Press Release
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE
DIALOGUE WITH EXPERTS ON SITUATION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS IN CAMBODIA AND LIBERIA
(Excerpt for Cambodia only)
Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON
DIALOGUE WITH EXPERTS ON SITUATION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS IN CAMBODIA AND LIBERIA
(Excerpt for Cambodia only)
Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON
19 March 2008
Hears Address by Board of Trustees of Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia and the Independent Expert for technical cooperation and advisory services in Liberia. It also heard a statement by the Board of Trustees of the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights.
Yash Ghai, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, said that he discussed three issues in his report: the rule of law in Cambodia, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for trial of Khmer Rouge leaders; and the new electoral law, in view of upcoming elections to the National Assembly later in 2008. The people of Cambodia had made a collective commitment to the rule of law through the Constitution which was freely adopted by the Constituent Assembly. There had been some progress towards the rule of law since the adoption of the Constitution, but it had been slow. The lack of independence of the judiciary and prosecution, although guaranteed by the Constitution, remained a major obstacle to the rule of law.
Cambodia, speaking as a concerned country, expressed Cambodia's disappointment at the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the evaluation of human rights in Cambodia, which did not fairly reflect the reality in the country. The Special Representative had ignored the progress and the efforts made by the Government of Cambodia. The Government also found that many of the cases, related issues and references described in the report were selectively made for sensational purposes and were overly exaggerated. The assessment of the report stating that the "Cambodian judiciary had failed" was not acceptable for the Government nor was it realistic in reflecting the overall context of the country's development process. Over the years, Cambodia's progress towards the creation of a democratic society and its institutions had been consolidated in order to meet the objectives enshrined in the Constitution.
In the interactive dialogue, speakers praised some positive developments in Cambodia, in particular concerning legislation and the judiciary. More steps had to be taken. Delegations expressed support for the mandate of the Special Representative. They expressed concern about the continuing forced evictions, corruption and impunity and hoped that there would be continuing support to Cambodia in capacity building.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Japan, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Malaysia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Sweden.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), in a joint statement with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Document
The Council has before it the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, Yash Ghai (A/HRC/7/42), which examines the extent to which the rule of law, including access to justice, is observed in Cambodia. The main issues analysed in the report relate to the criminal process, focusing on ending impunity, the rights of assembly and movement, and property rights, particularly those of indigenous peoples. It discusses the prospects of the jurisprudence and practice of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (for trials of those most responsible for the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge regime) having a positive impact on the Cambodian legal system. There is also a section on the election system, a key component of democracy, where the rule of law is crucial, and a matter of some urgency as National Assembly elections are due in July 2008. In his conclusions, the Special Rapporteur laments that the Government has no incentives for legal reform, as the international community continues to make large financial contributions regardless of widespread violations of human rights. He recommends that the Government respect the independence of all prosecutors and judges, including those within the Extraordinary Chambers; devote more resources to the justice sector; and protect the rights of indigenous persons and others who, due to illiteracy, customary practices etc. are not familiar with the law or its procedures. Among recommendations to civil society and the international community are that civil society actors continue to provide people with information about human rights, institutions and remedies, and that foreign embassies should urge the Government to stop the most egregious violations.
Presentation of Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Human Rights in Cambodia
YASH GHAI, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, said that he discussed three issues in his report: the rule of law in Cambodia, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for trial of Khmer Rouge leaders; and the new electoral law, in view of upcoming elections to the National Assembly later in 2008. The principal focus of the report was the rule of law, which was particularly important for a State coming out of conflict. The people of Cambodia had made a collective commitment to the rule of law through the Constitution which was freely adopted by the Constituent Assembly. There had been some progress towards the rule of law since the adoption of the Constitution, but it had been slow. Welcome had been the enactment, at long last, of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Penal Procedure Code, and the imminent entry into force of the Civil Code and the Penal Code. However, other laws that had been promised by the Cambodian Government long ago had yet to be adopted. In particular, there had been slow progress in defining the framework to protect and register rights of indigenous peoples to their land, the law against corruption, the law on demonstrations, and – particularly important for the rule of law – the law on the status of the judiciary. The lack of independence of the judiciary and prosecution, although guaranteed by the Constitution, remained a major obstacle to the rule of law. The Government control of the judiciary and prosecution meant effectively that legal guarantees and security associated with the rule of law were largely missing in Cambodia. That led, on the one hand, to the victimization of the poor and the increasing marginalization of disadvantaged communities, and, on the other hand, legal impunity for ministers, officials and friends of government. Other consequences were the high level of corruption and massive violations of land and property rights.
