COMMISSION HEARS FROM EXPERTS ON INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCES, ARBITRARY DETENTION, FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Commission on Human Rights
AFTERNOON
4 April 2005



Continues Debate on Civil and Political Rights


The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon heard presentations from the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on involuntary disappearances, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, and the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion and belief. It also continued its general debate on civil and political rights, hearing from one country and a series of non-governmental organizations.

Stephen Toope, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on involuntary disappearances, said that whilst in the past, disappearances could be blamed primarily on military dictatorships, today they were also perpetrated in nominally democratic countries, in the context of much more complex situations of internal conflict. The crime of disappearance was often associated with other egregious human rights violations, such as torture, rape and summary execution.

Nepal, responding as a concerned country, said the report had made some efforts to take on board the overall context of the situation owing to the ongoing insurgency. Nepal would positively consider many of the recommendations that related directly to the mandate of the Working Group and would work towards their implementation in order to promote the cause of human rights.

Leila Zerrougui, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, said that the law must always provide for procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention. On the issue of detentions and the war against terrorism, new and worrying practices had been seen. States had more and more often adopted exceptions to their legislation, including to hold individuals for an unlimited period of time without charge.

Latvia, speaking as a concerned country, said the recommendations by the Working Group were being carefully examined with the view to amend legislative acts and improve administrative practices. Latvia recognized that despite its extensive efforts to eliminate the repressive system inherited from the period of communist rule, a lot still needed to be done to bring the national laws and administrative practice into full compliance with the international human rights standards.

Belarus, also speaking as a concerned country, said after having carefully studied the report, the Government found itself at odds with some of the conclusions, and had communicated those concerns to the Working Group. Some measures had already been undertaken to fulfil the recommendations of the Working Group. Belarus was fully open to active cooperation with the Special Rapporteurs and with the special procedures, and would continue its cooperation.

China, speaking as a concerned country, said the Government of China attached great importance to the promotion and protection of all the rights of its people. To be sure, as a developing country, there was still a lot of room for improvement in many areas in China. The Government had the resolve, the confidence and the ability to lead the people in overcoming difficulties and achieving greater progress in all fields, including that of human rights.

Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion and belief, said the events of 11 September 2001 continued to have a dramatic impact on the situation of human rights, including freedom of religion or belief. Counter-terrorism measures adopted in a number of States established a confusing and misleading link between certain religions and terrorism. That affected the right to freedom of religion of persons whose religion or belief was targeted.

Nigeria, speaking as a concerned country, said the commitment of the Government and people of Nigeria to freedom of conscience, religion, belief and peaceful coexistence had never faltered and that a climate of religious tolerance pervaded every aspect of life in a multi-religious, ethnically diverse country which clearly testified Nigeria's true state of affairs. Some incidents, highlighted in the preliminary report as communal and religious disturbances, had been demonstrated to have socio-political and economic undertones.

At the beginning of the meeting the Commission heard the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, respond to questions posed during an interactive dialogue in the morning meeting.

Speaking in the context of the interactive debates with the Experts were the Representatives of Argentina, Canada, Luxembourg, Cuba, Costa Rica, the United States, Peru, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Brazil, Indonesia, and Pakistan.

Speaking in the general debate was China. Exercising the right of reply was the Sudan.

The non-governmental organizations speaking this afternoon during the general debate included: International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH); World Organization against Torture; Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations (speaking on behalf of B'nai B'rith International); International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education (OIDEL); Association for the Prevention of Torture; Europe-Third World Centre; World Federation of Trade Unions; Human Rights Watch; Organization for the Solidarity of the Peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America; United Nations Watch; Colombian Commission of Jurists; and International Commission of Jurists.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 5 April to continue its general debate on civil and political rights.

Documents on Civil and Political Rights

Under this agenda item, the Commission has a number of documents before it.

There is the report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention presented by its Chairperson-Rapporteur, Leila Zerrougui, (E/CN.4/2005/6), which notes that during 2004, the Group adopted 25 Opinions concerning 51 persons in 17 countries; also between November 2003 and November 2004, the Group transmitted a total of 202 urgent appeals concerning 770 individuals to 56 Governments. In its recommendations, the Working Group calls upon States to bear in mind that, even in taking legitimate measures to counter terrorism, effective safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of liberty must be kept in place, in particular effective judicial control over detention orders. Moreover, the Group recommends that States avoid having recourse to prolonged incommunicado detention as a tool in fighting terrorism.

The first addendum to the report (Add.1) contains 27 Opinions adopted by the Working Group at its thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth and fortieth sessions, held in November/December 2003, May 2004 and September 2004, respectively.

The second addendum to the report (Add.2) concerns the Working Group's visit to Latvia in February 2003. During its visit the Group observed malfunctions in the administration of justice, including the issues of real access to assigned counsel, disregard for the principle that evidence should be open to challenge, and a lack of equality between the prosecution and the defence at the preliminary inquiry phase, among other things. The report also discusses the situation of children in conflict with the law, including the status of minors deprived of their liberty. On this latter point, the Group recommends creating a special justice system for minors, bringing the law and practice relating to the arrest and detention of minors into full accordance with the relevant international standards.

The third addendum (Add.3) is on the Working Group's mission to Belarus in August 2004. The Group notes the efforts made by the authorities to improve the judicial system and legal framework inherited from Soviet times and that in 2003, more than 20,000 inmates were released from prison through presidential amnesties. The report also mentions that the situation of illegal immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers seems to be better than in other parts of the world. The Working Group notes with concern the excessive power given to the prosecutors and investigators during the pre-trial detention period and about the imbalance detected between the powers of the prosecution and the rights of the defence. The report further notes that conditions on pre-trial detention are significantly worse than those of convicted persons and that there is a lack of a special criminal procedure for minors in conflict with the law. Among other things, the Group recommends that the jurisdiction of military tribunals be strictly limited to military offences committed by military personnel.

