"For as long as the government agencies regulating the twin industries of
mass destruction are not cleansed of officials who lawyer, and act as fixers
and fiddlers of these industries, no amount of harping about “responsible”
mining and logging can be credible enough for us to risk being victimized
again by these industries..."
I would like to thank this
Committee, especially you, Madame Chair, for inviting me. I will deal on the
viewpoint of local communities, which are confronted by the logging and
mining issues. We have included mining, because with logging, they comprise
the twin industries of mass destruction, at least in
Samar. When it comes to these twins, the threats to Cultural
Communities and Local Communities largely differ not in description but in
degrees, so much so that probing these industries from the perspective of
the local communities has relevance to the Cultural Communities.
This position paper deals on
the Samarnon viewpoint on logging and mining in our island, hoping that in
your legislative work, you will be able to pick out what can be of national
application. We claim this to be a Samarnon viewpoint not just because we
come from Samar, but especially because this position is based on the
history and recent experiences of Samarnons and is aimed to promote the
welfare of Samarnons.
The basic premise of the
Samarnon viewpoint is our claim of stewardship rights over our forests, as a
matter of original even primordial right over anybody else’s claims of
“prior rights”. God gave us these forests as that part of His creation that
He entrusts to us. For those among us who are not that religiously inclined,
our claim is based on the fact that we are the ones who suffer when it is
abused, hence we should be the ones to manage it to ensure that we benefit
from it --- and sustainably too. As stewards, we are accountable to God and
the future generations of Samarnons.
The Samarnon viewpoint has
been shaped mainly by our experiences and history which likewise made
logging and mining the twin industries of mass destruction in Samar. The
massive floods of 1989 were lessons enough. Additionally, the residents of
Catubig N. Samar say that at the height of the logging operations of the San
Jose Timber Corporation (SJTC) and years thereafter, the streets of Catubig
were usually flooded by an overflowing Catubig River, after twenty-four
hours of heavy rains. Today, the same streets are not yet flooded even after
seven days of heavy rains. The Bagacay mines and how it made Taft River
biologically dead, is relatively well-known. What is not as publicized is
when for years people of nearby communities, and those going to Catbalogan,
Samar from the south were assaulted by pungent odors from the stockpile of
coal near the highway. What is also far from the public eye is the
disembowelment of the isolated island of Manicani by mining operations.
These are examples of how mining and logging became the twin industries of
mass destruction.
Looking through the prism of
the Samarnon viewpoint, here is how we view several DENR and SJTC
pronouncements when the issue on the logging moratorium got the attention of
the media, particularly the Philippine Daily Inquirer. We have filed a case
in court on this issue, hence please understand us Madame Chair for
excluding the legal issues.
1. That the SJTC will be undertaking “selective” and
“sustainable” logging
“The SJTC lawyer talks about
‘responsible and sustainable logging practices’, without elaborating. This
must be the “selective logging” Sen. Enrile described as “harvest(ing) trees
that are at least 70-cm in diameter”, as if it is as simple as cutting
plants in a garden.
| • |
Cutting a tree
of that size destroys the smaller trees that it falls on. |
|
| • |
Each log,
weighing at least three tons, is dragged through the forest floor by a
bulldozer for kilometers, hence, in the process, uprooting all the trees of
all sizes along the way. Multiply that process ten times a day, then by
3,840 working days in the sixteen years extension period for the SJTC, and
we can start to have a rough picture of how “responsible and sustainable”
this “selective logging” can be. |
|
| • |
With such
destruction, timber is still “renewable”, but while SJTC got a quick buck
for the destruction --- the people of
Samar just have to wait for another twenty years for the forest to
recover.” |
2. That the logging operations will consist of merely
harvesting only those planted by San Jose Timber Corporation:
This makes sense when viewed
only from the time of the planting. But the fact is that before the planting
was the large scale cutting of trees in the manner described above. All that
the SJTC may have planted in
Samar are
therefore poor replacements to the logs it harvested and the smaller trees
it destroyed in the process. The SJTC therefore has no right to harvest what
it planted. In fact, it still has an obligation to plant more trees.
3. On the SJTC as a “company that has been true to its
covenant with the government and the people of
Samar Island”. WE would like to quote the same SIBF statement
| • |
“That must
have been easy since that ‘government’ was, for the most part (1977 to 1986)
the Martial Law government with then Defense Minister Enrile as its chief
enforcer.” |
|
| • |
“Was that
‘covenant… with the people of the island of Samar’ the cause or the effect
when then Defense Minister Enrile militarized Samar with, at one time
reaching, as many as 8 battalions? Did the terms of that ‘covenant’
include the atrocities and human rights violations committed by these
battalions? |
4. On the connection between the senate confirmation
hearings for the then Secretary Defensor’s appointment and the resuscitation
of SJTC’s supposed “rights”.