Turning to the Khmer Rouge tribunal, which had been functioning since last year, Mr. Ghai noted that the internal rules had only been agreed after very protracted negotiations which had nearly brought the process to a premature end. The public had taken a keen interest in the trials, and the participation of the community and victims had been secured through the procedure of civil party action, which allowed victims to seek collective and moral reparations. There was much that Cambodian lawyers and judges could learn from the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and he had been impressed at the mode and presentation of legal arguments, and references to international and regional jurisprudence. Nevertheless, there was need to temper optimism with caution: some of the Cambodian judges had been criticized for their past performance, and their independence might be questioned. As they were effectively appointed by the Government, they could also be removed by it. There had also been various irregularities in the appointment of senior administrative staff and inflated salaries, and a United Nations audit team had found numerous infractions of the rules. Yet remedial action had yet to be taken. At best, the impact of the tribunal would be marginal unless the Government took steps to end impunity for gross violations of human rights since 1991. It was particularly ironic that the international community was spending so much effort and money to end the impunity for a few old and broken persons for crimes they committed 30 years ago, while turning a blind eye to the present violations of rights and breaches of the law.
As for elections, Mr. Ghai found that there was a good legislative framework in place. However, serious obstacles remained to achieving the goal of political pluralism through elections. Some of those were connected with deficiencies in democratic governance, human rights, media access and fairness and in the role of civil society. Others were irregularities in the administration of elections that favoured the ruling party. In his report he had drawn attention to rules and features that had seemed to favour the ruling party. Unless those were remedied it was unlikely there would be free and fair elections. Among his principal recommendations made to the Government were that it had to promote and respect the independence of the judiciary and the prosecution, in accordance with the Constitution. It also had to establish an independent institution like an Ombudsperson to receive and investigate complaints of intimidation, corruption or maladministration by Government officials. Just this morning he had been informed that the Government was fully committed to the establishment of a National Human Rights Commission, and had invited civil society groups to form such a commission. That development was heartily welcomed.
Statement by Concerned Country
OM YENTIENG (Cambodia), speaking as a concerned country, expressed Cambodia's disappointment at the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the evaluation of human rights in Cambodia, which did not fairly reflect the reality in the country. The Special Representative had ignored the progress and the efforts made by the Government of Cambodia. The Government also found that many of the cases, related issues and references described in the report were selectively made for sensational purposes and were overly exaggerated. The assessment of the report stating that the "Cambodian judiciary had failed" was not acceptable for the Government nor was it realistic in reflecting the overall context of the country's development process.
Cambodia stated that in the area of legal and judicial reform, the Government had made significant progress by adopting key legislation. For example, the drafting of the Civil Procedure Code and the Penal Procedure Code had been conducted over many years through consultation and support with the Government of France and Japan. Nevertheless, Cambodia acknowledged that the legal system in Cambodia remained one of the bold challenges ahead in furthering the reform agenda of the Royal Government.
Over the years, Cambodia's progress towards the creation of a democratic society and its institutions had been consolidated in order to meet the objectives enshrined in the Constitution. The country was moving on the right track with the successful holding of three national and two communal elections in the recent past. With regards to land reform, the Royal Government was fully aware of the complicated issue of land disputes, which were rooted in the historical, political, social and economic dimensions of Cambodia. In an effort to address this unique issue, the Government had established a National Authority in 2003 to be responsible for these matters. Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen stated that political stability and social security appeared to be the main factors of growing progress in the social and economic development of Cambodia. The Royal Government would therefore continue to take the necessary steps to distribute land and provide land titling to the population, especially the genuinely landless poor living in remote areas.
Cambodia believed that the report should cover the entire picture of recent developments. As such, a substantial analysis of the historical, political, economic and cultural background should be made in a pragmatic and objective manner. No country could claim that it achieved full human rights. The Government would therefore appreciate if balanced judgements, criticisms and recommendations were made in a spirit of honesty and partnership.
