By GENALYN KABILING
The government is open to any United Nations (UN) inquiry into the controversial war on drugs but is opposed to UN special rapporteur on summary executions Agnes Callamard to lead such probe.
Presidential spokesman Harry Roque argued that Callamard was not trustworthy to conduct an inquiry on the country’s human rights situations.
“Definitely not Agnes. As I’ve said before, it’s her fault that the home state does not want her in. Part of the qualification of a special rapporteur is to be trustworthy enough so that member-nations of the UN will allow a special rapporteur to investigate,” Roque said.
“The fact there is no way that Agnes Callamard can be allowed to investigate in the Philippines proves that she has failed in this regard. Philip Alston then made it to the Philippines,” he added.
Roque asserted that the special rapporteur must be fair, competent and credible, adding he might recommend someone else to be allowed to initiate the inquiry in the country.
“If they are going to send a special rapporteur to the Philippines, it must be someone credible, someone who is an authority in the field that they seek to investigate in, and must be objective and unbiased,” Roque said.
“I’m about to make a recommendation as a presidential adviser on human rights. There is at least one rapporteur that I will recommend be allowed to conduct an investigation but I can’t divulge for now which rapporteur this is,” he said.
Roque made the remarks after a diplomat from Iceland called on the Philippines to allow Callamard to conduct a probe into the alleged killings related to the drug war. The appeal was reportedly made by during the 37th regular session of the Human Rights Council.
Roque however made clear that the country could not be forced to undergo a UN inquiry.
“To those familiar with the Special Rapporteur system, all investigations must be consented to by state parties ‘no, and there’s no one that can compel a state party to allow an investigation if it does not want to do so,” he said.
He said Iceland’s statement was “an expression of his home state but it is an expression that we don’t have to heed.”