This is already the second
time that our forests were used as “balato” in the confirmation process of a
DENR Secretary. The first time around, we saw how the seemingly innocuous
support of then Vice President Guingona for the confirmation of Sec. Alvarez
got converted into a menacing Mineral Production Sharing Agreement for
Bauxite Resources Incorporated (BRI) owned by brother Benjamin Guingona.
This was granted by Sec. Alvarez on December 4, 2002 just before stepping
out of office. By the way, the rights under this MPSA have been sold
recently to the Pacific Aluminum Mining Philippines, thus confirming our
suspicion that the application for the MPSA was made for purely speculative
purposes.
When we saw Sen. Enrile
lawyering for Sec. Defensor’s confirmation, not a few “pustahan ng isang
kaha ng beer” were made that we will eventually be hearing about SJTC. But
even my friends who won in the pustahans were surprised that it happened
that fast. Because of this seeming pattern, many of us are worried that a
part of our forests would again be given as “balato” if the confirmation of
Sec. Angelo Reyes encounters confirmation problems. In this connection, we
would like to congratulate you Madame Chair for your recent appointment to
the Senate Commission on Appointments. We also appeal to you to redeem the
image of the Commission on Appointments among Samarnons by not allowing the
balato practice to happen again, especially when involving our forests.
Madame Chair, every time the
issue of mining or logging crops up, three concerns inevitably surface: 1)
the “advances in technology” and practices which, according to them, make
these industries less harmful to the environment; 2) the benefits to the
people, the validity and reliability of the claims and promises of the twin
industries, and 3) the relation between the government and these industries.
Having grappled with these concerns more than once as a people, an emerging
consensus is forming into pre-conditions before we can even consider mining
and logging.
|
1. |
Sustainable and
environment-friendly technologies and practices in these industries
must have been demonstrated to be the standard practice in the
country.
The peddlers and fiddlers of
both industries habitually cite “advances in technology in other countries”
to assuage concerns about their environmental impact or sustainability. And
they think that is enough. There already exists a technology for going to
the moon --- but this does not mean we will believe the next Tom, Dick and
Harry nor, if this committee prefers a more local and recent flavor, the
next Juan, Mike or Angelo, who sells tickets to the moon.
We got burned already by
these industries not once, not even just twice, but more than thrice. We
therefore would rather see these advances routinely practiced in other parts
of the country first before we risk getting burned again. |
|
|
2. |
The people of Samar,
especially those adversely affected, are guaranteed to be the main and not
just secondary beneficiaries in the operations of these industries.
The operative words are
“guaranteed” and “main…beneficiaries”. The Samarnons are the main victims
when things go wrong in the operations of these industries, hence they
should get the bigger slice of the benefits. The twin industries of mass
destruction always claim that the people of Samar will benefit during their
operations. So far, our history shows that the people of Samar got merely
the crumbs and left-overs. When they leave we are left with a fate worse
than the proverbial empty sacks, after all empty sacks don’t poison rivers,
as the Bagacay mines did, nor do they cause floods, as the SJTC logging
operations. We still have to get to the details as to what we can consider
as “guarantee”. But we can be sure that presently the assurances of the SJTC
and holders of MPSA rights are hollow.
|
|
|
3. |
Full disclosure must be made
by the logging and mining companies, and a knockout rule must be enforced.
The right of the Cultural
Communities to a “free, prior, and informed consent” before any mining and
logging operations, is already recognized. But this will remain empty and
ineffective if there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the
logging and mining companies to make full disclosure. No one, much less the
cultural communities, can make informed decisions on the basis of
half-truths and misrepresentations.
To force the logging and
mining companies to make full disclosure, anyone found to be deliberately
committing misrepresentations and deceptive claims should be knocked out of
contention. This may sound tough. But full disclosure is the heart and
soul of being “responsible”. Deceivers and liars can never be considered
“responsible”, hence they have no place in a TRULY “responsible” mining and
logging program of any government.
|
| |
|
|
4. |
The governance in the
country must have reached a level wherein the government agencies regulating
these industries have been consistently proven to do their job, instead of lawyering and acting as patrons for these industries.