Interactive Dialogue on Situation of Human Rights in Cambodia
ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) noted as positive steps the legislation of basic laws such as the Civilian Code and the Penal Code, which Japan would support. The judiciary procedure started with the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia was also a positive development and Japan was of the view that Cambodian lawyers could learn from this process. The elections in Cambodia last July were also noted as positive. Japan hoped that this year's national election would be implemented fairly and in a peaceful manner. There were more things that had to be done. Japan would like to know what concrete proposals did the Special Representative have other than what had been presented in his report.
DOMINIK FRELIH (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union welcomed the efforts of the Special Representative to help the Cambodian authorities build up their legal and judicial system and shared his assessments about the importance of the rule of law in protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. The European Union expressed its full support to the mandate of the Special Representative for human rights in Cambodia as well as for the people of Cambodia in the promotion and protection of human rights. The European Union urged both the Royal Government of Cambodia and the Special Representative to urgently find ways of working together for the wider benefit of the people of Cambodia.
The Special Representative was asked for his opinion as to whether it would be possible to translate the positive experiences and benefits gained from the work of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia into the national judicial system of Cambodia as a whole. He was also asked for more details on the proposal for the international community to set up or facilitate the setting up of an independent expert commission to review, among other things, the functioning of the legal and judicial system of Cambodia and for his views as to how such a panel would help solve the problem. The Special Representative was also asked if he had any indications that the Government of Cambodia might stop forced evictions and if not what measures he would recommend to urgently address this problem.
MOKTAR IDHAM MUSA (Malaysia) said that as a country emerging from a post conflict era, it was encouraging that Cambodia continued to engage itself with other international partners in transforming itself into a vibrant economy and democratic country. The fact that the elections held in April 2007 had taken place without any violence was seen as a sign of growing maturity. It was also heartening to see that the continuing economic growth had been gradually benefiting the general population. The commitments and the efforts made by the Government in improving its legal system were welcomed. Malaysia believed that the primary responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights lay within the States themselves.
BOB LAST (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom remained fully supportive of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and for Mr. Ghai himself. The European Union also continued to support the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Cambodia, which played an important role in protecting and promoting human rights in the country. The United Kingdom was of the view that dialogue on human rights was key and it was keen to see an EU–Cambodia human rights dialogue begin soon. The United Kingdom wished to contribute fully to this process and hoped that the Royal Government of Cambodia would regard a dialogue with the European Union as an opportunity to engage in a constructive and open conversation. The Special Representative was asked how he would assess the current level of his own cooperation and dialogue with the Royal Government of Cambodia and whether he had any constructive suggestions on how this could be enhanced to bring about improvements in the human rights situation in Cambodia.
MICHAEL S. KLECHESKI (United States) said that the Special Representative was working diligently to highlight the various human rights abuses in Cambodia. The United States applauded the stated commitment of the Cambodian Government to ending impunity in its country but expressed its disappointment that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General was not able to meet with a high level Government officials to speak on such issues. The United States strongly encouraged Cambodia to continue its engagement with the United Nations human rights system and encouraged it to pursue reforms aimed at the promotion and protection of human rights.
JAN NORLANDER (Sweden) said that Sweden recognised the improvement of human rights in Cambodia. However, the judicial reform had been postponed too many times. The overriding problem was corruption and impunity. Sweden had provided capacity building support to Cambodia. There was a genuine will from the part of the Government but there was a continuous need for the Special Representative. Sweden trusted that the Government saw the positive aspects of collaborating with the United Nations.
JULIE DE RIVERO, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), in a joint statement with Human Rights Watch, said the Centre and its affiliates fully supported the observations made by the Special Representative and regretted he was not able to meet with Government representatives during his last visit to Cambodia in December 2007. Forced evictions were one of Cambodia's most pervasive human rights problems. It was estimated that some 150,000 lived under the threat of being evicted. The blatant lack of independence of the Cambodian judiciary contributed to a climate of impunity. The Council was urged to adopt a firm resolution to establish a moratorium on all forced evictions.
PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, noted that in the Special Representative's report influential individuals and groups forced communities with legitimate tenure, but without economic or political leverage, from their homes, often without the provision of adequate alternative housing, fair and just compensation or any other procedural safeguards against forced eviction. Amnesty International's report on forced evictions in Cambodia described incidents where communities had been forcibly evicted resulting in homelessness or involuntary resettlement to sites that lacked even minimum essential levels of shelter, water and sanitation. Furthermore, some of the poorest families in resettlement sites lived at risk of being evicted again, having been told by village chiefs that they would have to give up the land because they had not built proper shelters. In one final question to the Special Representative, what could the Government of Cambodia do to ensure that its efforts to improve resettlement sites complied with international human rights standards?
