After the 1 April welcoming by the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the Security Council?s resolution 1593 (2005) referring the situation in Darfur to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Sudan was always going to be among the most difficult issues at the recently concluded 61st session in Geneva. (25-APR-05)

The following is mostly extracted from the UNHCHR? own website, but edited for republication here:

Action on Resolution on the Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Any Part of the World

-Violations in Sudan are preoccupying and ought to be condemned
Resolution E/CN.4/2005/L.33/Rev.1 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, was withdrawn. Anne Goedert of Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said there was no need to present the resolution on the situation of human rights in Sudan, as the European Union and the co-sponsors were withdrawing the item. In the general statement under agenda item 9, on violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the European Union had underlined that with regard to the situation of human rights in Sudan, the preferred option of the European Union was for close cooperation with the African Group. The European Union was able to congratulate itself that the cooperation with the African Group and the concerned country had resulted in an agreement which offered the best hopes for an end to the violations of human rights in Sudan, which were preoccupying and condemned. The European Union concluded the explanation of its withdrawal of a resolution under item 9 by way of confirming that it would return to the issue under item 19 of the agenda, on the presumed less controversial advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights, this time in a draft resolution identified as E/CN.4/2005/L.36/Rev.3 once again on the situation of human rights in Sudan.

In resolution E/CN.4/2005/L.36/Rev.3 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, adopted without a vote, the Commission condemned the continued, widespread and systematic violations, by all parties, of human rights and international humanitarian law as reflected in the findings of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur; the violence against civilians and sexual violence against women and girls, destruction of villages, widespread displacement and other violations in Darfur and urged all parties to take necessary steps to prevent further violations; the prevailing situation in the Darfur region of the Sudan, in particular the humanitarian crisis and the continued reported violations of human rights, including attacks against civilians committed by all parties, particularly the Janjaweed and other armed militias, and reiterated the need to control, disarm and disband these militias and bring to justice all those responsible for human rights violations in Darfur; violations of the Ceasefire Agreement concluded in N?Djamena on 8 April 2004 and the Abuja Protocols of 9 November 2004 by all parties to the conflict in Darfur and the impact this has had on humanitarian efforts; and violations of human rights anywhere in the Sudan.

Unlike the initial resolution, meant to be voted upon under item 9, the new resolution, which was adopted under item 19, did not explicitly condemn, among other things “the fact that most attacks have been deliberately and indiscriminately directed against civilians, many of them under direct responsibility of, or tolerated by, the Government of Sudan” and the “Support to Janjaweed militias by the Government of the Sudan and its failure to disarm them”. The fact that even the Sudanese delegation could accept the second resolution suggests that anything and everything controversial had been removed. As elaborated upon below, though, the Sudanese delegation did criticise the EU, who sponsored the first resolution, for its unwillingness to adjust its initial text according to the requirements of Sudan and others. In the end, though, EU clearly did just that. HRH and the Norwegian NGO forum appreciates that the Commission ended up adopting a country specific resolution on Sudan, but regrets that it shied away from addressing the most contentious issues head on, especially the atrocities for which the Government of Sudan clearly must be held responsible. In its recommendations to the Norwegian delegation, HRH and the Norwegian NGO forum requested this.    

The Commission called upon the parties to the conflict to resume immediately the Abuja talks with a view to arriving at a lasting and durable negotiated settlement; to observe the humanitarian ceasefire and grant immediate, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to Darfur and elsewhere in the Sudan; to cease all acts of violence immediately, and protect women and girls from sexual and other forms of violence; to respect the rights of refugees and internally displaced persons and their right of voluntary return in safety and dignity; to prevent the recruitment of children as soldiers and combatants; and to stop immediately the abduction and murdering of relief workers by the armed groups. It also called upon the Government of the Sudan to stop and investigate violations of human rights and to bring the perpetrators to justice and end impunity for crimes committed in Darfur; to disarm the Janjaweed militias; to promote the respect for human rights and international humanitarian law throughout the country, and protect the human rights of all persons, in particular those of internally displaced persons and refugees; to improve security in and around the internally displaced persons? camps; and to exert maximum efforts for promoting the social peaceful coexistence between different tribes in Darfur, among other things.

