The Human Rights Blog

U.N. human rights body faces deadline over rules on confronting abuses

2007-06-18 19:09:01 -

GENEVA (AP) - The U.N.'s new human rights watchdog on Monday wound up a tough year of negotiations on how it will confront abuses around the world with China issuing a last-minute demand that would make it more difficult to investigate any government.
As a midnight (2200gmt) deadline approached, it was unclear whether the Human
Rights Council will be any better than the widely criticized body it replaced one year ago.
Formed to improve on the Human Rights Commission, seen in its final years as politically manipulated by China, Russia and others, the council has been attacked for failing in its short existence to address abuses in some of the world's most troubled areas.

Rights campaigners and Western countries bemoan that the council has been dominated by its large African, Arab and Asian blocs, spending much of its time singling out Israel and fending off criticism of countries such as Sudan and Zimbabwe.
The United States _ which is only an observer to the council _ has been skeptical since the body was formed last year.
Much of that time has been devoted to setting the ground rules for how the council will operate. But having opposed investigations in principle, developing countries have now agreed to give the council power to launch investigations into some of the worst offending countries for at least another year.
They also agreed a plan to set up a schedule for a review of each country's performance.
But, just as a compromise package by the council's president, Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, appeared sure of acceptance, the deal was held up by China's last minute attempt to raise the threshold for resolutions criticizing countries over their human rights record.
China says two-thirds of the council's 47 members should be required before an expert is appointed to make a special investigation of alleged rights violations. The current requirement is a simple majority.
Behind the scenes negotiations continued during much of the day to see whether the deadlock could be broken, but by evening it was still unclear what would happen.
Although many developing countries object to investigations of nations with poor human rights records, they make an exception for Israel, the only government criticized so far by the body. Censure by the council brings no sanctions beyond international scrutiny.
De Alba has called for the establishment of a «universal periodic review» mechanism under which all countries will have their rights record examined regularly, so as to remove any accusation of bias.
His proposal also safeguards the annual reports on a number of specific human rights hotspots, including Haiti, Somalia, Congo, Sudan, Myanmar, North Korea and the Palestinian territories.

But it cancels long-standing mandates to investigate Cuba and Belarus.
De Alba is also seeking to preserve time at each council session for dealing with urgent human rights crises as they develop _ instead of having all discussions set in advance. The proposal is being contested by a number of countries, which fear that it could be used to unfairly single out developing nations. European countries, however, have insisted on the greater leeway.
Peggy Hicks, global advocacy director of New York-based Human Rights Watch, said the package put forward by de Alba «signals a weak start to the council's work, but a foundation upon which much more can be built.
«It leaves a lot unresolved for the coming year,» Hicks said.
Associated Press Writers Bradley S. Klapper and Eliane Engeler contributed to this report.

EU threatens to pull out of human rights deal

June 15th, 2007

European Union countries have threatened to pull out of the United Nations Human Rights Council if its developing country majority succeeds in an attempt to prevent scrutiny of the worst abusers.
By Frances Williams in Geneva

The proposals include the abolition of 12 of the 13 independent human rights envoys charged with reporting on specific countries. These include Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Burma, Somalia, Sudan and Uzbekistan. The exception to abolition is Israel.

An EU walk-out would effectively kill the council, created a year ago to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission as part of a sweeping reform package meant to strengthen the UN’s role in promoting and protecting human rights.

Instead, an alliance of mainly African, Asian and Middle Eastern states, which have a built-in majority on the 47-member council, is poised to push through institutional procedures that would make it almost impossible to hold individual countries to account for human rights violations. A decision is due on Monday.

Speaking to the FT after talks earlier this week with EU and other diplomats in Geneva, Richard Howitt, vice-chair of the European parliament’s human rights committee, said the walk-out threat was no bluff.

“If these changes were to be adopted, the council would be significantly worse than the old Human Rights Commission,” he said. “The Europeans would rather see the whole institution collapse than agree to an institution where the perpetrators of human rights abuses can walk away scot-free.”

EU diplomats, requesting anonymity, said they still hoped to negotiate a compromise accord.

Developing nations argue that the system of country envoys is unfair in singling out just a few countries for investigation, that it enshrines the “double standards” of western governments and engenders confrontation rather than co-operation to raise human rights standards.

However, developing nations are insisting on continuing the much-criticised practice of the former Human Rights Commission of singling out violations by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be discussed at every meeting.

The EU is also resisting developing-country proposals to raise the voting threshold for country resolutions from a simple majority to two-thirds, impose strict curbs on investigations by the remaining human rights envoys with thematic mandates, and require the envoys, who are supposed to be independent, to be elected by the council rather than appointed by the chair as now.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

UN Restricts Freedom of Expression

Protecting the belief at the expense of the believers:
Another post 9/11 legacy?

Dr. Agnes Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director

It happened quietly. There was no uprising. No emotional speeches. No angry
debates. But on March 30, 2007, the UN Human Rights Council passed a
resolution that violated international standards on freedom of expression.
A resolution stating that freedom of expression may be restricted "to
ensure respect for religions and convictions" was passed by 24 council
members, with 14 against and 9 abstentions. The resolution was sponsored by
Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The
OIC could have made a wiser choice than to hand over that responsibility to
a country where still people are put to death for blasphemy. The OIC might
have been given pause by China's support - a country hardly distinguished
by its commitment to freedom of religion - or by Russia's, whose treatment
of religious minorities and religious freedom stands as a negative example
to all. But perhaps, the OIC took its comfort in South Africa's or Mexico's
endorsement.

Human rights and freedom of expression activists, on the other hand, can
only be left wondering . . . Can the human rights destruction waged by
President Bush's version of America, justify undermining the human right
that, ultimately, is among the most effective recourse and instruments
against these abuses - the right to freedom of expression?

Since 9/11, as too often this newsletter has had to report, restrictions on
and violations of universal human rights have multiplied all over the
world, justified on the grounds of national security. At the same time
there is evidence of growing intolerance and burgeoning discrimination
within established democracies, especially vis-à-vis Muslims whether as
residents or foreigners. There is little doubt that a number of governments
have fed this intolerance through policies and laws targeting explicitly or
implicitly Muslims.