Concluding Remarks by the Special Representative on Human Rights in Cambodia
YASH GHAI, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, in concluding remarks, said that he believed that there was a good prospect that the practices adopted by the extraordinary chambers would have a positive effect. It was important for the Government to respect the independence of these chambers and other institutions should disseminate their jurisprudence. He had consulted with the media on how the press could give prominence to the work of the chambers. The public should be engaged in the discussions about the procedures the chambers were adopting and transparency should be given to their work. He said that he did not know why there was no political will to do so but the Cambodian delegation said that they were committed to conduct reforms. Concerning the Independent Expert Commission for the review of the functioning of the legal system, he said that a body composed of ministry officials, civil society and the local office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could be a good mix of members for it. There were many technical questions about jurisdiction and the reports of such a body would be of value to Cambodia. On the forced evictions, he said that there should be a moratorium on this phenomenon. The current legislation was good but certain gaps had to be filled. The Government should make sure that the police and army were not involved in forced evictions. Concerning the current level of cooperation he had with the Royal Government, he noted that there were some restraints; he had not been able to meet any senior officials during his last visit. However, channels of communication were kept open and he had had a fruitful dialogue with the Cambodian delegation today. It was also important that the local Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Cambodia be maintained.
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia and the Independent Expert for technical cooperation and advisory services in Liberia. It also heard a statement by the Board of Trustees of the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights.
Yash Ghai, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, said that he discussed three issues in his report: the rule of law in Cambodia, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for trial of Khmer Rouge leaders; and the new electoral law, in view of upcoming elections to the National Assembly later in 2008. The people of Cambodia had made a collective commitment to the rule of law through the Constitution which was freely adopted by the Constituent Assembly. There had been some progress towards the rule of law since the adoption of the Constitution, but it had been slow. The lack of independence of the judiciary and prosecution, although guaranteed by the Constitution, remained a major obstacle to the rule of law.
Cambodia, speaking as a concerned country, expressed Cambodia's disappointment at the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the evaluation of human rights in Cambodia, which did not fairly reflect the reality in the country. The Special Representative had ignored the progress and the efforts made by the Government of Cambodia. The Government also found that many of the cases, related issues and references described in the report were selectively made for sensational purposes and were overly exaggerated. The assessment of the report stating that the "Cambodian judiciary had failed" was not acceptable for the Government nor was it realistic in reflecting the overall context of the country's development process. Over the years, Cambodia's progress towards the creation of a democratic society and its institutions had been consolidated in order to meet the objectives enshrined in the Constitution.
In the interactive dialogue, speakers praised some positive developments in Cambodia, in particular concerning legislation and the judiciary. More steps had to be taken. Delegations expressed support for the mandate of the Special Representative. They expressed concern about the continuing forced evictions, corruption and impunity and hoped that there would be continuing support to Cambodia in capacity building.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Japan, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Malaysia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Sweden.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), in a joint statement with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Document
The Council has before it the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, Yash Ghai (A/HRC/7/42), which examines the extent to which the rule of law, including access to justice, is observed in Cambodia. The main issues analysed in the report relate to the criminal process, focusing on ending impunity, the rights of assembly and movement, and property rights, particularly those of indigenous peoples. It discusses the prospects of the jurisprudence and practice of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (for trials of those most responsible for the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge regime) having a positive impact on the Cambodian legal system. There is also a section on the election system, a key component of democracy, where the rule of law is crucial, and a matter of some urgency as National Assembly elections are due in July 2008. In his conclusions, the Special Rapporteur laments that the Government has no incentives for legal reform, as the international community continues to make large financial contributions regardless of widespread violations of human rights. He recommends that the Government respect the independence of all prosecutors and judges, including those within the Extraordinary Chambers; devote more resources to the justice sector; and protect the rights of indigenous persons and others who, due to illiteracy, customary practices etc. are not familiar with the law or its procedures. Among recommendations to civil society and the international community are that civil society actors continue to provide people with information about human rights, institutions and remedies, and that foreign embassies should urge the Government to stop the most egregious violations.
