organizations express our gratitude to the delegations that contributed to the adoption of this draft and congratulate the chairman of the Working Group for his tenacity, commitment and tireless work on behalf of the victims of forced disappearances.
This Convention represents an extremely important development in the fight against enforced disappearances and for the protection of victims and their families. On the whole, the adopted text meets the expectations of the NGOs. We would like to express our satisfaction with regard to the following points:
First, the Convention is an autonomous treaty endowed with its own treaty-monitoring body. This choice represents an appropriate recognition of not only the extreme seriousness of the multiple violations of human rights and international crime that enforced disappearance constitutes, but also of the suffering of victims of forced disappearances and of their families’ tireless fight to locate them. This choice is also a guarantee of the treaty’s effectiveness in the future, including in the event of a reform of the UN treaty monitoring bodies.
The Convention constitutes a large step forward in a long historical process. It effectively marks a significant development in applicable international law, all the while based on firmly established standards of customary international law. The Convention also responds to a substantial gap in the law - the absence of a treaty to address the multiple violations of human rights and international crime that enforced disappearance represents. The organisations welcome the recognition by the Convention of the right not to be subjected to enforced disappearance and the requirement put on States to prohibit and criminalise this practice in their national legislation. The Convention includes provisions related to the criminal responsibility of subordinates and superiors, to national and international preventive measures, extradition and international cooperation.
Moreover, the Convention recognizes that, in certain circumstances, enforced disappearances can be considered a crime against humanity and therefore be subject to an international criminal prosecution, even extending as far as a response of the whole international community through the organs of the United Nations.
The Convention establishes a very significant body of legal obligations in relation to prevention, such as the prohibition of secret detention; the deprivation of liberty solely in officially recognised and supervised places of detention that are equipped with a detailed register of the detainees; and non-derogable rights to habeas corpus and to obtain information on detainees.
The Convention recognizes the right to truth and to reparation for victims and their family, as well as the right to form organisations and associations to fight against enforced disappearances. It also deals with the question of the wrongful removal of children whose parents are victims of the crime of enforced disappearance, the falsification of the children’s identity and their adoption.
The Convention is innovatory in its international mechanism and procedures for monitoring and protection. It provides for a Committee on enforced disappearances that, in addition to functions of monitoring and consideration of individual and inter-state complaints, has a humanitarian urgent procedure, the power to undertake field inquiries and the ability to bring to the attention of the UN General Assembly situations of widespread and systematic practice of enforced disappearance. Our organisations believe that the power of the Committee to recommend urgent action is of particular importance to prevention and protection.
The Convention constitutes an invaluable tool in the fight against impunity for perpetrators of enforced disappearances. It also represents, for us NGOs, an invaluable advocacy instrument.
Our organizations would like to pay tribute to the families of the disappeared, who have inspired us with their courage over many years and have given us hope. As the families maintain this hope, we cannot fail to have it too.
Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Federation of Human Rights and Human Rights Watch believe that, by adopting the draft International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Human Rights Council not only will greatly contribute to the struggle against enforced disappearances, but also will enhance its own mandate and show its firm determination to promote and protect human rights.
Intervención escrita conjunta de Amnistía Internacional, la Comisión Internacional de Juristas, la Federación Internacional de los Derechos Humanos y Human Rights Watch
CONVENCION INTERNACIONAL PARA LA PROTECCION DE TODAS LAS PERSONAS CONTRA LA DESAPARICIONES FORZADAS
Amnistía Internacional, la Comisión Internacional de Juristas, la Federación Internacional de los Derechos Humanos y Human Rights Watch lanzan un llamado a los Estados miembros del Consejo de Derechos Humanos a que adopten el proyecto de Convención internacional para la protección de todas las personas contra la desapariciones forzadas en su primera sesión en junio de 2006 y a que se transmita a la Asamblea General para su adopción final. Las organizaciones hacen un llamado a los Estados a que tengan como objetivo una rápida ratificación de este instrumento.
Este proyecto de Convención fue redactado por un grupo de trabajo establecido en virtud de la resolución 2001/46 de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos. En su quinta sesión en septiembre de 2005 el grupo de trabajo adoptó el proyecto de texto por consenso. Este proyecto se encuentra ahora a consideración del Consejo de Derechos Humanos.
Las cuatro organizaciones expresan su gratitud a las delegaciones que contribuyeron a la adopción de este proyecto y felicitan al presidente del Grupo de Trabajo por su tenacidad, compromiso e incansable trabajo a favor de las víctimas de desapariciones forzadas.