In this environment, a resolution reminding the international community of
its obligations under article 20 of the UDHR, particularly as far as
Muslims are concerned, could have been important and timely. The proponents
of the resolution could have insisted on strengthening the protection of
all people's and each individuals' rights to life, equality, and justice
and on the obligations of all states to protect minorities, including
religious minorities, against acts of hatred, oppression, violence. But
instead, states chose to focus their efforts on protecting religion itself:
NOT the believers and NOT freedom of religion.

For example, paragraph 10 of the resolution distorts blatantly Article
19(3) of the ICCPR, by quoting largely from it but then adding, without
acknowledgment a new "respect for religions and convictions" ("le respect
des religions et des convictions") to the otherwise carefully defined
grounds that may justify a restriction on freedom of expression. The
resolution's frequent use of the term 'defamation' also suggests wider
restrictions are being sought than are actually permitted under
international law. In particular, while certain restrictions on speech are
allowed to protect reputation of individuals these are not allowed in
respect to religions, which cannot be said to have a "reputation" as such
and thus cannot be said, under international law, to have been defamed.
While international law does not entirely rule out restrictions on speech
to protect religion, it very carefully circumscribes the scope of such
restrictions.

Religious believers have a right not to be discriminated against on the
basis of their beliefs, but they cannot expect their religion to be set
free from criticism, even in its harshest or most sarcastic form. The
equality of all ideas and convictions before the law and the right to
debate them freely is the keystone of democracy. As international human
rights courts have stressed, freedom of expression is applicable not only
to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received but also to those
that may offend, shock or disturb any or all of us.

In many ways, the Human Rights Council resolution is in keeping with a
trend that has resurfaced with great strength in our post 9/11 world:
protecting the belief at the expense of the believers, of all believers.

ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around
the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It
takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which guarantees free speech.

For further information, contact Agnes Callamard, tel: +44 20 7278 9292,
e-mail: agnes@article19.org, or ARTICLE 19, 6-8 Amwell Street, London, EC1R
1UQ, U.K., tel: +44 20 7278 9292, fax: +44 20 7278 7660, e-mail:
info@article19.org, Internet: http://www.article19.org

Should the U.N. criticize countries on human rights issues?

The same day the a U.N. General Assembly human rights committee voted to discourage U.N. human rights bodies from condemning any country on human rights, it voted to criticize North Korea for torture, public executions and miserable prison conditions. Meanwhile, the General Assembly is considering a resolution to condemn Israel for its war crimes in Gaza.

The non-criticizing measure was sponsored by Belarus and Uzbekistan - two countries with dismal human rights records - and was approved by 77 countries, it now goes to the General Assembly where it seems likely to pass.

The political schizophrenia of the U.N. is to be expected - it is, after all, a congregation of 192 politically-minded countries - but such blatant hypocrisy can't but diminish the moral authority of the U.N. Who can take it seriously when it can't even take itself seriously?

U.N. Panel Votes on Human Rights Measure

By EDITH M. LEDERER
The Associated Press
Friday, November 17, 2006; 5:50 AM

UNITED NATIONS -- A U.N. General Assembly committee has voted to discourage U.N. human rights bodies from condemning any country on human rights, despite objections to the measure from the U.S. and many European countries.

The draft resolution _ sponsored by Belarus and Uzbekistan, both of which have been accused of serious human rights abuses _ was approved by the assembly's human rights committee on a 77-63 vote, with 26 abstentions. It now goes to the full 192-member General Assembly for a final vote.

Its key provision stresses the need to avoid "country-specific resolutions on the situation of human rights" and the "exploitation of human rights for political purposes."

Before Thursday's vote, Belarus said the idea for a resolution opposing the targeting of specific countries over their human rights record was approved at the September summit of the 117-nation Nonaligned Movement.

American officials underscored that Belarus and Uzbekistan had both been long-term abusers of human rights. The U.S. also said that resolutions targeting specific countries had given hope to the oppressed and encouraged reform by some governments.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters that the resolution reflected "a real problem with the U.N. human rights machinery."

The new Human Rights Council in Geneva, which earlier this year replaced the discredited Human Rights Commission, has met three times to pass resolutions condemning Israel but hasn't dealt with human rights in Myanmar, North Korea or Sudan, Bolton said.

---

U.N. assembly panel rebukes N. Korea on human rights
Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:59pm ET20
By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A U.N. General Assembly panel rebuked North Korea on Friday for gross human rights abuses, with South Korea voting in favor for the first time and Pyongyang calling the measure a U.S. "political plot."

A draft resolution criticizing North Korea for torture, public executions and miserable prison conditions, was passed by a vote of 91-21, with 60 abstentions.

The balloting took place in a General Assembly committee that handles human rights and includes all U.N. members, thereby assuring its official adoption by the full assembly. Last year, the assembly approved a similar resolution by a vote if 88-21, with 60 abstentions.

Fearful of antagonizing its heavily armed and impoverished neighbor, Seoul previously abstained or refrained from participating in votes in various U.N. bodies on human rights in the North. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon will become the next U.N. secretary-general on January 1.

Neighboring China opposed the measure, saying pressure and accusations would not achieve results.

The resolution criticizes North Korea for a wide variety of abuses, such as "torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," arbitrary detention, the death penalty for political reasons and the extensive use of forced labor as well as deplorable conditions in prison camps.

North Korea's deputy U.N. ambassador, Kim Chang Guk, called the measure, initiated by the European Union, a "political plot of the United States and its satellite countries as well as an illegal document."

He said the United States had no right to invade Iraq, establish secret prison camps, torture detainees, discriminate against other races and migrants and support Israel's bombing of Lebanon last summer.

"Where on earth can we find more outrageous, barbarous and worst violations of human rights than this?" Kim asked.

South Korea's U.N. ambassador, Choi Young-jin, called for active and "practical steps" to improve human rights in the North and urged Pyongyang to allow in the U.N. investigator.

'MODERN-DAY GULAG'

No nation defended North Korea's rights record. But Cuba, Venezuela, Indonesia, Egypt and Syria, which voted "no," argued against any country-specific resolution adopted in the General Assembly. Among the 60 abstentions, Singapore and Costa Rica used a similar argument.

The panel's resolution also urges nations, without mentioning China by name, not to forcibly return refugees as most are then subject to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" or executed when they return.

It expresses very serious concerns over the abduction of foreigners, many from Japan and South Korea, kidnapped by the North and not heard from for decades. It condemns Pyongyang for putting the mentally ill or disabled into deplorable camps and asks U.N. Secretary-General Annan to file a report.