Presentation of Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Human Rights in Cambodia
YASH GHAI, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, said that he discussed three issues in his report: the rule of law in Cambodia, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for trial of Khmer Rouge leaders; and the new electoral law, in view of upcoming elections to the National Assembly later in 2008. The principal focus of the report was the rule of law, which was particularly important for a State coming out of conflict. The people of Cambodia had made a collective commitment to the rule of law through the Constitution which was freely adopted by the Constituent Assembly. There had been some progress towards the rule of law since the adoption of the Constitution, but it had been slow. Welcome had been the enactment, at long last, of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Penal Procedure Code, and the imminent entry into force of the Civil Code and the Penal Code. However, other laws that had been promised by the Cambodian Government long ago had yet to be adopted. In particular, there had been slow progress in defining the framework to protect and register rights of indigenous peoples to their land, the law against corruption, the law on demonstrations, and – particularly important for the rule of law – the law on the status of the judiciary. The lack of independence of the judiciary and prosecution, although guaranteed by the Constitution, remained a major obstacle to the rule of law. The Government control of the judiciary and prosecution meant effectively that legal guarantees and security associated with the rule of law were largely missing in Cambodia. That led, on the one hand, to the victimization of the poor and the increasing marginalization of disadvantaged communities, and, on the other hand, legal impunity for ministers, officials and friends of government. Other consequences were the high level of corruption and massive violations of land and property rights.
Turning to the Khmer Rouge tribunal, which had been functioning since last year, Mr. Ghai noted that the internal rules had only been agreed after very protracted negotiations which had nearly brought the process to a premature end. The public had taken a keen interest in the trials, and the participation of the community and victims had been secured through the procedure of civil party action, which allowed victims to seek collective and moral reparations. There was much that Cambodian lawyers and judges could learn from the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and he had been impressed at the mode and presentation of legal arguments, and references to international and regional jurisprudence. Nevertheless, there was need to temper optimism with caution: some of the Cambodian judges had been criticized for their past performance, and their independence might be questioned. As they were effectively appointed by the Government, they could also be removed by it. There had also been various irregularities in the appointment of senior administrative staff and inflated salaries, and a United Nations audit team had found numerous infractions of the rules. Yet remedial action had yet to be taken. At best, the impact of the tribunal would be marginal unless the Government took steps to end impunity for gross violations of human rights since 1991. It was particularly ironic that the international community was spending so much effort and money to end the impunity for a few old and broken persons for crimes they committed 30 years ago, while turning a blind eye to the present violations of rights and breaches of the law.
As for elections, Mr. Ghai found that there was a good legislative framework in place. However, serious obstacles remained to achieving the goal of political pluralism through elections. Some of those were connected with deficiencies in democratic governance, human rights, media access and fairness and in the role of civil society. Others were irregularities in the administration of elections that favoured the ruling party. In his report he had drawn attention to rules and features that had seemed to favour the ruling party. Unless those were remedied it was unlikely there would be free and fair elections. Among his principal recommendations made to the Government were that it had to promote and respect the independence of the judiciary and the prosecution, in accordance with the Constitution. It also had to establish an independent institution like an Ombudsperson to receive and investigate complaints of intimidation, corruption or maladministration by Government officials. Just this morning he had been informed that the Government was fully committed to the establishment of a National Human Rights Commission, and had invited civil society groups to form such a commission. That development was heartily welcomed.
Statement by Concerned Country
OM YENTIENG (Cambodia), speaking as a concerned country, expressed Cambodia's disappointment at the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the evaluation of human rights in Cambodia, which did not fairly reflect the reality in the country. The Special Representative had ignored the progress and the efforts made by the Government of Cambodia. The Government also found that many of the cases, related issues and references described in the report were selectively made for sensational purposes and were overly exaggerated. The assessment of the report stating that the "Cambodian judiciary had failed" was not acceptable for the Government nor was it realistic in reflecting the overall context of the country's development process.
Cambodia stated that in the area of legal and judicial reform, the Government had made significant progress by adopting key legislation. For example, the drafting of the Civil Procedure Code and the Penal Procedure Code had been conducted over many years through consultation and support with the Government of France and Japan. Nevertheless, Cambodia acknowledged that the legal system in Cambodia remained one of the bold challenges ahead in furthering the reform agenda of the Royal Government.