Esta Convención representa un desarrollo sumamente importante en la lucha contra las desapariciones forzadas y para la protección de las víctimas y sus familiares. En su conjunto, el texto adoptado cumple con las expectativas de las ONGs. Deseamos expresar nuestra satisfacción por los siguientes puntos:
En primer lugar, la Convención es un tratado autónomo dotado de un órgano de vigilancia propio. Esta elección constituye un reconocimiento apropiado de no sólo la extrema seriedad de las múltiples violaciones de derechos humanos y crímenes internacionales que las desapariciones forzadas representan sino también del sufrimiento de las víctimas de desapariciones forzadas y de la lucha incansable de sus familiares por encontrarlas. Esta elección es también una garantía de la efectividad del tratado en el futuro, incluso en caso que se produzca una reforma de los órganos de vigilancia de tratados de Naciones Unidas.
La Convención representa un importante paso adelante en un largo proceso histórico. En tal sentido, constituye una evolución en el derecho internacional aplicable, siempre con una base firme en los estándares del derecho internacional consuetudinario. La Convención también responde a un importante vacío jurídico - la ausencia de un tratado que enfrente las múltiples violaciones de derechos humanos y crímenes internacionales que supone la desaparición forzada. Las organizaciones dan la bienvenida al reconocimiento por parte de la Convención del derecho a no ser sometido a una desaparición forzada y el requisito impuesto a los Estados de prohibir y criminalizar esta práctica en sus legislaciones nacionales. La Convención incluye disposiciones relativas a la responsabilidad penal de subalternos y superiores, a las medidas de prevención nacionales e internacionales, la extradición y la cooperación internacional.
Asimismo, la Convención reconoce que, en ciertas circunstancias, las desapariciones forzadas pueden ser consideradas crímenes contra la humanidad y, en consecuencia, estar sujetas a persecución penal internacional, incluso motivando una respuesta de la comunidad internacional en su conjunto a través de los órganos de Naciones Unidas.
La Convención establece un importante conjunto de obligaciones legales de prevención, como la prohibición de la las detenciones secretas, la privación de libertad sólo en lugares oficialmente reconocidos y supervisados que cuenten con un detallado registro de los detenidos, y los derechos no-derogables de habeas corpus y de obtener información sobre los detenidos.
La Convención reconoce el derecho a la verdad y a la reparación para las víctimas y sus familiares, como así también el derecho a conformar organizaciones y asociaciones para luchar contra las desapariciones forzadas. También trata la cuestión de la sustracción de niños cuyos padres hayan sido víctimas del crimen de desaparición forzada, la falsificación de la identidad de los niños y su adopción.
La Convención es novedosa en términos del mecanismo internacional y los procedimientos de vigilancia y protección. Se establece un Comité sobre desapariciones forzadas que, además de sus funciones de vigilancia y consideración de comunicaciones individuales e interestatales, cuenta un procedimiento humanitario urgente, la facultad de llevar a cabo averiguaciones en el terreno y la posibilidad de llevar ante la Asamblea General de la ONU situaciones en las que se practiquen desapariciones forzadas en forma generalizada y sistemática.
Nuestras organizaciones tienen la convicción de que el poder del Comité para recomendar acciones urgentes es de particular importancia para la prevención y protección.
La Convención constituye una herramienta inestimable en la lucha contra la impunidad de los autores de desapariciones forzadas. También representa, para las ONGs, un instrumento de trabajo inestimable.
Nuestras organizaciones desean rendir homenaje a las familias de las personas desaparecidas, quienes nos inspiraron con su coraje a lo largo de muchos años y nos han dado esperanza. Mientras las familias mantengan su esperanza no podemos dejar de tenerla nosotros.
Amnistía Internacional, la Comisión Internacional de Juristas, la Federación Internacional de los Derechos Humanos y Human Rights Watch creen que, mediante la adopción del proyecto de Convención internacional para la protección de todas las personas contra la desaparición forzada de personas, el Consejo de Derechos Humanos no sólo contribuirá significativamente a la lucha contra las desapariciones forzadas sino también mejorará afirmará su mandato y mostrará su firme determinación de promover y proteger los derechos humanos.
Annex 8
FRONTIERS CENTER
Beirut - Lebanon
Special session of the Human Rights Council to consider and take action on the gross human rights violations by Israel in Lebanon, including the Qana massacre, country-wide targeting of innocent civilians, and destruction of vital civilian infrastructure.
Beyrouth-Paris, le 10 août 2006
LIBAN
Face à la détérioration croissante de la situation des droits humains et à la multiplication des violations graves du droit international humanitaire, la Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’Homme (FIDH) quotidiennement informée par ses organisations membres et partenaires au Liban, l’Association libanaise des droits de l’Homme (ALDHOM), le Mouvement SOLIDA (Soutien aux Libanais Détenus Arbitrairement) et Frontiers Center, a lancé à plusieurs reprises un appel à la communauté internationale afin que des mesures appropriées soient prises dans les plus brefs délais visant à garantir la sécurité et la protection des populations civiles libanaises.