Changing adjectives before
mining and logging is not enough, it could even be worse when designed to
deceive. Before, it was “sustainable mining”. Later, it is “responsible
mining”. Now we are hearing “sustainable and responsible logging”. They
ain’t twins for nothin’!
In our region, the Mines and
Geosciences Bureau stooped to even as low as “unscrupulously lawyering for
the BRI, even to the extent of citing an unwanted Presidential Proclamation
and ignoring another popular and more recent Presidential Proclamation.
Worse, this MPSA was granted with the MGB acting like a petty fixer of the
BRI when it by-passed governing implementing rules and regulations”. (A
Petition to the DENR Secretary for the Cancellation of MPSAS in Samar
Island). By the way, the former was that of the Marcos Regime establishing
the Samar Bauxite Mineral Reservation, and the latter was Pres. Ramos’
Presidential Proclamation 744, declaring Samar’s remaining forests as Samar
Island Forest Reserve. Now, who in his or her right mind would trust that
the same MGB will regulate the mining industry?
As for logging, allow me
Madame Chair to quote from the “A Joint Pastoral Statement of the Bishops
and Clergy of Samar and Leyte” commenting on the DENR Order allowing SJTC to
operate again:
|
|
| |
|
“The issuance of the Order
came in the wake of a morally compromised situation: two public officials
sharing favors that seem mutually related to one another. A Senator of the
Republic helping to confirm the appointment of a DENR Secretary who himself
issues an Order allowing the Senator’s logging company to operate again
clearly does not at all inspire confidence in the absence of political
trade-off between powerful people at the expense of Samar Island and its
hapless people.” |
|
| |
For as long as the
government agencies regulating the twin industries of mass destruction are
not cleansed of officials who lawyer, and act as fixers and fiddlers of
these industries, no amount of harping about “responsible” mining and
logging can be credible enough for us to risk being victimized again by
these industries. Only when these regulatory bodies are beyond the influence
of the Secretaries of the DENR who spend time selling the country to the
world as a mining haven --- either by restructuring these to be independent
bodies, or putting them under people who have proven their ability to stand
up to their Secretary --- can we then trust them to protect us. As long as
TLAs and MPSAs acquired through clearly improper means remain, Responsible
Mining and Logging will always be highly suspect. Unless the peddlers of
“responsible” logging and mining --- be they DENR Secretaries, Speakers of
the House, or Presidents of the Republic --- do not show on-the-ground
results that they are addressing the above issues, then to us, they will be
just modern-day Pied Pipers trying to fiddle us to our perdition. |
To conclude, Madame Chair, I
would like to bring to you two messages from the Samarnons: the one we sent
when we held the islandwide caravan in 2003, and the other which we wanted
to send had we pushed through with our Anti-logging Islandwide Samar Caravan
2005. This was called off in exchange for the promise made by Sec. Defensor
to our Bishops that there will be no mining in
Samar:
The message in the 2003
Caravan was “YES TO SINP, NO TO MINING”
The message of this year’s
caravan would have been “PASS THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE SINP BILL, CANCEL
ALL MPSAs and TLAs in SAMAR”
Madam Chair and honorable
members of this Committee, we appeal to you to help us get the original
version of the SINP Bill passed in the Senate by co-sponsoring and
husbanding its speedy passage. Thank you.
The Office of Bishop, Symbols of Office and
the Rite of Canonical Installation: A Commentary
By Msgr. RAMON B. AGUILOS, Media Liaison, Archdiocese of Palo
April
5, 2006
Introduction
On May 2, 2006, the
Archdiocese of Palo will mark a significant milestone in her history. It
will be the installation of His Excellency the Most Reverend Jose Serafio
Palma as Archbishop of Palo. He succeeds His Excellency the Most Reverend
Pedro Dean who in February 21, 2005 reached the canonical age of retirement
at 75 years old, and whose letter of resignation was accepted by the Holy
Father Benedict XI on March 18, 2006. It is not clear at this time, though,
whether the Holy Father’s newly appointed personal representative to the
Philippines, His Excellency, the Most Reverend Fernando Filoni, will attend
the celebration.