Over the years, Cambodia's progress towards the creation of a democratic society and its institutions had been consolidated in order to meet the objectives enshrined in the Constitution. The country was moving on the right track with the successful holding of three national and two communal elections in the recent past. With regards to land reform, the Royal Government was fully aware of the complicated issue of land disputes, which were rooted in the historical, political, social and economic dimensions of Cambodia. In an effort to address this unique issue, the Government had established a National Authority in 2003 to be responsible for these matters. Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen stated that political stability and social security appeared to be the main factors of growing progress in the social and economic development of Cambodia. The Royal Government would therefore continue to take the necessary steps to distribute land and provide land titling to the population, especially the genuinely landless poor living in remote areas.
Cambodia believed that the report should cover the entire picture of recent developments. As such, a substantial analysis of the historical, political, economic and cultural background should be made in a pragmatic and objective manner. No country could claim that it achieved full human rights. The Government would therefore appreciate if balanced judgements, criticisms and recommendations were made in a spirit of honesty and partnership.
Interactive Dialogue on Situation of Human Rights in Cambodia
ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) noted as positive steps the legislation of basic laws such as the Civilian Code and the Penal Code, which Japan would support. The judiciary procedure started with the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia was also a positive development and Japan was of the view that Cambodian lawyers could learn from this process. The elections in Cambodia last July were also noted as positive. Japan hoped that this year's national election would be implemented fairly and in a peaceful manner. There were more things that had to be done. Japan would like to know what concrete proposals did the Special Representative have other than what had been presented in his report.
DOMINIK FRELIH (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union welcomed the efforts of the Special Representative to help the Cambodian authorities build up their legal and judicial system and shared his assessments about the importance of the rule of law in protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. The European Union expressed its full support to the mandate of the Special Representative for human rights in Cambodia as well as for the people of Cambodia in the promotion and protection of human rights. The European Union urged both the Royal Government of Cambodia and the Special Representative to urgently find ways of working together for the wider benefit of the people of Cambodia.
The Special Representative was asked for his opinion as to whether it would be possible to translate the positive experiences and benefits gained from the work of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia into the national judicial system of Cambodia as a whole. He was also asked for more details on the proposal for the international community to set up or facilitate the setting up of an independent expert commission to review, among other things, the functioning of the legal and judicial system of Cambodia and for his views as to how such a panel would help solve the problem. The Special Representative was also asked if he had any indications that the Government of Cambodia might stop forced evictions and if not what measures he would recommend to urgently address this problem.
MOKTAR IDHAM MUSA (Malaysia) said that as a country emerging from a post conflict era, it was encouraging that Cambodia continued to engage itself with other international partners in transforming itself into a vibrant economy and democratic country. The fact that the elections held in April 2007 had taken place without any violence was seen as a sign of growing maturity. It was also heartening to see that the continuing economic growth had been gradually benefiting the general population. The commitments and the efforts made by the Government in improving its legal system were welcomed. Malaysia believed that the primary responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights lay within the States themselves.
BOB LAST (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom remained fully supportive of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and for Mr. Ghai himself. The European Union also continued to support the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Cambodia, which played an important role in protecting and promoting human rights in the country. The United Kingdom was of the view that dialogue on human rights was key and it was keen to see an EU–Cambodia human rights dialogue begin soon. The United Kingdom wished to contribute fully to this process and hoped that the Royal Government of Cambodia would regard a dialogue with the European Union as an opportunity to engage in a constructive and open conversation. The Special Representative was asked how he would assess the current level of his own cooperation and dialogue with the Royal Government of Cambodia and whether he had any constructive suggestions on how this could be enhanced to bring about improvements in the human rights situation in Cambodia.
MICHAEL S. KLECHESKI (United States) said that the Special Representative was working diligently to highlight the various human rights abuses in Cambodia. The United States applauded the stated commitment of the Cambodian Government to ending impunity in its country but expressed its disappointment that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General was not able to meet with a high level Government officials to speak on such issues. The United States strongly encouraged Cambodia to continue its engagement with the United Nations human rights system and encouraged it to pursue reforms aimed at the promotion and protection of human rights.