The fourth addendum to the report (Add.4) includes information on the Working Group's mission to China in September 2004. The report notes that legislation pertaining to the judicial organization and the legal framework governing judicial and administrative deprivation of liberty has not undergone basic changes since the Group's last visit to China in 1997. While attaching primary importance to the decisions taken recently at the political level to further reinforce and develop the protection of human rights in China, the Working Group considers that the rules and practices concerning judicial deprivation of liberty are not in keeping with international law and standards. The report further notes that placing the judiciary in a position of inferiority to the prosecution is incompatible with relevant international norms. The Working Group recommends to the authorities, among other things, that they examine the possibility of instituting a simplified emergency procedure to allow a person detained to be brought before a judge and not only before a procurator.

There is the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (E/CN.4/2005/65) in which the Group expresses serious concern regarding situations of disappearances worldwide. During the period under review, the Working Group transmitted to Governments in 20 countries 595 newly reported cases of disappearances. These figures represent an almost threefold increase over the previous year. The Working Group expresses its concern that complex situations of internal conflict or tensions generating violence and humanitarian crises often lead to human rights violations, including enforced disappearances and is troubled that Africa has been racked by armed conflicts over the last decade but at the same time it is the region with the fewest reported cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances, probably due to underreporting. Throughout the report, the Working Group expresses particular concern about reports of the existence of secret detention centres in a number of countries. Further concerns highlighted by the Working Group in the report include: in a number of States legal restrictions are placed upon NGOs working on cases of disappearances; several States use criminal procedure rules to "suspend" investigations in cases of alleged disappearance; and the occurrence of disappearances of children. Among other things, the Working Group strongly encourages the establishment of investigating bodies or truth commissions in order to clarify cases of disappearances and to implement compensation policies for victims.

The first addendum to this report (Add.1) highlights the Working Group's mission to Nepal in December 2004. The Working Group recognized the extremely difficult situation being faced by the population of Nepal and its authorities. Atrocities committed by the Maoists were frequently mentioned to the Working Group by all interlocutors. The phenomenon of disappearance in Nepal today is widespread; its use by both the Maoist insurgents and the Nepalese security forces is arbitrary, the report states. Detailed reports that were received from many rural areas suggest that the phenomenon of disappearances is under-acknowledged. The Working Group recommends, among other things, that as soon as possible, Nepalese criminal law be amended to create a specific crime of enforced or involuntary disappearance; that the Army Act be amended to provide that security forces personnel accused of enforced or involuntary disappearance in relation to a civilian be tried only in civilian courts; and that the Government and the security forces ensure that human rights defenders are protected from persecution for their work, as required under international law.

Another report is that of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir (E/CN.4/2005/61). Among the situations or cases involving alleged violations to freedom of religion or belief that have been addressed during this period, an important number also revealed violations of other forms of human rights, the report states. It is also noted that many of those situations leading to violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief are created by non-State actors. Many cases raised the issue of conversion and, in particular, forced conversion. The Special Rapporteur is also concerned at the number of attacks and other restrictions on places of worship and other religious sites or shrines as well as at the limitations placed on religious publications. The Special Rapporteur also addresses more general questions of freedom of religion such as registration; anti-terrorist legislation; and the practice of legislating categories of religions or other forms of belief. Finally, the Special Rapporteur insists on the fact that situations related to the question of religious symbols cannot be easily resolved because other human rights may be at stake. She emphasizes the importance and equal status of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

The first addendum to the report (Add.1) gives an account of communications transmitted by the Special Rapporteur between 1 January and 11 November 2004. It also contains the replies received from 42 Governments to her communications, as well as observations of the Special Rapporteur where considered appropriate.

The report's second addendum (Add.2) consists of the Special Rapporteur's preliminary conclusions and recommendations on her visit to Nigeria in February/March 2005. She notes that in many aspects of the social life there is genuine peaceful and harmonious coexistence between the Christian and Muslim communities of Nigeria, nevertheless, tensions and lack of understanding between these communities have aggravated in recent years. Over the last few years, a significant number of incidents of grave inter-communal violence have taken place, during which hundreds, sometimes thousands, of persons were killed, often in very short periods of time. Among other things, the Special Rapporteur calls on the Government to enhance its "early warning" systems and to create mechanisms that would prevent any incident developing into large-scale riots and violence and urges that more efforts be taken in this direction and that members of all religious communities feel adequately represented at these forums in order to avoid further violence.

Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions

PHILIP ALSTON, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, responding to questions posed during the interactive dialogue this morning, said that regarding the situation in Darfur, he had appreciated the assurances and cooperation given by the Government of Sudan. While recalling that Security Council resolution 1593 encouraged the Sudanese Government to cooperate and encouraged the domestic process in terms of redress, he added that the bottom line remained that the Commission of Inquiry determined there was no capacity, no will and no intention for the authorities to act. The International Criminal Court (ICC) process was therefore essential.

Regarding calls for permanent members of the Security Council to abstain from using their veto on instances of genocide, he said last week’s abstentions by the United States and China on the question of the Sudan and the ICC had set a good precedent. He also said he intended to indicate when permanent members did not refrain from using the veto in such instances in his future reports. As for the concern about private security firms and responsibility for human rights violations, he stated that responsibility continued to reside with the State. It was not permissible to outsource human rights responsibilities.

On the issue of a comprehensive, annual report on the use of the death penalty, Mr. Alston said that the information provided should include the total number of those sentenced to death, and of those executed, as well as the identities of those concerned, and the crimes of which they had been convicted. He would also make a modest attempt in future to identify those situations in which transparency was most lacking.

