COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS HEARS STATEMENTS BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

CESCR
28th session
29 April 2002
Afternoon



Gibraltar Aspires for Self-Determination,
Chief Minister Says



The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon heard a series of statements from representatives of non-governmental organizations charging their respective countries of failing to fully implement the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The Committee also heard from the Chief Minister of Gibraltar who claimed the right to self-determination for the territory and rejected any claims by the United Kingdom and Spain of sovereignty over Gibralter.
The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Peter Caruana, said that the people of Gibraltar believed that Gibraltar was the homeland of the Gibraltarians. It was neither the United Kingdom's to give away, nor Spain's to claim. Its political future could be decided only by the people of Gibraltar in exercise of their right to self-determination.
Mr. Caruana stressed that bilateral negotiations between the United Kingdom and Spain about its future, and bilateral agreements between them against the wishes of Gibralter constituted a violation of its political rights and therefore of its inhabitants' human rights.
The statements came as the Committee was scheduled to begin consideration of periodic reports of the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Czech Republic and Benin over the course of its three-week spring session.
Also delivering statements this afternoon were the representatives of Human Rights Legal Officer, Justice, London; the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; Development and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the World Organization Against Torture (OMCT); Physicians for Human Rights-UK; Forum of People with Disability; Justice and Peace; Public Affairs Department Rehab Group, Dublin; non-governmental organizations from Japan; Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor; and Justice-HK Section of the International Commission of Jurists.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 30 April, it will start its consideration of the initial report of the Czech Republic.

Statements

With Respect to the United Kingdom
PETER CARUANA, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, said that Gibraltar was one of the United Kingdom's overseas territories, previously called colonies, and was included in the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories awaiting decolonization. Despite their colonial status, the people of Gibralter enjoyed a very large measure of self-government under the Constitution, which dated back to 1969.
Mr. Caruana said that the people of Gibraltar passionately believed that they enjoyed the same inalienable right to self-determination that all colonial peoples before them had enjoyed. Spain claimed that Gibraltar was a piece of Spanish territory occupied by the United Kingdom in which the people of Gibraltar had no political rights, nor the right to have their wishes as to the future of Gibraltar respected, and certainly not the right to self-determination. Accordingly, Spain had asserted that Gibraltar should be decolonized, not by the self-determination of its people, but by the bilaterally negotiated return to her of the territory by the United Kingdom, regardless of the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. Spain asserted that that doctrine was enshrined in international law. There was no such doctrine.
Mr. Caruana continued to say that while Spain argued that the Treaty of Utrecht denied Gibraltar the right to self-determination, the United Kingdom argued that the Treaty only "curtails" the right. Gibraltar rejected the United Kingdom's new, changed position as well, and for the same reasons as it rejected Spain's position. The Chief Minister urged the Committee either to declare Gibraltar's right to self-determination or to declare that the issues should be referred to the International Court of Justice so that the issues could be properly adjudicated according to international law. Against that background, the United Kingdom and Spain were currently engaged in bilateral negotiations about the future of Gibraltar which they said was intended to result in an agreement by this summer. It had been indicated that the sovereignty element would be based on joint UK/Spanish sovereignty. The people of Gibraltar had made it clear that they would reject this.
In conclusion, Mr. Caruana stressed that the people of Gibraltar believed that Gibraltar was the homeland of the Gibraltarians. It was neither the United Kingdom's to give away, nor Spain's to claim. Its political future could be decided only by the people of Gibraltar in exercise of their right to self-determination. Bilateral negotiations between the United Kingdom and Spain about its future, and bilateral agreements between them against the wishes of Gibralter constituted a violation of its political rights and therefore of the human rights of its inhabitants.
ROISIN PILLAY, Human Rights Legal Officer, JUSTICE, London, said that the current enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights in the United Kingdom was unsatisfactory. The poverty rate was high; the economic, social and cultural rights of some minorities were not adequately satisfied. The needs of refugees were not fully responded to. The law on refugees had curtailed some of the rights they should enjoy. The country's legal system lacked the ability to fully protect people from any form of discrimination. Internationally, the United Kingdom had not taken measures to discharge its obligations. Some groups in the society had difficulties in having access to work. The level of income support measures was low. The high level of child poverty was another issue that was of concern to the organization. People from certain ethnic minorities had been homeless because of the lack of a policy for the provision of adequate housing. In the field of education, some ethnic groups had difficulties in having access to higher education. There was also a problem concerning prison conditions, where the rate of suicide had been on the increase.
CIARAN O MAOLAIN, North Ireland Human Rights Commission, said that his Commission was the only institution in the United Kingdom in its field. The United Kingdom had so far not ratified the European Social Charter of the European Union. In addition, the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were not fully implemented to give a high standard of living conditions to the people of Ireland. The Commission believed that enough stress was not given to the teaching of the Irish language. Funds were not made available for education. The number of students completing high school without any vocational or professional background had been on the rise. The United Kingdom had already given extensive recognition not only to the principles underpinning the International Covenant, but to the linkage between economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights, and it had said that it recognized those principles with specific references to the circumstances of Northern Ireland. The report of the United Kingdom did not mention the high level of unfit dwellings, especially in the west of the region; and the unmet demand for social housing, especially in certain areas in Belfast.
BERNARD HAMILTON, Physicians for Human Rights-UK, said that prisons in the United Kingdom were high-risk institutions for the spread of fatal diseases, including HIV infection, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C, which could be transmitted sexually and from mother to child. A large number of people in prison reported drug misuses problems. On average 24 per cent of prisoners reported that they had injected drugs, of whom 30 per cent continued to inject while in prison. Prevalence rates for HIV/AIDS were 13 times higher among women in prison than among the general population. However, cheap and simple measures such as condoms and clean needles that would prevent transmission of infection, were not made available in prison. There was a lack of human rights education in the training of nurses and other personnel. The Department of Health had recognized the lack of funds in fulfilling its obligations.

