A/HRC/10/29 manner. It noted that the Council should bear in mind that Israel, as an occupying Power, had a different status and had obligations flowing from international human rights and international humanitarian law, particularly the fourth Geneva Convention. Under humanitarian law, the Palestinians were protected people and Israel had an obligation to ensure their enjoyment of all human rights. During its review in December 2008, many States reminded Israel of this fact and recommended the implementation of its human rights and humanitarian obligations, which Israel had chosen to ignore. It should be held accountable for persistent violations of all fundamental rights of the people it currently occupies and should respond to all the recommendations made. The Council should ensure that there will be no impunity for those who violate the rights of occupied people. The Organization of the Islamic Conference believed that the Israeli policy of ignoring some fundamental concerns relating to its human rights obligations had seriously undermined the objective of the universal periodic review exercise. It thus stated its reservations on this approach. 493. The United States of America noted that it had re-engaged with the Council and sought to ensure fairness and that no one country was singled out and treated differently from others. It noted that, during the consideration of the outcome of the review of Israel, certain procedural questions had been raised that were not raised with regard to any other State. They considered efforts to treat one country, any country, differently from all others, unacceptable. The United States noted with appreciation the remarks from Palestine, in its commitment to sticking with procedure and proceeding in a fair way. It appreciated the work of the secretariat and the President in keeping the Council on the right path. The founding principles of the Council — universality, impartiality, objectivity and nonselectivity — were not intended to shield countries from criticism but to create an environment in which all would be treated fairly, and ultimately make the Council more effective. It noted that all should rededicate themselves to the goals and founding principles of the Council. 494. Australia expressed its deep concern that, during the consideration of the outcome of the review of Israel, procedural questions had been raised that were not raised during the review of the other 30 States that have undergone the review process. Australia indicated that the singling out of one country was unacceptable and regrettable, given the generally positive operation of the review process and its contribution to human rights promotion in many countries. Australia expressed appreciation for the President’s efforts to find a way through and to ensure the decorum of the Council. 495. Cuba indicated its support for the universal periodic review as an effective tool to make progress in human rights promotion and protection. Cuba had hoped that Israel would follow common practice, respected by all, to react to all the recommendations on which their position had not yet been set out during the Working Group review. Cuba would not object to the adoption of the report, but wished to put on record its hope that Israel would understand the appeals from the international community and would endeavour to respect all human rights, including of the Palestinian people living in the occupied Palestine territories, as was its obligation as the occupying Power. 9. Liechtenstein 496. The review of Liechtenstein was held on 5 December 2008 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the national report submitted by Liechtenstein in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/3/LIE/1); the compilation prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/3/LIE/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/3/LIE/3). 166 GE.09-17451