Author Elie Wiesel, former Czech President Vaclav Havel and former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik came to the United Nations on Thursday to boost a report they had written on Pyongyang's rights abuses.

They urged the U.N. Security Council to deal with more than Pyongyang's nuclear threat, saying North Korea posed a threat to international peace because of refugee outflows and suspected drug trafficking and counterfeiting.

Their report estimated North Korea imprisoned "upwards of 200,000 people in its modern-day gulag" and that double that number have died in its prison network over 30 years

---

The Associated Press 17 November 2006

UN Considers Resolution Condemning Israeli Gaza Attacks

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 17 (AP) -- The U.N. General Assembly held
an emergency special session Friday to consider a draft resolution condemning Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip. Israel's ambassador blasted the session as a "farce" and a "circus."

The Arab League asked for the session after the U.S. vetoed a similar, but watered-down U.N. Security Council draft resolution against Israel's actions last weekend - its second veto on the matter this year.

The resolution is certain to be approved because there are no vetoes
in the 192-member General Assembly. But assembly resolutions are non-binding, and are considered more a reflection of international opinion.

The Palestinian U.N. observer, Riyad Mansour, said Friday that Israel
had committed war crimes against Palestinian civilians in the nearly five-month offensive, which Israel says is aimed at stopping militants from firing rockets from Gaza into its territory.

Mansour said 82 Palestinians were killed during a six-day Israeli
assault on the town of Beit Hanoun this month, including 19 members of an extended family who died in an early-morning artillery attack on Nov. 8.

"What is required is serious and firm action in response to these crimes, especially the massacre in Beit Hanoun, as well as putting an end to this rampant Israeli campaign, which intends to destroy an entire people," Mansour told the General Assembly.

Israel has expressed regret for the loss of civilian life in Beit Hanoun, and blamed the deaths on a technical failure in the fire control system
of an artillery battery.

On Friday, Israel's U.N. Ambassador Dan Gillerman lashed back at the Palestinians, accusing them of turning the Gaza Strip into a launching pad for terrorist attacks against Israel, allowing the firing of more than 1,000 rockets in the last year.

He said Israel has been forced to defend itself because the Hamas-led government has not acceded to international demands to renounce violence, recognize Israel and honor past peace agreements with the Jewish state.

"The debate this morning ... offers the Hamas government no incentive
to renounce their ways of terror," he said. "They have a monopoly on
this assembly's attention and sympathy. Without forcing the Palestinians to shoulder their responsibilities, there will be no change."

Later at a news conference, he called the General Assembly session
a "circus" and a "farce," and dismissed the draft resolution for
omitting any reference to Hamas.

Gillerman also targeted Syria and Iran for criticism in his remarks, saying the two countries were fueling terrorism and extremism in
the Middle East. He said Tehran had just given $120 million to the
cash-strapped Hamas government, without providing any details.

"Who knows what they will use that money for? The international community must put a stop to their genocidal regimes," he said.

In addition, Gillerman accused the moderate Arab country of Qatar
of forcing a quick vote on the Security Council draft resolution
last Saturday because it was afraid "a mega-terror attack was being planned and they didn't want it to spoil their game." Qatar is the only Arab member of the Security Council.

Qatar's U.N. Ambassador Nassir Al-Nasser denied there was any reason behind the timing of Saturday's vote, saying the Arab League had only wanted the Security Council to act on the draft resolution as quickly
as possible.

Israel has been conducting an offensive in the Gaza Strip since
an Israeli soldier was kidnapped in a cross-border raid on June 25.
Its latest military operation in Beit Hanoun ended last week without major achievements, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has signaled
there are no immediate plans to launch more assaults.

The draft resolution being considered by the General Assembly condemns the Israeli offensive, in particular the Beit Hanoun killings, and demands Israel immediately halt its hostilities and pull its troops out of the Gaza Strip. It also requests that the secretary-general establish a fact-finding mission on the Beit Hanoun incident and calls on the international community to take steps to restart the peace process.

It is significantly stronger than the Security Council draft resolution that failed last week, which included a section demanding the Palestinian Authority take immediate action to bring an end to violence, including
the firing of rockets into Israel.

In vetoing that resolution, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the wording was "biased against Israel and politically motivated."

Bangladesh Unsuitable for the UN Human Rights Council

The Asian Human Rights Coalition has written to the president of the UN Human Rights Council to express how unsuitable the addition of Bangladesh would be to the Council. Bangladesh citizens are subject to arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings by police and special paramilitary units. There is no law barring torture and there is no independent judiciary.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 7, 2006
AHRC-OL-040-2006

An Open Letter to the UN Human Rights Council by the Asian Human Rights Commission

Luis Alfonso de Alba
President
UN Human Rights Council
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND

Fax: +41 22 917 9012

Dear Mr de Alba

BANGLADESH: Failure to stop extrajudicial killings makes Bangladesh unsuitable for UN Human Rights Council

This is the third of five open letters that the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) feels compelled to write to the UN Human Rights Council about the horrible human rights situation in Bangladesh, and its causes. We are doing this as we are deeply concerned for the integrity and credibility of the Council if Bangladesh is permitted to sit as a member for the coming three years as intended.

In our first letter we pointed to the failure of the Government of Bangladesh to separate the judiciary and executive, despite 15 years of promises to do so, and the consequent denial of redress for victims of rights abuses there. In our second letter we took up the failure of the government to criminalise torture, and the unnecessary suffering that this imposes upon the many victims of cruel and inhuman treatment and torture by the police and other security forces in Bangladesh.

In our third letter we wish to raise the unabated extrajudicial killings committed by the police and special paramilitary units throughout Bangladesh, and the practice of granting impunity to state officers who commit murder.

As noted in our previous letter, the Government of Bangladesh has bragged to the UN about its joining many international human rights treaties. Among these, the first on its list is the Convenant on Civil and Political Rights. Among the rights enshrined in the Covenant, none is more valuable than the right to life: and yet, in recent years the state security forces in Bangladesh have spread terror throughout the country by murdering an ever-increasing number of people without fear of consequences. The government for its part has sanctioned, enabled and encouraged these killings apparently without fear of sanction from the international community.