With Respect to the Czech Republic
NATHALIE MIVELAZ, Development and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, World Organization Against Torture (OMCT), said that the lack of attention to economic, social and cultural rights of women in the Czech Republic had complicated the advancement of women and had rendered them vulnerable to violence. Violence against women generally derived from the perceived inferiority of women and the unequal status granted by laws and societal values and norms. An integration of a gender perspective in their economic, social and cultural rights context showed how the exercise and enjoyment of those rights were adversely influenced by unequal gender power relations. Although violence against women was a significant problem in the country, women seldom reported violence to the authorities due to lack of trust in the police, arising from insensitive attitudes, ineffective legislation, and their insufficient awareness of the right to be free from violence. OMCT was gravely concerned about the lack of special provisions protecting women from domestic violence; and about the increase in prostitution and the trafficking of women and girls.
Regarding the situation of Roma, Ms. Mivelaz said that they were confronted with discriminatory practices in the socio-economic sphere, notably with regard to their enjoyment of their right to work, the right to adequate housing and the right to education. Moreover, while the economic restructuring had had an overall negative impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, the situation of the Roma had deteriorated more severely than for others. OMCT remained concerned that, as it had been the case for the last nine years, the Roma would not find themselves in a position to benefit from the continuing restructuring of the economy and the fiscal reforms recommended by the World Bank in March 2001. The violence perpetrated against the Roma by the police or by private individuals also remained a factor of concern.