As for other issues raised, he said that he intended to ask State officials precise questions, as he wished to receive focused responses. Attention was also drawn to the fact that in countries where civil society participation remained weak, compensation could be made in seeking information elsewhere. Moreover, the very practice of reporting as a Special Rapporteur could help to strengthen civil society in such instances. Regarding the complementarity of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, he said it mattered not to the victim which body of law was applied; protection was what mattered. It was not acceptable for Governments to turn to humanitarian law when that suited them, or to human rights law when that worked better. International human rights law and international humanitarian law must be considered as an integrated body of law.

Presentation by Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances

STEPHEN J. TOOPE, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said after a period of some frustration, the Working Group was now stronger than at any period in its recent history, and its work was being pursued with dedication and effect. Although the mandate of the Working Group was initially inspired by the need to address cases of disappearances which arose under authoritarian regimes in Latin America, it soon became clear that this crime was perpetrated in every part of the planet; and sadly this continued to be true today. Whilst in the past, disappearances could be blamed primarily on military dictatorships, today they were also perpetrated in nominally democratic countries, in the context of much more complex situations of internal conflict. The crime of disappearance was often associated with other egregious human rights violations, such as torture, rape and summary execution. Human rights defenders were a target of disappearance as they worked to discover the fate of the disappeared. All Governments should protect human rights defenders.

There were three issues of particular concern: reports of the existence of secret detention centres in a number of countries; that in a number of States criminal procedure roles were invoked to "suspend" investigation in cases of alleged disappearance; and that in the past few years there had been a significant increase in the number of children who had disappeared - although all disappearances were serious crimes, the disappearance of a child was particularly heinous. In 2004, the Working Group had transmitted 595 new cases of disappearances to the Governments of 20 States.

For a number of years, the Working Group had expressed concern over the inadequate level of staffing for its work. This year, significant efforts had been made by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to increase support, and the Group was thankful. The results were obvious, and included a three-fold increase in the number of cases considered, and a marked improvement in the timeliness of communications with sources. Of the 79 States with outstanding cases, the Governments of Burundi, Cambodia, Guinea, Israel, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles and Togo had never replied. In addition, this year, some 21 Governments and the Palestinian Authority had failed to communicate with the Working Group on outstanding cases. Algeria and Iran had failed to respond to renewed requests for country visits.

A visit had been conducted to Nepal, the country that had generated the largest number of urgent action cases for the Working Group in the last two years. The Group had concluded that the phenomenon of disappearances in Nepal today was widespread; this use of this practice by both the Maoist insurgents and the Nepalese security forces was arbitrary. Perpetrators were shielded by political and legal impunity. The Government should continue to make every effort to strengthen the role of the National Human Rights Commission and to facilitate its work. Twenty-five years ago the international community had concluded that the crime of disappearance should be eradicated, and to that aim it had failed. The United Nations human rights system was often criticized for talk without action. The Working Group's humanitarian mandate belied that complaint; it stood ready to assist any Government that wanted to end the scourge of disappearances or to discover the fate of past victims.

Response from Concerned Countries

GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal) speaking as a concerned country, said it was clear from the report that the Government of Nepal had facilitated the successful completion of the Working Group's mission during the visit. The visit was important in the context of the constructive engagement with the special procedures so as to further strengthen efforts at protecting and promoting the human rights of all. Nepal would positively consider many of the recommendations that related directly to the mandate of the Working Group and would work towards their implementation in order to contribute to the promotion of human rights. The report had made some efforts to take on board the overall context of the situation owing to the ongoing insurgency. However, some of the conclusions and instances of recommendations in the report were not subscribed to.

His Majesty's Government had been serious about allegations of disappearances and had taken a series of measures to address the alleged cases of disappearances. Analysis of the submitted cases revealed that a large number of them were mainly related to the issue of recording and reporting of releases and detentions, which had since been improved. Systematic and sustained efforts had been made to inculcate the human rights values in security personnel. The Government did not allow torture, and the cases brought to its attention had been and would be investigated. Similarly, there were individual aberrations of rights abuses, which could happen in any conflict situation. Whenever and wherever abuses had occurred and were reported, they had been investigated, and those proven to be offenders had been brought to justice.

Disappearance was not widespread in Nepal, and to say so was an exaggeration. The Government had been implementing many administrative, legal and institutional measures to consolidate efforts. Furthermore, a comprehensive three-year National Human Rights Action Plan had been launched to implement Nepal's national and international human rights commitments and obligations. The promotion and protection of human rights was more of a long journey than an event for every country. In the efforts to strengthen the values of human rights, Nepal would always remain open to constructive engagement with the international community and in turn would appreciate the understanding of the international community in its efforts to protect the human rights of the people and in the context of the insurgency.

Interactive Dialogue

FEDERICO VILLAGAS BELTRAN (Argentina) asked the Chairperson-Rapporteur about the right to truth for the families and relatives in cases of enforced disappearances, and how he thought that should be addressed.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), in stressing the need for active cooperation, asked what follow-up methods would be helpful to ensure that the Working Group's requests for information would be improved. Noting that at least eight States had never responded to the Working Group's requests, he asked whether the Chairperson-Rapporteur had sought out the Representatives of those States to ask why they had not responded.

DANIELA GREGR (Luxembourg) said the Working Group had noted a sharp increase in the number of cases of disappearances reported to it. What explained that increase? Also, the Chairperson-Rapporteur was requested to provide additional information on how to conduct particularly difficult cases. Regarding the involvement of non-governmental organizations in investigating cases of enforced disappearances, she asked the Chairperson-Rapporteur to provide examples of Governments that had either impeded or enhanced non-governmental efforts to resolve these cases.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) noted that there had allegedly been abductions within the framework of the fight against terrorism, with the person taken allegedly being held in secret places of detention. Had the Working Group had the chance to look into that phenomenon, and to what extent could he confirm the validity of those allegations?

LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Costa Rica) asked about incidents in which non-State actors had been responsible for enforced disappearances, and what action the Working Group had taken in such instances. He also asked the Working Group's view on the need for the Commission to take up the issue of a draft convention against enforced disappearances.
STEPHEN J. TOOPE, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, reacting to questions and comments raised, said during the Working Group's visit to Nepal it had noted cases of disappearances within the political and security context. The Working Group had recorded 1,600 cases, based on eyewitness accounts throughout the country. The disappearances were attributed to both the Nepalese security forces and the Maoist insurgents. The Government had reported that 90 cases of disappearances had been dealt with but had not yet been clarified. The Working Group was thankful to the Government of Nepal for its cooperation. He urged the authorities to strengthen the National Commission on Human Rights to freely pursue its objectives. The National Commission should be unhindered in accessing all places of formal and informal detention places. Most families whose loved ones disappeared wanted to know the truth, for that reason, efforts should be made in elucidating cases of disappearances in all its aspects.

He signalled that the Working Group was one of the many successful United Nations mechanisms that many States cooperated with in providing information, although there were some that did not provide such information. Although there were outstanding cases, there was a sharp increase in the processing of cases by many States. The Working Group was worried about disappearances within the framework of conflicts and terrorism.

Presentation by Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

LEILA ZERROUGUI, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, said that the Working Group had addressed the issue of psychiatric detention in its deliberation number seven of 2004. Holding people of unsound mind against their will in conditions of detention, even following a judicial, administrative or other decision, could represent a denial of the right to liberty. Stressing that the law must always provide for procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention, she said the need to keep a patient in a psychiatric establishment must be re-examined at regular intervals by a court or independent body. Psychiatric detention should never be used to infringe on the freedom of expression of an individual, to punish them or discredit their opinions, or to sway them from activities.

On the issue of detentions and the war against terrorism, she said that new and worrying practices had been observed. In additional to new legislation, the application of existing legislation was of concern. States had more and more often adopted exceptions to their legislation, including the right to hold individuals for an unlimited period of time without charge. She also expressed deep concern about the holding of foreigners without charge, and called upon States to avoid misusing administrative detention in applying laws on both national security and immigration policy. The same guarantees must be applied independently of whether there had been an indictment; all States should review their legislation to make sure that all those detained benefited from guarantees applicable under criminal procedures.

Noting that the Working Group planned to visit Canada and South Africa in 2005, Ms. Zerrougui said that, regarding the Working Group's visit to Latvia, the members had seen several prisons, detention centres, police stations and psychiatric facilities. While recognizing that the legal framework had been substantially reformed, with all those met by the Working Group recognizing the improvement that had been affected, she said she nonetheless remained concerned by the lack of effective access to court-appointed counsel, the non-respect for adversarial procedure, the lack of equality in different phases of a trial and the use of administrative detention. She was also concerned by the legislation that allowed Latvian citizens to be held for several years.

Regarding the visit to Belarus, she noted that there had been efforts to improve the judicial system, to reduce the period of pre-trail detention and to improve access to detainees. However, issues of concern included that the power to keep a person in detention, or to extend detention, resided with the prosecutor, not the judge. She also noted the imbalance between the offices of the prosecutor and defense, and the absence of a separate procedure for juveniles. The Working Group also remained concerned about the process for appointment and revocation of judges, and the lack of independence of lawyers before the bar. The country should adapt legislation in conformity with international norms.

As for the visit to China, Ms. Zerrougui noted that this had been a follow-up visit, during which the Working Group had mainly revisited places from its first visit. Noting that major decisions had been adopted since the Group's last visit, including an amendment to the Constitution to recognize the rule of law, and another to give human rights constitutional ranking, she said that the rules and practice of deprivation of freedom were not always in conformity with international law. Moreover, judges had been placed in a lower position than prosecutors, and there was no genuine remedy to change the status of one in administrative detention or detention for re-education through labour or psychiatric detention.

Response from Concerned Countries

INGA REINE (Latvia), speaking as a concerned country, said the visit by the Working Group on arbitrary detention in February 2004 was the first visit by a thematic mechanism of the Commission to Latvia. The Government of Latvia attached particular importance to that visit. The members of the Working Group were granted unlimited access to various detention facilities, including the possibility to conduct private interviews with detainees. The recommendations by the Working Group were being carefully examined with the view to amend legislative acts and improve administrative practices. The Law on the State-guaranteed Free Legal Assistance had recently been adopted; the Law on the Imposition of Coercive Measures on Children had entered into force and the final reading by the Parliament of the draft Criminal Procedure Law was expected to take place soon. The Government had reconfirmed its priorities in the area of criminal justice, to improve the effectiveness of control over detention, including paying special attention to the situation of juveniles; to facilitate the work for probation services; to promote alternative sanctions; and to improve the physical conditions of detention.

Latvia recognized that, despite its extensive efforts to eliminate the repressive system inherited from the period of communist rule, a lot still needed to be done to bring the national laws and administrative practice into full compliance with international human rights standards. To that end, Latvia repeated its commitment to cooperate with the international human rights mechanisms and hoped that the constructive dialogue would continue.

SERGEI ALEINIK (Belarus), speaking as a concerned country, said the report was welcomed as it would help build a better Belarus. The Government was open to a constructive and balanced dialogue on a number of themes. Despite a very tight timeframe, the Chairperson had been able to head the mission to Belarus. The constructive dialogue held during and after the visit was appreciated. After having been carefully studied, the Government found itself at odds with some of the conclusions, and had communicated those concerns to the Working Group.