La Communauté internationale ne peut en effet rester plus longtemps silencieuse alors que l’on déplore selon les agences onusiennes, le déplacement de près de 1 million de libanais, plus d’un millier de morts et plus de 3500 blessés parmi la population civile libanaise et alors que l’armée israélienne intensifie ses frappes sur l’ensemble du Liban, et continue de détruire les infrastructures routières, isolant ainsi un peu plus chaque jour le pays.
Plus de 915 000 libanais majoritairement originaires du Sud du pays ont depuis le déclenchement des opérations militaires israéliennes le 12 juillet 2006, quitté villes et villages pour se réfugier dans des régions qu’ils pensent être moins touchées par les raids israéliens.
La FIDH, l’ALDHOM, SOLIDA et le Frontiers Center rappellent qu’en vertu du 5ème Principe directeur relatif au déplacement de personnes à l’intérieur de leur propre pays, la communauté internationale est tenue de faire « respecter en toutes circonstances [les obligations qui incombent aux autorités et aux membres concernés de la communauté internationale en vertu du droit international] de façon à prévenir et éviter les situations de nature à entraîner des déplacements de personnes ».
Nos organisations appellent les parties au conflit au respect inconditionnel des conventions de Genève. Nos organisations condamnent avec la plus grande vigueur les opérations militaires israéliennes qui frappent sans interruption le Liban depuis près d’un mois. Elles dénoncent avec la même force les attaques à la roquette par le Hezbollah contre des civils israéliens . Le bombardement de villes et de villages par les deux parties au conflit constitue un ciblage prévisible des populations civiles. Ces exécutions de civils constituent une violation grave du droit international humanitaire au regard de l’article 3 de la Quatrième Convention de Genève sur la protection des civils en temps de guerre, et sont qualifiables à tout le moins de crimes de guerre en vertu du droit international coutumier.
Le bombardement des voies de communication du sud au nord du territoire libanais et de camions immobilisés ou se déplaçant sur des routes libanaises rendent selon les déclarations des organisations humanitaires et en particulier, du Bureau des Nations unies pour la coordination des affaires humanitaires (OCHA) l’acheminement de l’aide humanitaire à travers le pays de plus en plus difficile voire impossible dans de nombreux villages du Sud Liban dont les principales voies d’accès ont été bombardées. Ces bombardements ont également conduit à la destruction de nombreuses infrastructures civiles libanaises incluant des industries alimentaires, des centrales électriques, des hôpitaux et des dépôts de carburant ce qui risquent de mener à une crise humanitaire majeure et constituent au regard du droit international humanitaire, autant de punitions collectives perpétrées par l’armée israélienne à l’encontre des populations civiles libanaises, en violation de l’article 33 de la Quatrième Convention de Genève. Elles relèvent de la qualification de violation grave reconnue par l’article 147 de la Quatrième Convention de Genève et constituent à tout le moins un crime de guerre en vertu de l’article 8(2)(a)(iv) du Statut de Rome qui reprend la coutume internationale.
Au regard de la détérioration continue de la situation et des violations flagrantes des principes fondamentaux du droit international des droits de l’Homme et humanitaire, la FIDH en appelle au Conseil des droits de l’Homme des Nations unies réuni le 11 août 2006 en session extraordinaire pour traiter de la situation des droits de l’Homme au Liban d’adopter de toute urgence une résolution qui :
CI.- exige des parties un cessez-le-feu immédiat et le retrait immédiat des forces israéliennes du territoire libanais
CII.mandate une commission internationale d’enquête indépendante sur les violations des droits humains et du droit international humanitaire au Liban et en Israel;
CIII.- condamne les violations graves du droit international humanitaire et des droits de l’Homme
CIV.- appelle à la poursuite des auteurs des violations graves du droit international humanitaire et exige des responsables qu’ils réparent les dommages causés aux victimes ainsi qu’aux infrastructures civiles qu’ils ont détruites.
CV.- demande instamment aux autorités israéliennes et libanaises de répondre favorablement à la demande de visite qui leur a été conjointement adressée par le Représentant du Secrétaire général pour les droits de l’homme des personnes déplacées dans leur propre pays; le Rapporteur spécial sur les exécutions extrajudiciaires, sommaires ou arbitraires; le Rapporteur spécial sur le droit de toute personne de jouir du meilleur état de santé physique et mentale susceptible d’être atteint; et le Rapporteur spécial sur le logement convenable en tant qu’ élément du droit à un niveau de vie suffisant.