During the installation
rites, the official decree announcing Archbishop-elect Palma’s appointment
will be read. Then the Apostolic Nuncio (if present), together with the
outgoing Archbishop, will install Archbishop-elect Palma in his chair “cathedra”
to take his place as the new shepherd, the seventh bishop/third archbishop
of Palo. As a spiritual leader guide, he is the seventh to lead the flock of
the ecclesiastical see of Palo; the other bishops who had preceded him were
Bishops Manuel Mascariñas (1938-1952), Lino Gonzaga (1952-1967), Teotimo
Pacis, CM (1967-1970), Manuel Salvador (1970-1973), Cipriano Urgel
(1973-1985) and Pedro Dean (1985-2006). Archbishop-elect Palma will be the
third bishop to take on the title of “archbishop” ever since the
ecclesiastical see of Palo was elevated to an archdiocese in 1982; the other
archbishops were Archbishops Urgel and Dean.
The liturgy of the canonical
installation is rich in symbolism and tradition. From the symbols of a
bishop’s office to the rite of installation itself, every sign and moment
continues the sacred tradition of the Catholic Church. This celebration will
draw into prayer and contemplation, as the faithful prays for Archbishop
Palma who will take possession of the Archdiocese of Palo. The faithful will
also pray for Archbishop Dean that God will grant him many happy years of
retirement and reward him for his faithful service. The faithful prays for
the Archdiocese of Palo as they welcome their new shepherd.
Explanation of the Office of
Bishop
As the authoritative teacher
of those entrusted to his care, the bishop interprets the Christian
revelation to his flock. At his ordination he is asked to confirm his
beliefs in the major tenets of the Creed. He must set forth the moral
teaching of Christ and make judgments on conditions within the diocese to
which principles of social justice apply. The apostolic exhortation
Evangelii Nuntiandi (the Gospel must be proclaimed) sums up the thought
of the Church on this point: “In union with the successor of Peter, the
bishops, who are successors of the Apostles, receive through the power of
their episcopal ordination the authority to teach the revealed truth in the
Church. They are teachers of the faith.” A bishop is to sanctify,
teach and govern. These are three distinct but not separate
tasks. It is a question, in fact, of three aspects of the one office of the
pastor, the successor of the Apostles. Each of these tasks presupposes the
other two. As regards his teaching task, the bishop is not only the one who
instructs but who leads. His word is not only based on the truth; it is the
way. It marks out a path, for the bishop is the head of the flock which he
governs in order to lead it to meet the Lord. His teaching is also
sanctifying (the Council says deliberately that the bishop is a spiritual
guide). Through the specific dynamism of conversion and deepening of
religious life, he gathers and constitutes the Christian community which
reaches its culminating point in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The
bishop, as the local chief shepherd, encourages a spirit of prayer,
celebrates the liturgy for all, works for peace and justice, especially for
the poor and disenfranchised, and strives to promote a healthy dialogue with
other faiths.
Symbols of the Office of the
Bishop
There are several symbols of
the Office of the Bishop. The first symbols are connected with the bishop’s
cathedral. The “Cathedral
Church”
is the site of the bishop’s chair or “cathedra.” It is a symbol of the
spiritual temple that is built up in souls and is resplendent with the glory
of divine grace. The bishop’s chair (cathedra) is placed prominently near
the main altar. It represents the seat of diocesan authority that is vested
in the bishop, our chief priest, teacher and pastor, the one to whom all the
people of the diocese look for guidance.
The other symbols are those
of the bishop’s office. The miter, or peaked cap, was first used exclusively
by the pope as a mark of distinction. By the 12th century, its use was
extended to all bishops as a mark of their office and a symbol of their
authority. The zucchetto, or skull cap, was developed to cover the tonsure,
that part of the back of the head that was shaved as a man entered into the
clerical state. The ring originally worn by the pope and known as the
“Fisherman’s Ring” was to link the ministry of the pope with the ministry of
Saint Peter the Apostle. By the 12th century, all bishops had adopted the
custom. It is a sign of the bishop’s fidelity and nuptial bond with the
Church, his spouse. The pectoral cross is worn to reflect the order of
dignity of the office of bishop. It served originally as a reliquary of the
True Cross, which encouraged the custom of wearing this cross close to the
heart. The crosier or pastoral staff takes its shape from the crook used by
shepherds. Over time, all bishops acquired the custom of carrying a staff as
an outward sign of their ministry as shepherds of God’s people. The crosier
is carried by the bishop as a sign of his jurisdiction, a sign that this is
indeed his flock.