In 2002 the Government of Bangladesh launched the notorious Operation Clean Heart. Ostensibly to crackdown on crime, the operation resulted in the arrest of thousands of poor and innocent persons, and the deaths of many in a term that has since become chillingly familiar to people throughout the country: "crossfire". This term is used to describe an extrajudicial killing which is organised by the police or other officers to look like an encounter killing with armed bandits or other persons. In 2003, the government granted absolute impunity to all of the police and other state agents responsible for killings, assaults, illegal arrests throughout Clean Heart: an action that was condemned by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. By 2004, the operation had spawned a body of paramilitary units called Rapid Action Battalions, comprised of both police and soldiers. The name "Rapid Action Battalion" is now synonymous with "crossfire": these units are deployed across the country without any other agenda than to do the bidding of their political masters. They kill, maim, illegally detain and spread fear wherever they go.

Take the case of Harun-ur-Rashid and Aslam Hossain, who were arrested by the Rapid Action Battalion in Dhaka on 14 July 2006. They were handed over to another unit in Jessore and on July 16 were killed in "crossfire". In a familiar story, the unit responsible said that the two men had admitted to keeping illegal arms at places outside the town. In the early morning of July 16 they had taken the two men to two different places to obtain two caches of weapons where in two different incidents they had had two encounters with the two men's associates, twice had returned fire and each of the victims had died in turn when he attempted to flee. Other sources have alleged that the battalion had been bargaining with the relatives of the two men in exchange for their lives but the families had been unable or unwilling to produce enough money and so they were killed.

Multitudes have been murdered, without possibility of complaint or redress, in the same pattern: arrest, obtain "information" about illegal arms or other wrongdoing at a certain location; go to the place; meet bandits or insurgents; victim flees and happens to be shot dead in crossfire. Some token illegal weapons or other evidence is "retrieved" to prove the case. End of story.

The Rapid Action Battalions are in effect an admission by the Government of Bangladesh that under its administration, the rule of law--to whatever extent it once existed--has collapsed. But in response, rather than try to probe the causes for that collapse and seriously address the institutional problems one at a time, the state has instead chosen to respond to lawlessness with lawlessness. The consequence is further death and distress for the people of Bangladesh, and further decline in public confidence or expectations in the rule of law and human rights there.

The AHRC seriously doubts that the Government of Bangladesh has any interest to uphold the right to life as it has committed to do in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Had it any intention to do so, it would not have indemnified the perpetrators of gross abuses in 2002 from wrongdoing. It also would not have followed the bloody Clean Heart operation with the Rapid Action Battalions, which have spread confusion and mayhem to all corners of the country and have tipped off a killing contest with the regular armed police. As a result, untold numbers of victims like Harun-ur-Rashid and Aslam Hossain are daily being slain while their families, rather than struggling for justice, are cowed and reluctant to complain about their deaths, knowing the power of the perpetrators and the patent inability of the executive-controlled judiciary to afford them any redress.

The Government of Bangladesh has pledged that it would "remain prepared to be reviewed under the universal periodic review mechanism during its tenure in the Council". The Asian Human Rights Commission for a third time urges the Council to call on that pledge, and review the status of Bangladesh as a member of the Council as soon as the means is established to do so. The failure of the government to address the wanton extrajudicial killings that it has provoked is inexcusable. It is daily causing misery to the people of Bangladesh and further eroding their confidence in all aspects of administration and justice in their country. It is the characteristic not of a country that deserves to be lauded for its human rights commitments but rather the characteristic of country that is a human rights charlatan. The people of Bangladesh know this. It is time that the international community woke up to the same truth.

I request that your office transmit this letter to all members of the Council for their consideration.

Yours sincerely

Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

The UN should grant consultative status to LGBT NGOs

The Observatory calls upon the ECOSOC to grant consultative status to several LGBT NGOs

Geneva-Paris, July 20, 2006. As the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will consider tomorrow the applications for consultative status of NGOs addressing human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender, the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), in the framework of their joint programme, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, call upon ECOSOC to consider the application of these NGOs on their merits.

On January 23, 2006, the ECOSOC Committee on NGOs rejected the applications for consultative status of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) and the Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians (Landsforeningen for B�sser og Lesbiske - LBL), without providing the organisations with reasons for the refusal (See Observatory Open Letter to the ECOSOC President, dated May 26, 2006).

Moreover, on May 16 and 17, 2006, the NGO Committee also dismissed the application for consultative status of two other organisations advancing human rights for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people, namely the Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany (Lesben- und Schwulenverband in Deutschland - LSVD) and ILGA-Europe.

On May 12, 2006, the Committee left pending the application of the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Quebec (Coalition Gaie et Lesbienne du Qu�bec). On May 18, 2006, a final deferral concerned the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Quebec, and was a result of the NGO�s having provided answers only in French.

As no ground was given for the rejection of the first four applications, the Observatory fears that these rejections, as well as the deferral of the application of the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Quebec, might have been motivated by the work of those NGOs in favour of homosexual rights.

Yet, these issues are of legitimate concern for the United Nations. Indeed, numerous Special Procedures have documented violations of the human rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people. Treaty bodies, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee against Torture, the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women have all addressed sexual orientation and gender identity issues within their mandates. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has also highlighted rights violations on these grounds in her country reports and public statements.

At the September 2006 session of the UN Human Rights Council, all Special Procedures will be presenting their reports, many of which document human rights violations based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. The UN therefore needs to hear from NGOs addressing these issues.

Questions of NGO access and participation are of particular concern during this time of UN transition and reform. ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 on the consultative relationship between the United Nations and NGOs explicitly confirms the need to take into account the full diversity of NGOs. It sets out that NGOs shall be granted consultative status if they (a) are concerned with matters falling within the competence of ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies, (b) have aims and purposes that are in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and (c) undertake to support the work of the United Nations and to promote knowledge of its principles and activities. The applicant NGOs fulfil these criteria, and are active in fields such as health, gender, development and human rights.

The Observatory recalls the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the General Assembly of United Nations on December, 9, 1998, in particular its article 1 that states that �Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels�, and its preamble, in which the General Assembly stressed �that all members of the international community shall fulfil, jointly and separately, their solemn obligation to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of any kind, including distinctions based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status�, reaffirmed �the particular importance of achieving international cooperation to fulfil this obligation according to the Charter�, and reiterated �that all human rights and fundamental freedoms are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and should be promoted and implemented in a fair and equitable manner [�]�.