JAN NORLANDER (Sweden) said that Sweden recognised the improvement of human rights in Cambodia. However, the judicial reform had been postponed too many times. The overriding problem was corruption and impunity. Sweden had provided capacity building support to Cambodia. There was a genuine will from the part of the Government but there was a continuous need for the Special Representative. Sweden trusted that the Government saw the positive aspects of collaborating with the United Nations.
JULIE DE RIVERO, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), in a joint statement with Human Rights Watch, said the Centre and its affiliates fully supported the observations made by the Special Representative and regretted he was not able to meet with Government representatives during his last visit to Cambodia in December 2007. Forced evictions were one of Cambodia's most pervasive human rights problems. It was estimated that some 150,000 lived under the threat of being evicted. The blatant lack of independence of the Cambodian judiciary contributed to a climate of impunity. The Council was urged to adopt a firm resolution to establish a moratorium on all forced evictions.
PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, noted that in the Special Representative's report influential individuals and groups forced communities with legitimate tenure, but without economic or political leverage, from their homes, often without the provision of adequate alternative housing, fair and just compensation or any other procedural safeguards against forced eviction. Amnesty International's report on forced evictions in Cambodia described incidents where communities had been forcibly evicted resulting in homelessness or involuntary resettlement to sites that lacked even minimum essential levels of shelter, water and sanitation. Furthermore, some of the poorest families in resettlement sites lived at risk of being evicted again, having been told by village chiefs that they would have to give up the land because they had not built proper shelters. In one final question to the Special Representative, what could the Government of Cambodia do to ensure that its efforts to improve resettlement sites complied with international human rights standards?
Concluding Remarks by the Special Representative on Human Rights in Cambodia
YASH GHAI, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, in concluding remarks, said that he believed that there was a good prospect that the practices adopted by the extraordinary chambers would have a positive effect. It was important for the Government to respect the independence of these chambers and other institutions should disseminate their jurisprudence. He had consulted with the media on how the press could give prominence to the work of the chambers. The public should be engaged in the discussions about the procedures the chambers were adopting and transparency should be given to their work. He said that he did not know why there was no political will to do so but the Cambodian delegation said that they were committed to conduct reforms. Concerning the Independent Expert Commission for the review of the functioning of the legal system, he said that a body composed of ministry officials, civil society and the local office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could be a good mix of members for it. There were many technical questions about jurisdiction and the reports of such a body would be of value to Cambodia. On the forced evictions, he said that there should be a moratorium on this phenomenon. The current legislation was good but certain gaps had to be filled. The Government should make sure that the police and army were not involved in forced evictions. Concerning the current level of cooperation he had with the Royal Government, he noted that there were some restraints; he had not been able to meet any senior officials during his last visit. However, channels of communication were kept open and he had had a fruitful dialogue with the Cambodian delegation today. It was also important that the local Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Cambodia be maintained.
5 comments:
You have no job.
Go to make some policy of swindler.
Take up the NGO of human rights or democracy.
Go to shout in the corruptions and the violations of human rights.
Go to ask for subsidies in Europe and in usa.
And the game is played.
Later if it does not walk, we close shop.
Here is it is simple!
You have not job.
Go to Make some policy business in Cambodia: democracy, human rights, humanitarian organizations.....
And it walks, you will see.
Take up your own NGO, or policy party, There are consultants who will help you to find foreign subsidies.
I understood why, there are many of the NGO humanitarian , the NGO of human rights and political parties in Cambodia.
This blog ki media also makes policy) business.
The four institutes satellites of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) that subsidize the political business are: - The American Center for the solidarity of the workers (American Center for International Labor Solidarity - ACILS). It is presided by John J. Sweeney in his quality of general secretary of the union central afl-cio. - The Center for the international private business (Center for International Private Business - CIPE). It is directed by Thomas J. Donohue in his quality of president of the Room of commerce of the United States, c’est-à-dire of "employer of the employers". [2] - THE international republican Institute (International Republican Institute - IRI). It is presided by the senator John McCain, unfortunate rival of George Bush to the primary ones of 2000 and principal aujourd’hui parliamentary support to the global war to the terrorism. - THE democratic national
Institute for the international matters (National Democratic Institute for International Affairs - NDI). It is presided by the old secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright.
That's right, and their goal is simply to compete with China for influence in SE Asia. However, the US know their chance is very slim, that is why they are not spending as much as they did in Afganistan, Iraq, or middle-east members.
Post a Comment