Rite of Canonical
Installation
Hopefully, the presence the
Holy Father’s representative, the Apostolic Nuncio, will highlight the
importance of the installation ceremony. Once the procession has taken
place, the nuncio or the archdiocesan chancellor will read the Official
Decree of the Holy Father appointing Archbishop Palma as the Archbishop of
Palo. Once the Decree has been read, the chancellor will present it to the
priests and the faithful. The Chancellor of the Archdiocese will be the one
who will record the event in the archives of the Curia. Once this has taken
place, Archbishop Palma will be escorted to the cathedra by the Apostolic
Nuncio and Archbishop Pedro Dean. When he is seated in the chair, he
formally takes up his role of shepherd of the Lord’s Flock in the
Archdiocese of Palo. The Congregation acknowledges by applause the
acceptance of their new Archbishop. After Archbishop Palma is seated for a
moment, he will stand and receive the fraternal kiss of peace from
Archbishop Dean. Then, the clergy of the Archdiocese of Palo, some
representatives of the archdiocesan community, as well as civic officials
will be brought forward to greet and welcome Archbishop Palma.
At this point in the
liturgy, Archbishop Palma will become principal celebrant of the Mass. For
the first time, the archbishop will celebrate with his priests, the Banquet
of Christ’s Sacrifice. For all of this, the celebration is one of joy and
thanksgiving. The whole congregation takes this opportunity to pray for the
new shepherd.
PHILIPPINES: Law needed to
stop torture and systemic negligence in the Philippines
A
Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
March 31, 2006
The brutal police torture
and filing of supposedly fabricated charges against 11 persons—including two
minors--in Buguias, Benguet on 14 February 2006 is yet another instance of
the arbitrary use of authority by the police and military in the
Philippines. As the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) reported earlier,
the group were arrested in the north of the country while hitchhiking on a
truck, and allegedly beaten and kicked by members of the 1604th Police
Provincial Mobile Group. Back at the police camp, they were accused of being
part of a February 10 raid on a military base, and again allegedly subjected
to extremely cruel torture, including genital beating, suffocation and
electrocution. They have been in custody since, and the trial against them
is now getting underway.
Despite the gravity of the
victims' allegations against the police, there is no way for them to lodge
complaints or obtain redress as envisaged by common article 2 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment--both of which the government of the Philippines claims to
uphold. There is no law prohibiting torture in the Philippines, even though
it is outlawed by the 1987 Constitution. A 2005 bill to introduce the
Anti-Torture Act (HB 4307) has been stalled in parliament. The failure to
enact a law to criminalise torture violates the government's international
obligations, especially under the Convention against Torture.
Not only are torture victims
in the Philippines denied the possibility of making complaints, they are
also denied medical treatment. One of the Benguet victims, Rundren Lao,
managed to escape--while the police were drunk, he says. Naively, he sought
help from the Department of Welfare and Development (DSWD). Instead of
attempting to verify his story and making arrangements for the physical and
mental care that he needed, the department turned him over to law
enforcement officers, who in turn returned him to his original captors,
after they issued an arrest warrant. So an obviously damaged and traumatised
man was placed back in the hands of his alleged torturers.
The law requires that minors
and adults be confined and treated separately. However, even in this respect
the DSWD has proven itself unwilling to fulfill its mandate and protect
human rights. In the Benguet case, a department spokesperson said in a
television interview that it is difficult for the department to transfer the
victims to juvenile detention due to the nature of the charges. This
outrageous position assumes, without any basis, that there are crimes for
which children should be treated as children and others for which they
should be treated as adults. It is a blatant denial of the responsibilities
of the DSWD, and the Philippines' obligations under the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, to which it is also a party. The department's failure
to secure the detention of the two juveniles at a separate facility and
properly assess the conditions under which the other nine were taken into
custody amounts to blatant negligence on its part, and another violation of
international law. The absence of a law on torture means that neither the
police nor the DSWD feels beholden to torture victims. The police cannot be
charged for having committed torture. The social welfare staff cannot be
held liable for their negligence or inaction.
The AHRC supports Senator
Aquilino Pimentel's call that the chief of police Gen. Arturo Lumibao
conduct an investigation into the victims' allegations. The Police Regional
Office of the Cordillera Administrative Region and Provincial Police Office
of Benguet must answer the accusations against them. The accused officers
should be immediately suspended until an investigation is concluded, and a
decision made regarding the filing of charges before quasi-judicial bodies
and the courts if probable cause is established.
The police and military in
the Philippines will continue to use torture as their primary means of
investigation until a law makes their practices illegal, and perpetrators
are prosecuted. The constitution and the Convention against Torture will
only have meaning in the Philippines when the government recognises its
obligations under these laws to treat torturers as criminals. The
government's delay in introducing such a law is completely unacceptable and
without justification.