The Commission also called on the international community to expand its support for the efforts and activities of the African Union aimed at bringing about peace in the Sudan; and requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to increase and speed up the deployment of human rights monitors in Darfur to complement the African Union mission in the Sudan. The Commission also requested the High Commissioner to extend technical assistance and advisory services to the Government of the Sudan with a view to enhancing the national capacity in the field of human rights. Lastly, it decided to establish the mandate of a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan for one year and requested the Special Rapporteur to monitor the situation of human rights in the Sudan and to submit an interim report to the General Assembly at its sixtieth session, and to report to the Commission at its sixty-second session.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union), said the European Union was pleased to note the adoption of the resolution on the situation of human rights in the Sudan introduced under this agenda item, and in particular with the commitment of the African Group in drafting the resolution, which was well-balanced and respected the concerns of the European Union with regard to the situation in the Sudan and in particular Darfur. Access for human rights observers to those detained because of the situation in Darfur should be ensured. The good guidance that had been given by the Ambassador of Ethiopia in this process was also greatly appreciated.

RUDOLPH E. BOSCHWITZ (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, noted that the world had taken action with regard to the Sudan during the past five weeks of the Commission?s session. The Security Council had welcomed the comprehensive North-South peace agreement and had established a peacekeeping mission to help consolidate those developments. Donor nations had met in Oslo, Norway, and had pledged $4.5 billion to reconstruction, development and humanitarian aid in the country. Those positive expressions of concern underscored the will of the international community to aid Sudan in the establishment of peace, national reconstruction and respect for human rights.

The Security Council had also taken action on Darfur, he added, including by imposing measures to compel the authorities to comply with their obligations to end violence and ensure respect for human rights. It had also laid out a framework for ending impunity. And yet, the terrible tragedy continued in Darfur, where violence, atrocities, and crimes against humanity regularly occurred. Attacks on humanitarian workers continued, and displaced people, especially women, remained vulnerable to murder, rape and abuse. While the African Union had done a commendable job of reducing violence in areas it patrolled, the security situation remained precarious in large portions of the region. Moreover, the United States continued to be outraged by reports of the 7 April attack on the village of Khor Abeche by 350 tribal militia members, which had been one of the most severe violations of the ceasefire agreement to date. The Government of Sudan must implement its obligation to control Government-supported tribal militias, and to disarm and disband the Janjaweed.

Throughout the course of the Commission, the United States had insisted on dealing with human rights abuses in Sudan in a factual and realistic fashion. The United Nations must lend its weight to ensure that abusers of human rights, whether Government or rebel, were held accountable for their actions. The present draft had been subjected to a series of intense discussions and negotiations. Commending those who had worked hard on the negotiations, the United States observed that the draft now met the standard required for a credible Commission on Human Rights position, and reflected the facts regarding egregious abuses in Darfur, in that it condemned those responsible for the atrocities, including the Government of Sudan, and provided for a strong mechanism for investigating ongoing human rights abuses. The United States would thus join the consensus on the draft.

SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation), in a general comment, said that in the statement that the delegation of the Russian Federation had made on agenda item 10, it had stressed the importance of involving the country concerned in the discussions on a country resolution. The work of the African Union was greatly appreciated. The State Members of the European Union and the African Union had been successful in agreeing on a generally agreeable text that reflected the situation on the ground, and in creating a real model for such situations. This strategy should be used more in the future.

AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea), in a general comment, said Eritrea had had great reservations about the text. However, those concerns had been addressed in the revised text, and Eritrea could now join the consensus and support the draft?s adoption.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a general comment, said it was quite pleased that it had been possible to reach consensus on the draft resolution, even if this was due to the flexibility of one of the parties. Countries of the North had maintained an inflexible position on the text, and this was nothing new, including on a certain number of elements which ought to have been put in a resolution under item 9. There were reservations on some parts of the resolution, which seemed to have more to do with the activities of the Security Council, rather than the Commission. The determination of the Sudanese delegation to collaborate had not been sufficiently taken into account. Cuba would go along with consensus, but would like its reservations taken into account.

PHILLIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya), in a general comment, said that Kenya supported the statement made by Ethiopia on behalf of the African Group. The text?s adoption by consensus was a clear indication that the Commission could indeed address the situation of human rights anywhere in the world in a manner that would make a difference on the ground. The Member States had adopted a constructive approach and an attitude of engagement instead of condemnation. Kenya appreciated the capacity of the Government of Sudan to cooperate in a constructive and pragmatic manner to address this grave situation, and had been happy to take part in the negotiations. The international community should demonstrate a similar attitude to enable the Government to meet the commitments enumerated in the resolution. The international community owed this to the people of the Sudan, and to the people of Darfur in particular, and must not let them down.

SHA ZUKANG (China), in a general comment, said the problem in Darfur dated back a long time, and the resolution required a proper process. In the view of the Chinese delegation, the starting point for resolving the situation lay in resolving the humanitarian situation in Darfur, restoring peace and economic development and promoting national reconciliation. The practice of peace between the North and South showed that political means were the sole means for solving the situation and were a precondition for solving the humanitarian situation. The international community should stress the importance of encouraging the Government to continue to make efforts in this respect instead of constantly addressing criticism and condemnation. The Government and the rebels should be encouraged to find a speedy political settlement.

the People´s Republic of China believed that it was necessary to increase humanitarian assistance to the population of Darfur rather than artificially create obstacles to the efforts of finding assistance. The positive efforts and the tireless work of the Secretary-General and his Special Representative to mitigate tensions in the region were appreciated. African countries were best placed to understand African countries and best placed to give their views on matters concerning African States. the People´s Republic of China appreciated the support by the African Union, which had played an important role in resolving the problems, and the contributions made by them in this respect. The Sudanese Government had also displayed good will and willingness to resolve the problem and had adopted various measures in this respect. the People´s Republic of China had observed that various parties had already arrived at consensus, and the People´s Republic of China would join this, however, it also considered that this draft resolution could be more balanced, more specifically, the draft resolution should give a positive and objective assessment of the efforts made by the Government of the Sudan. The Chinese Government attached great importance to the situation in Darfur, and was concerned for the humanitarian situation there, and was working actively for an appropriate resolution to the problem, and in order to do so had and would continue to provide assistance to the Sudan and the African Union.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), in a general comment, said Pakistan was pleased to note that consensus had been achieved on the draft resolution. Painful concessions had been made by both the European Union and the Sudan. Yet cooperation had led to consensus, and the Commission did not face another painful vote. The Sudanese Government?s establishment of the national Commission of Inquiry and the commitment to prosecute violators of human rights were welcomed, and would hopefully improve the situation. She also commended the Government?s efforts to engage with the international community, and to work with it. The establishment of the Government of national unity was a positive development.

ELSADIG ALMAGLY (Sudan), in a general comment, thanked all those who had supported the efforts of the Sudan in establishing peace in the region. Following several rounds of negotiations with groups and delegations, it became increasingly evident that the negotiations his delegation went through especially with the European Union delegation was nothing but an exercise of establishing yet a new trend in the Commission by which those delegations tended to transfer the language and phraseology usually utilized in resolutions under agenda item 9 to resolutions under agenda item 19. The delegation of the Sudan had joined the consensus on the adoption of draft resolution L.36 Rev. 3 on the issue of human rights in the Sudan, on the understanding that cooperation was the best means for accomplishing the Commission objective of promoting and protecting human rights in all parts of the world. The Sudan strongly believed that the negotiations with the Europe Union were marred with inflexibility. The expected spirit of cooperation, transparency and good will was evidently lacking in view of the Union tabling a draft resolution under item 9 parallel to the African text, and their insistence to proceed on “two tracks” as such. The pre-determined attitude of condemning, shaming and naming unfortunately prevailed.

The African unified position vis-à-vis human rights issues was the best way to address human rights violations with a solid view to indefinitely preventing those violations and addressing their root causes, including poverty and economic underdevelopment. Dissemination of inaccurate and unverified information was an impediment to efforts genuinely exerted to address human rights issues. Based on such grounds, the Union had chosen to follow the convenience of addressing domestic groups and pleasing public opinion in view of upcoming elections in some of those countries, thereby escaping forward instead of joining the good will to cooperate. The Government of the Sudan was expressing strong reservations regarding the following references injected by the Union in the draft resolution casting doubts on the willingness, partiality and independence of the Sudanese judiciary; approval, acquiescence or otherwise accepting or participation of the Government in acts of violations of human rights; tolerance of impunity; and the linkage between the Government of the Sudan and out law militias.