http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12327&LangID=E
Action on Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in Eritrea
In a resolution (A/HRC/20/L19) regarding the situation of human rights in
Eritrea, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council strongly
condemns the continued widespread and systematic violations of human rights
committed by the Eritrean authorities, including arbitrary executions,
enforced disappearances and systematic use of torture; the severe
restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression; the forced conscription
of citizens for indefinite periods and the shoot-to-kill practice employed
on the borders of Eritrea to stop Eritrean citizens seeking to flee their
country. The Council calls upon the Government of Eritrea to end its use
of arbitrary detention and torture; to release all political prisoners,
including the “G-11”; to allow regular access to all prisoners; to put an
end to the policy of indefinite military service; to allow humanitarian
organizations to operate; to end ‘guilt-by-association’ policies that
target family members of those who evade national service or seek to flee
Eritrea; to cooperate fully with the United Nations, in accordance to
international human rights obligations; urges Eritrea to make available
information pertaining to Djiboutian combatants missing in action since the
clashes of 10 to 12 June 2008 so that those concerned may ascertain the
presence and condition of Djiboutian prisoners of war. The Council decides
to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
Eritrea, to report to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly;
and requests the Secretary-General to provide the Special Rapporteur with
the resources necessary to fulfil the mandate.
Djibouti, introducing draft resolution A/HRC/20/L.19/Rev.1 on behalf of the
Core Group, said that the draft resolution called for the creation and
appointment of a Special Rapporteur to report on the human rights situation
in Eritrea. Unfortunately, despite all appeals launched, no tangible steps
had been taken by the Government of Eritrea to honor its commitments. It
had hit a wall of denial and had not provided information on the
identification, safety and health situation of detained persons. Through
this resolution, a strong signal would be sent to the international
community that the situation could no longer be tolerated and inaction was
no longer admissible. The Core Group expressed its wish that Eritrea fully
cooperate with the Special Rapporteur and allow a visit, and provide all
the information necessary for the fulfillment of the mandate. It requested
the Human Rights Council to support the resolution.
Eritrea, speaking as the concerned country, said that the amendments had
not changed fundamentally the unfounded allegations contained in the
previous version of the draft resolution. As a small, least developed
country, Eritrea had a limited capacity and faced protracted hostilities
aimed at destabilizing its Government. It believed that the international
community had failed to contribute to the peace and stability of Eritrea.
Despite facing significant challenges, there were no human rights
violations in Eritrea. More specifically, there was no forced labour in
Eritrea; the participation of Eritrean diaspora in efforts to liberate
their country had been a voluntary act inspired by patriotism and courage;
the issue of the missing persons from Djibouti would be settled under the
supervision of Qatar. The aim of the draft resolution was to pursue a
politically motivated strategy to destabilize Eritrea. Eritrea therefore
strongly rejected the draft resolution in its entirety and called upon the
Council’s members to reject it too.
Russia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it was
against the adoption by the Council of politicized country resolutions,
especially those that were submitted against the will of the concerned
country. In this respect, the Russian Federation disassociated itself from
Council consensus on this resolution and asked that its position be
reflected in the report of the meeting.
Cuba, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it would not
support the draft resolution, which was against the will of the concerned
country. Cuba stressed the need to avoid politicization and selectivity in
its Council’s work.
China, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it
maintained its consistent position on country specific human rights
issues. China was in favour of constructive dialogue and opposed the
politicization of human rights. China also hoped the Council would
conduct its work impartially. It disassociated itself from the consensus
on the draft resolution.
Received on Mon Jul 09 2012 - 13:55:03 EDT