As a consequence, the Observatory calls upon ECOSOC to consider the applications of ILGA, LBL, ILGA-Europe and LSVD on their merits, in accordance with usual practice, as well as to give full and fair consideration to the pending application of the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Quebec.

For more information, please contact:
OMCT: 00 41 22 809 49 39
FIDH: 00 33 1 43 55 25 18

Derechos Human Rights is a member of the OMCT

Declaration on Indigenous People's Rights Signed

On June 29th the new UN Human Rights Council approved the "Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples." Thirty of the states members of the council voted for it, albeit some with understandings or reservations. A number of countries abstained, while Canada and Russia voted against it. Canada said it had problems with provisions on land, territories and resources which were unclear and open to interpretation, and provisions on land claims, the concept of "free, prior and informed consent" and issues relating to self-government provisions. Philippino media speculated that Canada's surprising position may be related to the Canadian company TVI Resource Development Philippines Inc. which has been accused of numerous human rights violations (see below). Inuit activists, meanwhile, think the Canadian government is reluctant to give Indigenous Communities more power.

You can read the Declaration here

http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl104354.htm

MANILA, JULY 3, 2006 (STAR) By Artemio Dumlao - After more than 20 years in the pipeline, the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was finally approved on June 29.

With 30 states voting in favor and only Canada and Russia against it, the declaration marks a milestone in the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples around the world and brings to an end indigenous peoples� long struggle for self-determination.

Under the declaration indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.

It also says that indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

The declaration recognizes and protects the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and, by virtue of that right, they may freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The declaration also states that indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the state.

Those who voted for the resolution�s adoption were Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Zambia.

Those who voted against were Canada and the Russian Federation.

Twelve nations, namely the Philippines, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Ghana, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia, Ukraine, abstained from voting.

The nations of Djibouti, Gabon and Mali were absent when the resolution was voted upon.

Quoting some of the explanations of their vote for the declaration, Guatemalan Carla Rodriguez Mancia said, "enough time had gone during the last 20 years in drafting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration would be a historical achievement in the efforts of the international community towards the rights of the indigenous peoples."

"Adopting the draft declaration would help the indigenous peoples. Guatemala called on all states to adopt the draft by consensus," Mancia said.

Mexican Xochiti Galvez said they had finally closed the circle. They were at a historic point in time where the UN member-states acknowledged the fundamental rights of the world�s indigenous peoples.

"Mexico was prepared to support the adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples," Galvez said. "Where there was a collective political will, they could achieve a great deal. That had been seen in the Working Group, where the spirit of cooperation and dialogue had prevailed."

Mexico, he said, asked those countries that still had misgivings to vote favorably on this resolution: "It was important for the Human Rights Council to give a clear signal to indigenous peoples throughout the world that it was working to promote and protect their human rights."

Indian representative Ajai Malhotra explained India�s vote: "India had consistently favored the rights of indigenous peoples, and had worked for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The text before the Council was the result of 11 years of hard work. The text did not contain a definition of (the term) �indigenous.�"

The entire population of India was considered indigenous, Malhotra added. "With regards to the right to self-determination, this was understood to apply only to peoples under foreign domination, and not to a nation of indigenous persons. With this understanding, India was ready to support the proposal for the adoption of the draft declaration, and would vote in its favor."

The United Kingdom�s Nicholas Thorne said his country welcomed the declaration as "an important tool to enhance the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples."

The UK, Thorne said, felt its concerns had been addressed in negotiations, as reflected in the declaration, and it fully supported the provisions of the declaration that recognized the rights of indigenous peoples under international law, on an equal footing with all.

The UK, however, did not accept the concept of indigenous peoples� collective rights in international law, Thorne said.

According to him, the UK understood the right of self-determination as set out in the declaration as one which was to be exercised within the territory of a state and "which was not designed to impact in any way on the territorial integrity of states."

The UK position on the matter is that the declaration was not legally binding and that the citizens of the UK and its territories overseas do not fall within the scope of the declaration, he added.

Paul Meyer of Canada explained his regret over their negative vote, though he acknowledged the important role that Canada played in the process of the drafting of the declaration.

Meyer said the draft declaration did not receive the necessary support, even though Canada, some other countries and a few indigenous peoples� representatives noted in their statements difficulties with a process where all parties had not discussed proposed language on several key issues.

He added that Canada had worked for a declaration that would promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every indigenous person without discrimination and recognized the collective rights of indigenous peoples around the world.

Canada had a long and proud tradition of not only supporting but also actively advocating aboriginal and treaty rights at home and was fully committed to working internationally on indigenous issues, he added.

--------------

Comments by signatory nations (from http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/BE82C77003776B9EC125719C005D5994?OpenDocument)

Action on Resolution on Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples

In a resolution (A/HRC/1/L.3), entitled Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994, adopted after a roll-call vote by thirty in favour, two against, and twelve abstentions, the Human Rights Council adopts the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as proposed by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994 in annex I to the report of the Working Group on its eleventh session (E/CN.4/2006/79); recommends to the General Assembly that it adopt the following draft resolution:

The General Assembly, expresses its appreciation to the Council for the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and adopts the Declaration as contained in the annex to Council resolution 2006/�.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (30):
Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switerzland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Zambia.

Against (2):
Canada, Russian Federation.

Abstentions (12):
Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Ghana, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Tunisia, Ukraine.

Absent (3):
Djibouti, Gabon, Mali.

CARLA RODRIGUEZ MANCIA (Guatemala), in a general comment, said enough time had gone during the last 20 years in drafting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration would be a historical achievement in the efforts of the international community towards the rights of the indigenous peoples. The adopting the draft declaration would help the indigenous peoples. Guatemala called on all States to adopt the draft by consensus.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland), in a general comment, said the text was a compromise one which met with agreement with most of the delegations and most of the representatives of indigenous groups. Switzerland would have wished for the text to be adopted by consensus, but if this was not the case, it would vote in favour of the text.

XOCHITI GALVEZ (Mexico), in a general comment, said that they had finally closed the circle. They were at an historic point in time, finally acknowledging the fundamental rights of the world�s indigenous peoples. Mexico was prepared to support the adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Where there was a collective political will, they could achieve a great deal. That had been seen in the Working Group, where the spirit of cooperation and dialogue had prevailed.