Some measures had already been undertaken to fulfil the recommendations of the Working Group. Regarding paragraphs 72, 82 and 84, amendments and additions were being made to the laws of Belarus on the conditions of pre-trial detention, as well as to the law on criminal proceedings for minors, as mentioned in paragraph 85. A round-table had been held on the prospects of juvenile justice in Belarus, resulting from which a strategy paper had been created, including a proposal for a State body organizing issues of juvenile justice. A law on the legal status of foreigners was also underway. The recommendations on the judicial decisions of forced placement in psychiatric hospitals were also under consideration. Belarus was fully open to active cooperation with the Special Rapporteurs and special procedures, and would continue its cooperation to this end.

SHEN YONGXIANG (China), speaking as a concerned country, said the Chinese Government always attached great importance to the role played by the special mechanisms of the Commission in promoting and protecting human rights. It had always actively supported their work and had good cooperation with them. To ensure the success of the visit, the Chinese Government had made extensive preparations, and had fully demonstrated a positive and cooperative spirit. Thanks to the joint efforts of the two parties, the visit proceeded smoothly and both sides had found it satisfactory on the whole.

China was a country based on the rule of law. The Government attached great importance to the promotion and protection of all rights of its people. To be sure, as a developing country, there was still a lot of room for improvement in many areas in China. The Government had the resolve, the confidence and the ability to lead the people in overcoming difficulties and achieving greater progress in all fields, including that of human rights. To that end, it was ready to proceed on the basis of equality and mutual respect and with greater openness to step up exchanges and cooperation with the international community, including the special mechanisms of the Commission. It wished to draw upon all the advanced good theories and practices and to remain open to well-intentioned suggestions and criticism. Note had been taken of the report's analysis and recommendations, and the relevant departments would study them carefully. It was hoped that in future the Working Group would make a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the Chinese legal system and present more feasible recommendations.

Interactive Dialogue

ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg) referred to a statement made on behalf of the European Union last week which stated that arbitrary detention was a matter of great concern. The Working Group had adopted 25 opinions on 51 individuals. There had been a drop in the number of appeals, and requests to visit countries had not been responded to. Given this, he asked how the relationship with countries could be evaluated and what measures could be adopted for administrative detention to be more effectively applied by States.

AMY MCKEE (United States), referring to the report on the Group's visit to Belarus, noted that the Working Group had been allowed to visit all facilities except the detention facilities under the supervision of the KGB. Given that Belarus had a record of suppressing opposition by the use of detention facilities, wasn’t the lack of access to this key facility a key omission showing the lack of cooperation, and what was the Working Group doing to ensure that the rights of those detained in the facility were protected? Further, how was detention used to impede the citizens of Belarus from expressing their freedom of expression?

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the concern voiced by the delegation of the United States was surprising, as the Working Group was one of the first groups to speak about the disastrous situation of persons detained in the so-called war against terror in the Guantanamo naval base, and the contradiction appeared to be glaring. What follow-up had the Working Group been able to ensure regarding persons arbitrarily detained at Guantanamo, and had it been able to familiarize itself with their names, as some had never been given names, as they were non-persons. Had the Working Group received any individual complaints regarding these cases, and what could the Group do to help them? Would the Working Group ever manage to visit the detention centre, he asked, and what follow-up had it been able to implement with regard to the situation.

LEILA ZERROUGUI, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, responding to the questions, thanked those countries, particularly Latvia, which had begun to take on board the recommendations of the Working Group after its visits. On the issue of cooperation of Governments with the Working Group, she said that there had actually been more cooperation with the Working Group in terms of individual communications this year, although there had been less cooperation on urgent appeals. As in these situations, the Working Group was often reacting to matters of humanitarian concern; Governments should respond to these concerns. As to the countries which the Working Group would like to visit, they included Turkmenistan, the United States and Turkey. The latter country had already agreed to the Working Group’s visit.

On the issue of the misuse of administrative detention, she said there seemed to be almost no more distinction between administrative detentions, which was being applied to those suspected of having committed a crime. This was worrisome when States chose to remove individuals from criminal procedures and to subject them to an administrative decision. Even for those detained under administrative procedures, there must be respect for the minimum number of legal guarantees, including the right to contest the decision, and the right to access a lawyer.

With reference to the visit to Belarus, she said that the Working Group's requests to visit places had all been acceded to, except visits to the KGB detention centres, which had only been submitted after arrival in the country. As for the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, she said the Working Group continued to discuss a possible visit to that site with the Government of the United States. The Working Group had also requested to visit other centres of detention, and hoped for a favourable response.

Presentation by Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief

ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said she had visited Nigeria this year and her report had affirmed that the Government of Nigeria had undoubtedly shown a real respect for freedom of religion or belief. Nevertheless, tensions and a lack of understanding between different communities had polarized along religious lines and recently degenerated in incidents during which hundreds of innocent persons were killed. It was her clear impression that there were well-founded concerns that religious tension could possibly degenerate into a conflict of much larger intensity if the Government of Nigeria did not take radical measures. She would visit Sri Lanka in May and France in September 2005. She wished to express her gratitude to both those Governments for their invitations as well as to the Government of Bangladesh for accepting a follow up visit for which dates had not yet been decided. She was still waiting for a positive reply to the requests for invitation that she hade transmitted to Eritrea, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan.

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was at the heart of a number of human rights crisis and at the same time its resolution could form a strong foundation for building peace, respect for human rights and pave the way for deepening democracy, she said. Over the few months she had been entrusted with the mandate, she had been able to identify a number of trends and practices that ran contrary to the right to freedom of religion or belief. Among the list of issues, the main concerns were the continuing violations of human rights of members of certain religious minorities and also the widely applied practice of forced conversion, which she believed was breaching the strongest and most fundamental communities. Non-actors, including religious groups themselves, committed a very important part of the violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief. Perpetrators should be brought to justice and the States should multiply their efforts to promote a culture of religious intolerance. The events of 11 September 2001 continued to have a dramatic impact on the situation of human rights, including freedom of religion or belief. She was concerned that counter-terrorism measures, adopted in a number of States, established a confusing and misleading link between certain religions and terrorism. That affected the right to freedom of religion of persons whose religion or belief was targeted.

Response from Concerned Country

JOSEPH U. AYALOGU (Nigeria), speaking as a concerned country, said the commitment of the Government and people of Nigeria to freedom of conscience, religion, belief and peaceful coexistence had never faltered; a climate of religious tolerance pervaded every aspect of life in a multi-religious, ethnically diverse country testified clearly to the true state of affairs. The Government was even-handed in dealing with all religions, but also recognized the importance of religion in the lives of people and communities, which explained the coexistence of Sharia and customary legal systems alongside the common law in all parts of the country.

Also noting that differences of opinion sometimes manifested themselves in sporadic unrest, he said that the incidents, highlighted in the preliminary report as communal and religious disturbances, had been demonstrated to have socio-political and economic undertones. The underlying causes of past unrest were largely attributable to poverty, illiteracy and political exploitation of the masses, given religious coloration as an expedient. The Government continued to do its best to combat and ameliorate incidents of civil disturbance, and had adopted dialogue as a tool. Various religious and traditional rulers were involved in the process, and regularly met with the President to offer advice on how best to achieve harmony in the country.

The Government also continued to address the economic and social needs of the people, he said. The international community should recognize the efforts undertaken by the Government of Nigeria, and assist it through implementing fairer terms for international trade and cancelling foreign debt. He also addressed the reference to impunity in the report, stating that no citizen was above the law. Those caught violating the law were prosecuted and appropriately punished; however, there was more to solving communal problems than legal action alone. The Government and people of the country tended to emphasize reconciliation and healing in the search for long-lasting and durable solutions to interfaith dichotomies. The mechanisms put in place thus far were working, and peace had been spreading throughout the country. Although, no society had yet succeeded in achieving complete amity in matters of faith or belief; differences in Nigeria should not be seen as indicators of intolerance or discrimination. Instead, the remarkable tolerance that had been achieved thus far should be emphasized.

Interactive Dialogue

JUAN PABLO VEGAS TORRES (Peru) said the Special Rapporteur had expressed concern for religious minorities that did not have the support of an organization that allowed them to denounce violations of their rights, such as the Baha'is. Did the Special Rapporteur have any plans to do anything about their situation, as it had not improved, but had worsened?

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the issue of forced conversions was a disturbing matter, and paragraph 74 was fully supported. The Special Rapporteur should consider this matter and any additional information would be most welcome.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said the report's conclusions raised a very pertinent issue, which had also been raised by predecessors, regarding the impact of the events of 11 September 2001 on freedom of religion in States, which had established a misleading link between religion and terrorism, and thus had targeted the members of that religion. Was there a contravention between freedom of religion and belief, and freedom of expression and speech? Was it possible to define what an expression of religious intolerance was?

AMANDA GORELY (Australia) asked what the Special Rapporteur's perspective on the Baha'is in Iran was, and the range of discrimination experienced by them. How could the Government of Iran more effectively address the issue of desecration of Baha’i sites?

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights said all persons had the right to adopt the religion of their choice. Today's report mentioned false conversions. Some countries had condemned to death individuals who had changed religion; to that end, Switzerland asked how this paragraph could be respected?

ASTRID HELLE AJAMAY (Norway) said the report had been studied very carefully, and the efforts made were to be commended. The Special Rapporteur should continue to provide the public and States with updated information. Regarding future activities on protection, this was a good focus. Many people were persecuted across the world for their religion or belief, and they required her aid. It was hoped that the next report would examine the issue of religious symbols and their display. What challenges did the Special Rapporteur see with regard to women's rights and with regard to freedom of religion or belief? Regarding forced conversions, would she look specifically into the problems faced by women married into another religious group?

LUCIANA MANCINI (Brazil) said the experience of the Special Rapporteur would be of great value. There had been growing incidents of religious intolerance throughout the world, as well as for minorities. How would the Special Rapporteur address this, especially in the context of multiple violations? How would she use country visits in order to address this issue?

JONNY SINAGA (Indonesia) said freedom of religion was a fundamental issue of human rights. A free exercise of freedom of religion or belief should be assured. What was the Special Rapporteur's assessment that in many instances situations which could involve religious conflicts were not necessarily brought about by the intolerance of one religion, but by other factors such as economic ones.

ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg) said the difficulties facing certain religious minorities and faith-based communities were highlighted in the report. What steps could States take to improve the situation of these groups? Regarding the main aspects of the Special Rapporteur's mandate and its implementation, what were the core issues that would be tackled in the years to come?

DEBORAH CHATSIS (Canada) asked how the implementation of the recommendations in the report could be implemented or facilitated and what the international community could do to help?

MOHAMMAD MAHDI AKHOUNDZADEH (Iran) said he wished to emphasize the important task faced by the Special Rapporteur and to join her in acknowledging the contribution of Pope John Paul II to the inter-religious dialogue. Recalling that an open invitation had been extended to all special thematic procedures of the Commission on Human Rights, he said his country would be happy to have the Special Rapporteur visit Iran. All groups fully enjoyed their civil rights in Iran, which fully respected civil rights.

ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said she had taken up the issue of the Baha’i religious communities in her report and had expressed concerns in that regard. She had received communications from individuals from Iran concerning that religious group. She said she was also concerned about the persecution of religious groups in many other countries. With regard to conversion, it was a sad story; particularly concerning women were converted for the sake of marriage. She had transmitted communications to some Governments where there were enforced conversions. In the north of Nigeria, some laws had been converted into Islamic Sharia laws which prohibited Muslim women to marry non-Muslims. Such acts might lead to a death sentence. Concerning a question from Bangladesh, freedom of expression should not be considered as defaming religions. In many ways, the freedom of expression should be respected. She would be drafting guidelines concerning defamation and the practice of the freedom of expression. With regard to religious symbols, an adult had the right to wear any form of religious symbols. However, she expressed her concern about the use of religious symbols in the context of public schools. She would also take a larger view in her next report with respect to Islamaphobia and Christianaphobia.

General Debate on Civil and Political Rights

SHEN YONGXIANG (China) said a comprehensive and objective understanding of civil and political rights was the precondition and basis for their full realization. They constituted an important component of basic human rights, and were the first generation of human rights to obtain legal recognition. They were universal, were strongly linked with human factors and could not be isolated from the social environment, the history and culture, religions and traditions of the countries concerned. The Commission should be a forum for the promotion of these rights, and should not be reduced to being a battleground of confrontation as it was now. The full realization of civil and political rights was a systematic endeavour, which entailed a step-by-step approach.

The Chinese Government had always attached great importance to the promotion and protection of civil and political rights. In the past year, in accordance with the constitutional principle that the State respected and safeguarded human rights, the Government had taken a series of measures for the protection of civil rights and freedoms. As a developing country, China had a large population and great regional differences, with a relatively low level of economic development and education, and was faced with many difficulties and challenges in the realization of civil and political rights; the Government was taking various measures to resolve them. Democracy and the rule of law implied giving full play to democracy and effective implementation of the strategy of ruling the country on the basis of law. This would surely have a positive and far-reaching influence on the realization of civil and political rights in China. At the same time, China was willing to adopt an open attitude, and to further strengthen exchanges and cooperation with the international community, so as to jointly promote the healthy development of the international cause of human rights.

ALEXANDRA POMEON, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues-(FIDH), said the report of the special procedures of the Commission on impunity and other related issues were welcomed, as was the decision to introduce a draft resolution on justice. Impunity and acts of torture, genocide and war crimes impacted the prospects for reconciliation. The submission of a resolution on the right to truth was also to be welcomed. The Commission on Human Rights should redress the situation in Darfur, Sudan, and in the Great Lakes region of Africa. Other situations that should be addressed included those in Colombia, Morocco, Algeria, Iraq, Cambodia, Chechnya, and the United States.

BORIS WIJKSTROM, of World Organization against Torture, said his organization had already voiced concerns over the trend towards the weakening of certain fundamental human rights principle, in particular by States who claimed that measures compromising human rights were necessary in the name of fighting terrorism. Since then a further erosion of rights had occurred, including the deliberate abandonment of one of the most fundamental principles upon which democratic societies were based - the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. The world had been shocked by one of the worst human rights scandals in recent memory - the revelation that the United States had systematically tortured and ill-treated detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo, pursuant to policies and directives set at the highest levels of the United States' Government in a misguided and illegal attempt to enhance intelligence gathering. His organization was gravely concerned that in the year since the abuses of Abu Ghraib first came to light, little had been done to hold accountable those persons in the United States' Government who were responsible for setting the policies and giving the orders which put the United States in serious breach of international law.

KLAUS NETTER, of Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations, speaking on behalf of B'nai B'rith International, said from October 2000 onward, a wave of anti-Semitism had swept through the world. Jewish institutions and Jewish-looking individuals had been verbally and physically attacked. Initially, official reactions to these events were less than satisfactory. The Commission should maintain the specific references to explicit forms of religious intolerance, and authorize a mandate for a Special Rapporteur on anti-Semitism and Christianophobia as well as Islamophobia.

CHRISTINE BALDACCHINO, of International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education-(OIDEL), recalled that the Commission had decided to continue its consideration of popular participation and equity as a basis of democracy. Participation and equity were characteristics of good governance, just as were transparency and responsibility. Moreover, good governance involved the State, the private sector and civil society. All three actors contributed to sustainable human development and the creation of political, judicial, economic and social conditions conducive to the fight against poverty, to creating jobs and to protecting the environment. In the pursuit of good governance, the State must fulfil its obligation to redefine its role with regard to social and economic activities, and ensure the maintenance of equitable judicial frameworks to regulate public and private activities. This notion of good governance constituted a substantial change to the vision of the State, which must now be considered a partner of the private sector and civil society, and which must become an agent of empowerment.

MARK THOMSON, of Association for the Prevention of Torture, said the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment was comprehensive and absolute. It applied in all circumstances, including situations that gravely threatened public safety. Indeed, robust and unwavering respect for the prohibition was an essential prerequisite to real public safety and security. Attempts by some States to apply narrow interpretations of the prohibition heightened the need to combine universal standards with concrete international and national implementation measures. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture would empower international and national independent expert bodies to carry out visits to all places where individuals were deprived of liberty. Such visits would represent one of the most effective tools to prevent torture and other ill-treatment. He urged all States to sign and ratify the Optional Protocol before the next session of the Commission.