With Respect to Ireland
LINDA O'SHEA FARREN, Forum of People with Disability, said that not much had been done for people with disabilities in terms of economic, social and cultural rights. Concerning income-support programmes, persons with disabilities received less than others. In addition, people with disabilities had difficulties in obtaining remedial responses from the Government to their complaints. The lack of independent advocacy or a complaint lodging mechanism had further increased the problems faced by disabled persons. There were no residential areas fit for disabled persons. The inaccessibility of public transportation system to persons with disabilities had been a further complication. However, some improvements had been introduced with new buses being made available in some transport networks. The enormous difficulties of the disabled were also manifested by the lack of adequate funds to support them. People in residential care could not obtain similar benefits if they lived out of care. Some bills which could have been beneficial to persons with disabilities had been ineffective or had not been discussed widely.
CLIODHNA O'NEILL, Public Affairs Department Rehab Group, Dublin, said that for 60 years, there had been a constitutional right to primary education in the country. On the right-based approach, there had been a failure in the inclusion of health-related measures by the Government. He regretted that the national strategy did not reflect fully the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
TERESA BLAKE, Saint Joseph Association for Association for Mentally Handicapped, speaking on article 12 of the International Covenant on health, said that there were serious problems of access to health in the Irish Republic. People at the lower strata of the society, such as Travellers, could not easily enjoy their right to health due to limited access to health services. There was no genuine commitment by the Government in that area. The situation of alcoholic and drug addiction had been seen as a more serious problems in the society; the strategy drawn by the Government had failed to have any impact on alcoholic and drug addiction. The disability bill had been considered by the legislators but it had been withdrawn. In addition, although some improvement had been introduced in the accessibility of buses, trains were not accessible to persons with disabilities.
The equal opportunities policy in the employment of disabled persons to civil service had been a Government policy, which had been subjected to change. The policy had not been converted into a law. There was no specific law for persons with disabilities and the Committee, in its conclusions on the previous report of Ireland, had recommended that such a law be designed with regard to mentally disabled persons. The policy of the Government continued to be applied despite the call from the Committee. Persons with mental disabilities were detained in psychiatric hospitals against their will, which had violated their human rights. The Committee should condemn the detention of intellectually disabled persons in psychiatric centres.
The conditions in which persons with mental deficiencies were detained amounted to a violation of their rights. The services they received did not adequately satisfy their needs. People with intellectual deficiencies used to receive proper treatment when Ireland had been prosperous. There was a problem in the functioning of the Government policy with regard to that category of people. The Government was unwilling to adopt recommendations submitted to it by well-known organizations such as the Association.
JOAN RODDIJ, Refugees Organization, said that the current policy on refugees was preemptive exclusion of refugees even before they arrived in the country. The Irish authorities were unable to reveal documents on refugees. The processing of asylum-seekers had been beyond the legally prescribed time limit of six months. For that reason asylum-seekers were prevented from working. Parents, since they were not providers of food to their children, were facing hardships in their living. There had been physical and psychiatric problems among asylum-seekers. Access to education for children of asylum-seekers had not been defined. The Government had not put in place such policies as to the right of education to refugee children. Housing commodities and hostels were not equipped with adequate facilities, including communication facilities, which had resulted, in many cases, in violence against girls and women.
LIAM HERRICK, Council of Civil Liberties, said that the Irish Government had not incorporated the European Human Rights Charter, and the Committee should revisit the non-incorporation of that Charter. The protection of equality had been violated and Government disregarded its own equal opportunity provisions. Because of the prohibition of abortion in Ireland, pregnant women had the freedom to travel to other countries to bring to an end to their pregnancy. But young girls or women in care institutions did not have that right, even if they were the victims of child abuse. The economic boom did not help the educational system to progress, with children belonging to minorities being the ones affected. Among the Travellers, at least 1,100 persons were found on the streets, and their life expectancy was low.
PADRIAC KENNA, Law Department, NUI, Galway, said that the Government of Ireland had been recommended to adopt a right-based approach but such rights were lacking. The situation of Travellers needed more attention. In the country, as the acquisition of private housing continued, minorities had more and more difficulties in acquiring housing or to be lodged in adequately equipped houses. A strategy on homelessness had been launched recently, as was the case with a poverty eradicating strategy programme. However, there were no sanctions for the targets not reached by the strategies. The Government was not taking its obligations seriously, and there was a tendency to depart from right-based approach.

With Respect to Benin
NORBERT FANOU-AKO, World Organization Against Torture (OMCT). said that Benin was today one of the poorest countries in the planet and it belonged to the group of least developed countries. After the implementation of the structural adjustment programme, there was a negative impact on the rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Although Benin had ratified the International Covenant, it did not readjust its national legislation in order to incorporate the provisions. In practice, the provisions were not implemented in the fields regarding the conditions of women, children, trade unions, the right to work, housing, education and health.

Follow-up on Japan
WATANBE REIKO, Representative of Japanese Non-Governmental Organizations, said that there were a number of cases of bankruptcy and alcoholism in Kobe because of the peoples' frustration by the failure of the Japanese Government. The reconstruction following the earth quake which had affected the region remained unfinished business. During its previous consideration of the Japanese report, the Committee had made a series of recommendations which the Government had yet to fulfil.

Follow-up on China: Hong Kong
MARGARET NG, Justice-HK Section of the International Commission of Jurists, spoke on the Hong Kong permanent residence parents and their mainland China-born children. She said that those Hong Kong permanent residence parents and their mainland-born children had suffered great injustices, and discriminatory and cruel treatment because of their desire and efforts to be reunited together. They had eagerly awaited 1997, believing that their children would be allowed to join them. But although the provisions were clear, they had not been implemented. Now many children faced the possibility of being transported by force back to the mainland, where their chances of getting approval to be reunited with their parents ranged from being very difficult to impossible.



* *** *