Mexico exhorted those countries that still had misgivings to vote favourably on this resolution. It was important for the Human Rights Council to give a clear signal to indigenous peoples throughout the world that it was working to promote and protect their human rights.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, acknowledged the important role that Canada, as well as other indigenous organizations, had played in the process of the drafting of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The proposal did not receive the necessary support, even though Canada, some other countries and a few indigenous representatives noted in their statements difficulties with a process where all parties had not discussed proposed language on several key issues. Canada had worked for a declaration that would promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every indigenous person without discrimination and recognized the collective rights of indigenous peoples around the world. Canada had a long and proud tradition of not only supporting but also actively advocating Aboriginal and treaty rights at home and was fully committed to working internationally on indigenous issues. Regrettably, however, Canada would vote against the resolution.

AJAI MALHOTRA (India), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said India had consistently favoured the rights of indigenous peoples, and had worked for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The text before the Council was the result of 11 years of hard work. The text did not contain a definition of �indigenous�. The entire population of India was considered to be indigenous. With regards to the right to self-determination, this was understood to apply only to peoples under foreign domination, and not to a nation of indigenous persons. With this understanding, India was ready to support the proposal for the adoption of the draft Declaration, and would vote in its favour.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Indonesia had been following closely over 11 years the negotiations on this draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Human Rights Council, as a new body, had to address such important issues as this draft declaration. Therefore Indonesia supported the adoption of the draft declaration to protect and support the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide. Indonesia was a multicultural nation that did not discriminate against its population on any grounds. All of Indonesia�s citizens enjoyed the right to equal treatment before the law.

TOUFIQ ALI (Bangladesh), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the text did not follow the usual procedure before it was put as a final text for adoption. Bangladesh was a party to the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Civil and Political Rights and was making all efforts to implement them. Until some of the articles in the text were not amended, Bangladesh would abstain from the voting.

ALEXEY AKZHIGITOV (Russian Federation), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said great importance was given to defending the rights of indigenous peoples. The adoption by consensus of the draft would constitute a major step forward in ensuring the powers of indigenous peoples. Many provisions of the draft were acceptable. The draft should be effective and an authoritative international document. To date, the proposed text which had been submitted to the Council did not represent all of these characteristics, as the text did not enjoy genuine consensus, and had not been agreed on by all sides. Its adoption would set a negative precedent, and in this context Russia could not support the draft declaration in this form and in the procedure that had been used, and would vote against it. However, this did not mean that Russia was against a continuation of a discussion of the issue, and would work for international cooperation in the protection of the rights of indigenous persons.

SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that China was in favour of the draft resolution under review on a draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The adoption of this United Nations instrument would be done after extensive consideration, China noted. China regretted that this instrument would have to be adopted by voting, at this very early stage of the work of the Human Rights Council. China hoped that in the future work of the Council members would conduct their work in a constructive spirit of cooperation.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Government of the Philippines was fully committed to safeguarding and promoting the rights of its indigenous peoples. Because of that commitment, the Government had enacted a national indigenous people�s rights act and had two autonomous regions in the country. If the draft resolution on the declaration were to be put for a vote, the delegation of the Philippines would abstain.

CLODOALDO HUGUENEY (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Brazil had voted for the resolution, and believed that the decision was a major achievement which augured well for the Council�s work, and commended States and indigenous peoples who had made great efforts to ensure this memorable result. The Declaration asserted the importance of the indigenous peoples in societies, acknowledged diversity as a richness of countries, and aligned the past and present contribution of indigenous peoples to States. Brazil recognised the invaluable contribution of indigenous peoples to the political, economic, social, cultural and spiritual development of its society. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would be of utmost importance to fight discrimination against indigenous peoples and distortion created by centuries of discrimination. It would help to create societal harmony. Brazil had no doubt that the declaration was a reaffirmation of the commitment of the international community to ensure the enjoyment of indigenous peoples of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to respect the value of their indigenous cultures and identity.

IDRISS JAZA�RY (Algeria), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that he wanted it to be noted that he had joined in the standing ovation that had marked the adoption of this declaration by the Council. Unfortunately, Algeria had had to abstain. He would like to plead for this declaration to have the maximum number of positive votes. In fact, Algeria had numerous indigenous peoples and had hoped the declaration would have been adopted unanimously, in which case it would have been able to join the consensus. Unfortunately the declaration was in conflict with the Constitution of Algeria, which contained a provision on political parties that stipulated they could not be on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. For that reason Algeria could not vote in favour.

HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the delegation of Japan had been participating in the Working Group for the drafting of the Declaration on the Rights Indigenous People for the last 12 years and it had voted in favour of the draft resolution. The Government would interpret the declaration that the meaning of autonomy that it might not affect the territorial integration of State sovereignty. Further, the Government did not recognize collective rights.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Argentina had abstained, and regretted it had not been able to join the favourable vote. Despite Argentina�s clear adhesion to the rights of indigenous peoples, Argentina regretted the lack of time to deal with certain provisions of the declaration, which were of particular importance, namely the process of self-determination and territorial integrity. Argentina hoped that the situation would be rectified in the General Assembly, and Argentina would be able to vote in favour there, especially as this was one of the most important and legitimate topics to be dealt with by the international community.

VOLODYMYR VASSYLENKO (Ukraine), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Ukraine had always supported the elaboration of an international instrument for the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. The protection of indigenous peoples was one of the core rules of Ukrainian law. For that reason, Ukraine had been striving to elaborate an instrument that would provide the proper balance between the rights of indigenous peoples and those of sovereign States.

Ukraine said that the document just adopted by the Council contained important protections for the rights of indigenous peoples, but it also contained important flaws. It purported to define a right of self-determination for indigenous peoples. For that reason, and because it failed to fulfil the need to preserve the territorial and political integrity of sovereign States, Ukraine could not support it. Ukraine regretted that the text had been adopted without allowing Member States to improve the document so that it could reach consensus.

NARSINGHEN HAMTYRAGEN (Mauritius), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the declaration would consolidate the existing universal human rights. It was expected that all States would contribute in resolving the difficulties of indigenous peoples. There was a fear that some self-designated indigenous groups might threaten the sovereignty of a State by following a wrong interpretation of the declaration. The concept of autonomy should not be interpreted to jeopardize the sovereignty of a State.