IRMA YANNI, of Europe-Third World Centre, said violations of economic, social and cultural rights were, more often than not, accompanied by violations of civil and political rights and vice versa, as the human rights situation in many countries illustrated. This reality demonstrated the indivisibility of these rights. The right to life, as well as the rights to freedom of association, to dissent, opinion and expression, were scorned and ridiculed in the course of the protests and demonstrations of millions of peasant families. The current situation had become absurd; those who produced food were starving, suffering from malnutrition, and were thus deprived of their most fundamental rights. An international convention on the rights of peasants should be adopted.

LUIS NARVAEZ, of World Federation of Trade Unions, said within the present framework of corporative media outlets, policies of domination were being furthered by these manipulating machineries and were being used to advance economic impositions and aggression of all types, including military. People had been reduced to passive recipients of information who received information from only a few points. Did it not constitute a manipulation of the truth to hold five people as prisoners and to have judged them as terrorists, although they had only risked their lives to defend their country from its powerful neighbour? The expressions of democratic feeling by the people of Venezuela had come under attack by aggressive media campaigns. One could not accept the guise of impartiality that the media had been using to hide its intents. There must be action to ensure that free access to the media, and fair and balanced information became a reality.

WENDY PATTEN, of Human Rights Watch, said as part of the global campaign against terrorism, many Governments attempted to return terror suspects and security detainees to countries where they knew those suspects would be at risk of torture. Since an international ban on torture was absolute, many deporting Governments had received assurances from receiving countries that the suspects would not be mistreated upon return. Far too many Governments around the world practiced torture systematically. The United States continued to reject the applicability of fundamental rights protections found in the United States and international law to persons apprehended in its global campaign against terrorism. It refused to apply laws of war and human rights standards to the nearly 550 men at Guantanamo Bay held in defiance and largely in incommunicado detention, and whose treatment had been described as "tantamount to torture". The United States had so far refused to grant the Commission's special procedures access to terrorism detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere despite several such requests.

LURDES CERVANTES, of Organization for the Solidarity of the Peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, said there were some 500 persons detained in Guantanamo, including youngsters and older persons. They were detained arbitrarily without charge by the United States, were isolated with no access to redress, and were mistreated. The unjustified war of aggression was failing, and had led to some 100,000 civilian victims, sexual scandals, forced disappearances, and horrors committed in Abu Ghraib prison. The heroic resistance in the occupied Palestinian territories had led to many persons being subjected to torture, which had been justified by Israel as security requirements. The Government of the United States, through force, threats and lies, maintained total impunity, whilst those who had sought to protect their people from terrorist attacks were made to suffer, such as were the Cubans detained in the United States. The Commission needed to examine these issues to prove its credibility.

HILLEL C. NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said the Russian Federation faced a choice - to be a bona fide member of the Community of Democracies, or to pursue the policy of imprisoning dissidents such as Yevgeniya (Jenya) Taranenko. Political rights and civil liberties had become so restricted that the country had been downgraded to "not free" status by the latest Freedom House survey. United Nations Watch remained concerned by the further consolidation of State control of the media and the imposition of official curbs on opposition political parties. Jenya Taranenko was a 23 year-old post-graduate student working with youth organizations in the Russian Federation until she was arrested and beaten, without having done anything wrong. On 14 December 2004, Jenya and 39 others had made a vigorous, but non-violent, protest in Moscow, in a building connected to the President's office. The protestors had been charged with destruction of property, vandalism and "forceful seizure of power". Those charges had since been replaced with the charge of "organization of mass disorders", which entailed trial without jury. Could the Russian Federation pledge today that it had earned its invitation to attend the Ministerial Meeting of the Community of Democracies by releasing Jenya Taranenko before that meeting?

ANDRES SANCHEZ THORIN, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, said his group welcomed the assurances given by GRULAC with regard to impunity and the reparation provided to victims of human rights violations. The Colombian Government in its decree 128 of 2003 had indicated the demobilization of 5,000 paramilitary members. However, there were 15,000 paramilitary groups still operating freely. Measures had not been taken with regard to impunity concerning crimes committed in their past activities. The Government had created a situation where the judiciary was unable to investigate human rights violations committed by members of the paramilitary. Those who violated human rights crimes were walking freely with impunity. The Government of Colombia should take further measures to bring the perpetrators to justice.

CORDULA DROEGE, of International Commission of Jurists, said the Commission had an opportunity this year to provide a necessary and invaluable reference text for victims on their right to a remedy and reparations in international law, and it should not let it pass. Too many victims of serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law had waited in vain for reparations that were due to them morally and in law. These Draft Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law had already had an important impact, and the Commission should adopt them at this session and contribute to the consolidation of international law and practice on remedies and reparations.

Right of Reply

OMAR DAHAB MOHAMED (Sudan), exercising the right of reply, said the ability and willingness of the Sudanese judicial system had been questioned by the new Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The Sudanese delegation would like to assure him that no effort would be spared to cooperate with him. It was to be hoped that his remarks, before even visiting the country, would not prejudice his work. His assessment that the Government did not have the intention to cooperate was premature. He was asked whether he had ever come across the Sudanese Commission of Inquiry's findings, which had come to basically the same conclusions on four issues as the International Commission of Inquiry's, namely on the need to end the occurrence of human rights violations in Darfur, the need to bring violators to justice, the non-existence of genocide, and reparations for victims. It was the cardinal principle of justice to listen to all parties, he stressed, and the Special Rapporteur had not yet listened to the Sudanese Government adequately. The Sudanese judicial system was one of the most efficient in the region. Never had its willingness, ability and intentions been put into doubt. The Sudanese Government remained ready to acquaint itself with the legal system on which the judicial system operated; the statistics would confirm beyond a doubt the integrity of the Sudanese system. The issue of ability and willingness was a judicial issue of admissibility in contemporary international criminal law, which should not be loosely and irresponsibly determined.

* *** *
For use of information media; not an official record