The Asian Human Rights
Commission again calls on the president of the Philippines to place the
passing of a law to criminalise torture among the government's top
priorities. Members of parliament too must ensure that this law is passed
without delay, so that no more Filipinos are denied the possibility of
remedy and redress. The enactment of this law is a precondition to the
protection and improvement of all human rights in the
Philippines.
UNITED NATIONS: A second chance for all - the
AHRC welcomes the establishment of the United Nations Human Rights Council
A Statement by the
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
March 16, 2006
The first step on a new road
towards the worldwide enjoyment of human rights and the protection of
victims was taken yesterday, with the creation of the United Nations' Human
Rights Council, following a resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly.
This adoption, by a vote of 170 to four with three abstentions, underlines
the universal ownership of human rights. The Asian Human Rights Commission
welcomes this significant step and sincerely hopes that the body's
establishment will herald a new and positive era in the implementation of
all human rights for all.
New impetus has been
required for some time, with the soon to be abolished Commission on Human
Rights having progressively lost credibility, notably due to the inclusion
of some of the world's worst human rights violators as its members and the
lack of effective implementation of its recommendations. The Commission was
established in 1946 and has played an important role in advancing the human
rights debate and producing a framework of laws, standards and mechanisms.
However, times have changed since the Commission's inception. As was stated
by United Nations Secretary General Koffi Anan, in his address to the
Commission in 2005, "the era of declaration is now giving way, as it should,
to an era of implementation."
The AHRC gives primacy to
the implementation of human rights laws and standards and sees in the new
47-member Council an opportunity to bring about such greatly needed
measures. Implementation requires moving from the discussion of human rights
and establishment of standards to the concrete improvement of the situation
of actual or potential victims, the protection of persons from violations
and an end to the impunity that accompanies even the gravest abuses in many
parts of the world, including in the majority of Asian countries. Such
improvements regarding human rights benefit everyone; not only individual
citizens, but the States themselves. The development and security of States
and persons fundamentally require the protection and enjoyment of human
rights.
The resolution establishing
the Human Rights Council provides new standards and procedures for the
election of members, notably through an absolute majority of at least 96
positive votes, which should allow grave violators of rights to be excluded
from Council membership. The Commission has previously been greatly
undermined by the membership of States seeking to protect themselves from
criticism rather than uphold rights. States are urged to only elect members
that express a clear commitment to human rights and have a record to back
their claims. It is therefore essential that regional groups present a range
of candidates at least thirty days prior to the elections, which are set for
May 9, 2006, so that each candidate's human rights record can be evaluated.
The standards and credibility of the Council will be defined by those of its
members.
In meeting more regularly
than its predecessor, the Council enables the possibility of greater speed
of reaction with regard to grave crises, as well as a more continuous
monitoring of human rights throughout the world. Violations committed at any
time, in any place, should now face greater scrutiny, with the Council also
having the possibility of convening emergency sessions to address particular
crises in a timely manner. Advances in technology and communications permit
unprecedented amounts of up to date information to be available, making a
more continual monitoring capacity for the central UN human rights body both
logical and necessary.
Furthermore, the Council
also comprises a system of universal review, under which all States will
have their rights records examined. Recommendations stemming from this
process must be followed. The success of the Council depends on the good
will of its members to uphold the values and honour the commitments made at
its inception. Member States must show real commitment to human rights and
ensure full cooperation with the Council and its mechanisms. They must also
pledge to address human rights situations elsewhere with objectivity. The
implementation of recommendations and resolutions is an area in which great
progress is needed - this should be a fundamental yard-stick with which
States' cooperation and good faith with regard to the Council should be
measured.
The onus also lies upon
civil society to ensure its effective participation in the new workings of
the UN's human rights mechanisms. The members of civil society have a
continuing crucial role to play, notably given that the Council will
continue with the practice of adopting country-specific resolutions.
Non-governmental organisations must ensure that their participation in the
proceedings and provision of information to the Council evolves to
accommodate the newly available prospects. Such involvement is vital, both
in terms of the existing special rapporteurs and other special procedures,
which will be carried over to the Council, as well as in terms of
involvement in the Council's sessions. The Council is set to meet at least
three times per year for a total of ten weeks, plus any additional emergency
meetings. Civil society is presented with an opportunity to revitalise its
activities in favour of human rights within the United Nations system.
The AHRC reiterates its
support for the new Human Rights Council and urges all participants to
ensure a successful new beginning, based on the shared and lofty ideals
enshrined in human rights laws and standards, and to pursue the fundamental
goal of the protection of all individuals' human rights with renewed good
faith.