ANDREAS PFAFFERNOSCHKE (Germany), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said along with other efforts undertaken during the past decade to improve the situation of indigenous peoples throughout the world, Germany had closely monitored the development of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The adoption of the document proved that the new Council was able to produce concrete results for the benefit of indigenous peoples, who were entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as everybody else. The respect and application of existing binding international human rights law remained essential. The primary importance of individual human rights protection was asserted in the Declaration. Germany understood the right to self-determination set out in the Declaration to be a new right, specific to indigenous peoples, and it could not influence the territorial integrity of a State. The Declaration, being an important instrument to enhance the rights of indigenous peoples was non-legally binding. Germany�s own national minorities and ethnic groups, which enjoyed protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms, did not fall under the scope of the Declaration.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that the United Kingdom welcomed the declaration as an important tool to enhance the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, and regretted that the declaration had had to come to a vote. The United Kingdom felt that its concerns had been addressed in negotiations, as reflected in the declaration, and it fully supported the provisions of the declaration that recognized the rights of indigenous peoples under international law, on an equal footing with all.
The United Kingdom observed that it did not accept the concept of collective rights in international law. The United Kingdom clarified that it understood the right of self-determination as set out in the declaration as one which was to be exercised within the territory of a State and which was not designed to impact in any way on the territorial integrity of States. The United Kingdom emphasized that the declaration was not legally binding and that the citizens of the United Kingdom and its territories overseas did not fall within the scope of the declaration.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the delegation of Morocco had abstained during the vote. The delegation of Morocco would have preferred that the resolution be adopted by consensus so that Morocco could have joined. Morocco was making progress in building its democratic system and in strengthening the human rights of its people.

ADELE WILDSCHUT of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus, said on the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that the League of Nations had not acted on the demands of the envoys of the Maoris and others, and the roots of the discrimination went back to the 1970s, a time when the international community had been prompted to pay attention to the indigenous peoples in the Americas. The repeated demands for the distinction of the distinct status of the indigenous peoples had at last been addressed, after substantive debate with positions that had been consistent with international law. The international community had been educated as to the status, rights, and lives of indigenous peoples in every corner of the world. The true legacy of the declaration would be the way in which the lives of the indigenous peoples would be affected on a daily basis. It was the implementation of the declaration at the community level which would have the greatest impact. The States that had worked with the indigenous peoples would not be forgotten. It was hoped that each State would stand with the indigenous peoples at the General Assembly. Indigenous peoples wished for harmony in accordance with the natural world and hoped that all would be brought together to embrace the positive contribution that indigenous peoples made to mankind.

Action on Resolution on Working Group on Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/1/L.4/Rev.1) entitled Open-ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by consensus, the Human Rights Council welcomes the report of the Open-ended Working Group with a view to considering options regarding the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/CN.4/2006/47); decides to extend the mandate of the Working Group for a period of two years in order to elaborate an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and, in this regard, requests the Chairperson of the Working Group to prepare, taking into account all views expressed during the sessions of the Working Group, on, inter alia, the scope and application of an Optional Protocol, a first draft Optional Protocol which includes draft provisions corresponding the various main approaches outlined in her analytical paper, to be used as a basis for the forthcoming negotiations; requests the Working Group to meet for ten working days each year and to report to the Human Rights Council; decides to invite a representative of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to attend these meetings as a resource person; and decides that the Human Rights Council shall remain seized of this matter.

ANGELA CHAVEZ (Guatemala), in a general comment, said that the provisions for the possible Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been exhausted by the Working Group. Guatemala thought that the Chair of the Working Group should now move to the drafting stage, which would be the most rapid way to promote the adoption. Guatemala hoped that the resolution presented by Portugal would be adopted by consensus.

ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), in a general comment, said the delegation of Saudi Arabia would stand by its previous stand. The delegation was of the view that the resolution should contain clauses on international cooperation so that developing countries would enjoy economic, social and cultural rights. Saudi Arabia had certain reservations on the Optional Protocol.

ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Canada) in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Canada was happy to join consensus on this resolution, and was happy for the efforts that had been made to reconcile different positions. It was important for the Working Group to continue its work. It was important that the draft did not prejudge a range of issues. Canada continued to question the merits of a communications procedure for economic, social and cultural rights, and was concerned for the potential of undue interference by an international body, and the absence of a clear definition for many economic, social and cultural rights, as well as for clear criteria for judging compliance. Canada�s decision to join consensus was without prejudice to future decisions.

--------------
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press1146.htm

26th June 2006

100 TVI Armed SCAAs Harass Helpless Farmers, Demolish House and injure four 26th June 2006

Press Release Tito Natividad Fiel, DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues Canatuan, Tabayo, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte, Mindanao, Philippines � It is difficult to imagine how terrified helpless farmers were, when they were harassed two nights ago by around 100 Special (Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit or CAFGU) Armed Auxiliary (SCAA) of the Canadian mining firm TVI Resource Development Philippines Inc.

According to Nonong Purigay of the Canatuan Farmers Association (CFA) four farmers were seriously injured, one of whom is a local catholic chapel lay minister called Jimmy Acope. The other three farmers injured were John-john Romano, Manolita Galves and her husband Loloy Galves.

The heartless SCAAs, who were led by Retired Lt. Cortes, mercilessly demolished the house of the Galves family and looted valuables such as the television, VCD and DVD player, other personal belongings and an undetermined amount of cash.At around 10pm on June 24 this year, Nonong Purigay telephoned the DCMI office and reported an unusual troop movement of the company�s SCAA. He warned at the time that TVI�s SCAA forces were gradually moving towards the Galves residence.

When they were a few meters from the house, the SCAAs stalled for a short while, but then finally overran the property, demolishing it and looting all the things found inside, according to Nonong Purigay�s account.

Purigay noted that around 50 SCAAs directly assisted on the demolition of Galves residence while the other 50 secured the surrounding area and prevented other farmers from assisting the Galves family in stopping the demolition. As a result of the incident, Mrs. Galves collapsed, and the SCAAs forcibly dragged her away from the house, while they were continuously demolishing the house. The SCAAs pointed their guns at the people who wanted to help Mrs. Galves.

According to Purigay the commotion ensued for an hour until the SCAAs gradually retreated from the Galves residence, after putting the materials from the house on TVI dump trucks and moving them to places unknown.

DCMI personnel telephoned the mobile phone of Eugene Mateo, the President of TVI Resource Development Philippines on the night of June 24 to inform him about the action taken by his SCAA in Canatuan, but despite ringing several times it was not answered. It was also not possible to get through to the mobile of Ed Coronel, the company�s Director for Social Commitment.

Manolita Galves and her husband Loloy suffered serious physical injuries as a result of the incident. It is hard for them to walk around without assistance, due to the punches and bat strokes employed by the SCAAs. The four who were injured are in need of medical treatment in the town of Siocon, or elsewhere in the province. However, the four victims feel anxious about reporting to the proper authorities for documentation and medical attention because the company bans them from passing through the company�s numerous checkpoints.

On June 13, fifty families near the open cut mining pit of TVI staged a vigil to guard their respective residences from any act of demolition by the company�s SCAA. Because of the vigil the company�s bulldozer operator failed to move the equipment towards the residences.

But on June 17, TVI - using large numbers of SCAA - bulldozed the farm-plants of the farmers, such as root crops, bananas and other farm durable plants. On this date, two staff of Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC) Cagayan de Oro office, the team leader, Carl Ceasar Rebutta, and Zherwinah Mosqueda, a paralegal officer, were to visit Canatuan.

When they arrived the company�s SCAA officer was initially instructed not to allow them to enter area of the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA), but then relented. But this was after people distinctly heard the instructing voice talking to the relevant office over the handheld radio say that "if they are from the LRC, do not let them enter the MPSA area, and ask them where they are going and for what purpose".

The SCAA forces of TVI have monitored the movement of the two LRC staff by keeping members of its forces close to the residence of Timuay Tii, which is close to Canatuan, but outside of the MPSA.

The two LRC personnel felt highly restricted in their work with the community, and decided to go back to R.T. Lim, Zamboanga Sibugay. The family of Timuay Lino Tii accompanied them to R.T. Lim, but when they returned home, the company�s SCAA held them for an hour at the checkpoint before allowing them to pass, because "they had received guests".

TVI takes Hostage Four Injured Residents

26th June 2006

Press Release Tito Natividad Fiel, DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues Canatuan, Tabayo, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte, Mindanao, Philippines � The Canatuan Farmers Association (CFA) today accused TVI Resource Development Philippines Inc of taking hostage the four injured farmers who were maltreated by the company�s 100 Special (Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit or CAFGU) Armed Auxiliary (SCAA) two nights ago during its sudden harassment against the helpless farmers for force negotiation.

Manolita Galves, a resident of Canatuan, who suffered serious physical injuries during the incident, in a phone interview today accuses TVI of banning them from passing through the company�s checkpoints. It is doing this to force her, and her family, to enter into a negotiation with the company against their wishes. The company�s emissary has continuously been looking for her inside the ancestral domain because it wants to talk to her. But she has advised her companions to tell TVI�s negotiator that she does not want to even look at the shadow of any TVI negotiators.

The company has placed all its checkpoints in a red alert status to ensure that the injured residents cannot get away from Canatuan and seek police assistance for official documentation or proper medical attention, in case people discover the extent of the SCAAs maltreatment while their injuries are still current. At company checkpoints, SCAA have asked travelling passengers whether they know the exact whereabouts of the four injured people. But no one has yet provided information to the SCAA.

On June 24 in the morning, the victims called Mayor Ceasar Soriano of Siocon by mobile phone to help them escape from this �hostage situation� and seek proper medication. The victims said that the Mayor promised them to go to Canatuan and rescue them, but until now, he has not arrived.

The Most Rev. Jose R. Manguiran, the Bishop In-charge of the DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues (DCMI) yesterday instructed DCMI staff to coordinate with the Very Rev. Edgar Agora, Parish Priest of Siocon, to assist in rescuing the alleged TVI hostages.

In March 17, 2004, TVI SCAAs indiscriminately fired at legitimate protesters in Barangay Pisawak, Siocon, wounding four including the 70 year old Subanon chieftain Timuay Macario Salacao.

The said shooting generated moral support from neighbouring barangays that caused Alnor Construction from Surigao, a subcontractor of TVI Resource Development Philippines, to withdraw.

Affected Communities Launch Anti-TVI Resource Development Philippines Campaign

26th June 2006

Press Release Tito Natividad Fiel, DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues

Jose Dalman, Zamboanga Del Norte, Mindanao, Philippines - Around fifty community leaders from thirteen towns of the provinces of Zamboanga Del Norte, Sibugay and Del Sur are expected to gather at Millennium Formation Center, St. Augustine Parish during 27-29 June 2006 for a Zamboanga Peninsula Conference on the �Impact of TVI Resource Development Philippines Inc.�

The event aims to sum up the community experience in dealing TVI and the company�s attitudes towards affected communities, forge a common position and a people�s movement against TVI, and formulate a concrete steps against this aggressive mining firm.

The thirteen areas are composed of Mt. Canatuan Siocon, Baliguian, Labason, Liloy, Bacungan, Sindangan, Barangay Tamarok Jose Dalman, Katipunan, and Sergio Osme�a, which all belong to the province of Zamboanga del Norte. Others are coming from Bayog, Dumingag, Mahayag and Midsalip which all belong to Zamboanga Del Sur.

The delegates are expected to arrive at the venue in the morning of June 27. At 1:30-2:30, the Parish Priest of Jose Dalman, Rev. Fr. Nemesio Sayon, will celebrate a mass.

The Most Rev. Jose R. Manguiran, the Bishop In-charge of the DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues (DCMI), is expected to give his inspirational message to all the delegates. He is expected to share why he strongly stood up against large-scale, foreign-owned and open cut mining.

The community leaders from Canatuan, downstream of Siocon, from Barangay Tamarok Jose and from Bayog are expected to share their experiences and positions on TVI issue.

On the second day of the conference Jun Urot, Secretary General of Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) Western Mindanao will tackle the issue of debt and mining. The Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC) National Office will talk on confronting the mining industry and why the Mining Act of 1995 should be scrapped. It is likely that a declaration will be signed, and an action plan formulated as the final output.

It is also expected that the conference will culminate in a parade that the delegates and the youth of St, Augustine Parish will participate in.At this moment, TVI is the most aggressive mining firm operations in the Zamboanga Peninsula, expanding beyond its current operation in Siocon, Zamboanga Del Norte. TVI�s modus operandi there has included armed harassment against the affected communities, especially the legal and legitimate holder of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT).