COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS EIGHT RESOLUTIONS AND MEASURES ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, PROMOTIONAND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
25 April 2001
Morning





Renews Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Torture for Three Years



The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted eight resolutions and measures under its agenda items on civil and political rights and the promotion and protection of human rights.

In a consensus resolution on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Commission condemned all such acts, in particular any action or attempt by States or public officials to legalize or authorize torture under any circumstances. It stressed that all allegations of torture should be promptly and impartially examined and that those responsible must be held responsible and severely punished, including officials in charge of the place of detention where such an act was found to have taken place, and that national legal systems should ensure that victims obtained redress and compensation The Commission decided to extend for three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

On the development of public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights, the Commission adopted a consensus resolution in which it encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue the development of human rights education and training materials. It urged the Department of Public Information to continue to utilize fully and effectively UN information centres for disseminating basic information and reference materials on human rights. The Commission also urged all Member States to develop comprehensive, effective and sustainable national plans of action for human rights education and public information.


Concerning human rights defenders, the Commission adopted a consensus resolution in which it called upon all States to promote and give full effect to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and urged States to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders.

With regards to the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, the Commission adopted a resolution by a roll-call vote of 34 in favour, to 16 against and 4 abstentions, in which it affirmed that such an order required, among other things, the right of all peoples to self-determination, permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources, and development.

The Commission also adopted consensus resolutions and measures on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2005); science and the environment; and fundamental standards of humanity.

The Commission was scheduled to resume its meeting at 3 p.m. to continue to take action on draft resolutions.


Action on resolutions concerning the promotion and protection of human rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.72) on the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2005), adopted by consensus, the Commission acknowledged with appreciation the mid-term global evaluation of the Decade undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; noted with appreciation the report issued by the High Commissioner on the evaluation; took note of the recommendations in the report, which were annexed to the present resolution; invited Governments and other Decade actors to consider to disseminate broadly the recommendations of the mid-term evaluation report and to take them into account in furthering their human rights education activities during the Decade's remaining years; and invited Governments and intergovernmental organizations to provide information, as appropriate, to the High Commissioner on steps taken to implement the recommendations of the mid-term evaluation report.

In a consensus measure (E/CN.4/2001/L.79) on science and the environment, the Commission decided to invite the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme to organize a joint seminar to review and assess progress achieved since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development on the topic of promoting and protecting human rights in relation to environmental questions.


Action on resolution concerning civil and political rights

In a consensus resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.47) on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Commission condemned all such acts; condemned in particular any action or attempt by States or public officials to legalize or authorize torture under any circumstances; urged all Governments to promote speedy and full implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action relating to freedom from torture, in which it was stated that States should abrogate legislation leading to impunity for those who committed such acts; reminded Governments that corporal punishment, including of children, could amount to cruel punishment or even torture; stressed that all allegations of torture should be promptly and impartially examined and that those responsible must be held responsible and severely punished, including officials in charge of the place of detention where such an act was found to have taken place, and that national legal systems should ensure that victims obtained redress and compensation; called upon Governments to prevent the use of equipment specifically designed to inflict torture; requested the relevant Special Rapporteur to study the situation of trade and production in such equipment; reminded all States that prolonged incommunicado detention could facilitate the perpetration of torture; urged all States to become parties to the Convention against Torture and encouraged them to consider limiting any reservations they had lodged to the Convention or to consider withdrawing reservations; stressed that States must not punish personnel for not obeying orders to commit acts amounting to torture; took note of the announcement by the Special Rapporteur that he would request a visit in compliance with resolution S-5/1 of the Commission and urged him to do so without delay; decided to extend for three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur; called upon all Governments to give serious consideration to the Special Rapporteur's requests to visit their countries and urged them to enter into constructive dialogues with him with respect to follow-ups to his recommendations; and appealed for annual contributions to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.

Prior to its adoption by consensus, the Commission had three roll-call votes concerning L.47. An amendment L.65 by Cuba to add language to operative paragraph 2 of L.47 was rejected by a roll-call vote of 14 in favour, to 25 against, and with 13 abstentions. A proposal by the United States to delete operative paragraph 27 was rejected by a roll-call vote of 2 in favour, to 48 against, and with 2 abstentions. And an amendment by Cuba to delete operative paragraph 30 was rejected by a roll-call vote of 2 in favour, to 29 against and with 21 abstentions.

A Representative of the United States said his country was aware of the intense efforts to work out the language of L.47 and remained committed to the intentions of the resolution. However, with respect to operative paragraph 27, it was felt to be inappropriate to single out individual countries for condemnation and thus, the United States had withdrawn its sponsorship for L. 47. The United States was opposed to the call for a visit by the Special Rapporteur to a single country as specified in the resolution. A paragraph vote was requested on operative paragraph 27.

A Representative of Algeria said that it had been thought that the Commission was close to a consensus on the draft resolution, which seemed not to be the case now. Algeria was not satisfied with the draft resolution. It was unbalanced since it contained 13 operative paragraphs relating to the Special Rapporteur which were replies to criticisms levelled by certain States against the Special Rapporteur. This draft resolution would not increase the credibility and independence of mind of the Special Rapporteur. It was not up to the Commission to set the methods of work of the Special Rapporteur. Nevertheless, Algeria joined the consensus because of the importance of the issue.

A Representative of Latvia said his country recognized that the drafting of this resolution was a difficult task. Latvia supported the present text, as amended. Article 2 of the Convention against Torture committed States to prevent acts of torture by effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other means. States had to act as responsible global actors to prevent torture in different fields and by different means, including the production of different equipment. The widest possible support for the text was hoped for.

A Representative of Cuba said that his country acknowledged the last minute efforts to reach an agreement on L.47. The attention of the Commission was drawn to operative paragraph 30 on which Cuba would ask for a separate vote. Cuba could not approve the methods of work employed by the Special Rapporteur. Two weeks ago, the Special Rapporteur had indicated that he had not received any information on torture in the occupied territories. Cuba was concerned about the objectivity and impartiality of the Special Rapporteur

A Representative of Pakistan said that the views of the countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference should be reflected for the record. The definition of torture needed to remain within the ambit of the Convention on Torture. The negotiations on the language of the draft resolution were difficult. The text of the draft resolution was not believed to contain any language that intended to criticize any country individually.

A Representative of the United Kingdom said that operative paragraph 30 had been agreed language in the resolution against torture since 1996 and its deletion would amount to a personal attack on the Special Rapporteur. As a matter of principle, the UK opposed any attacks on Special Rapporteurs.

A Representative of Cuba said he was not surprised by the statement of the United Kingdom, particularly since that delegation was protecting a British national. However, the fact remained that the Rapporteur, this year, had proved unable to carry out his mandate. His methods of work had proved unacceptable. It was for this Commission, which granted the mandates for Rapporteurs, to make sure they were fulfilled. The Rapporteurs needed to provide an accounting to this Commission and the Commission had to approve them. Cuba intended to vote for the deletion of operative paragraph 30, and next year if the Rapporteur proved unable to carry out his mandate, the paragraph could once again be included.

A Representative of Algeria said it was clear that it was excessive to have 13 operative paragraphs dealing only with the work of the Special Rapporteur in a resolution addressing the struggle against human rights violations and in particular against torture. Algeria appealed once again to all delegates to join the consensus, bearing in mind that their reservations would be reflected in the records of the Commission.

A Representative of Canada wished to totally support the statement made by the delegation of the United Kingdom. There was a very dangerous precedent which might be set in this instance. Therefore, Canada would vote against operative paragraph 30.

A Representative of Belgium said that his delegation supported the view of the UK delegate that no personal attacks should be made against Special Rapporteurs. Belgium also supported the view of Algeria that the general debate on draft resolution L.47 should not prevent its adoption by consensus given its importance.

A Representative of Japan said that his country was fully committed to the eradication and prevention of torture. That was the reason why the delegation had been actively engaged in the negotiations on the draft resolution. However, Japan wished to express reservations on operative paragraph 8. Not understanding what was a punishable offense of production of torture equipment, it seemed as if States had to punish all acts, even if the production was for a presentation purpose, such as in plays, movies, etc. Although Japan registered these reservations, it joined in the consensus.

A Representative of the United States said that his country was deeply committed to combatting torture. With respect to operative paragraph 8, while the United States strongly supported measures to prevent torture, it could not support vague calls concerning production of torture equipment. Significant definitional problems existed with regard to this issue. With regard to operative paragraph 27, the United States restated its belief that it was inappropriate to single out specific countries in thematic resolutions.

A Representative of Costa Rica said the delegation had voted no on the Cuban amendment to include a paragraph in L.47 because the provisions therein were already contained in other instruments.

A Representative of the United States of America said that with respect to L.55, which was adopted on 23 April, 2001, the United States strongly supported the resolution and its adoption by consensus. However, with respect to preambular paragraph 9, the United States had fundamental concerns about the International Criminal Court treaty and did not support that paragraph. Also, the United States did not understand the reference in operative paragraph 8 to a modification of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, which was dealt with in operative paragraph 15. The Special Rapporteur should be concerned with his duties under that paragraph.


Continuation of action on resolutions concerning the promotion and protection of human rights

In a consensus resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.82) on development of public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights, the Commission encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue the development of human rights education and training materials; to establish guidelines on gender inclusivity in all the official languages of the United Nations for use in the preparation of communications, reports and publications; and to make available in a timely fashion on its Web site UN documents and publications, as well as databases for the promotion of human rights; urged the Department of Public Information to continue to utilize fully and effectively UN information centres for disseminating basic information and reference materials on human rights; urged it to produce information material, in particular audio-visual material, on all aspects of human rights in connection with the World Public Information Campaign in Human Rights, the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, and the World Conference against Racism; and called upon Governments to accord priority to the dissemination in their relevant national and local languages of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on human rights and other human rights instruments, materials and training manuals, as well as reports of States parties made under the human rights treaties.

The Commission also urged all Member States to develop comprehensive, effective and sustainable national plans of action for human rights education and public information; encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to give priority to and continue to support national capacities for human rights education and public information; and called upon the Department of Public Information and all relevant UN agencies and bodies to further develop mass media strategies for the effective promotion of human rights.

In a consensus resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.83) on human rights defenders, the Commission called upon all States to promote and give full effect to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; urged all Governments to cooperate with and assist the Special Representative on the topic; requested all concerned UN agencies and organizations to provide assistance and support to the Special Representative; and called upon all States to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders.

A Representative of Pakistan said his country supported draft resolution L. 83 which recognized the responsibility of the international community to promote the protection of human rights defenders. Human rights defenders remained vulnerable and were often subjected to torture and arbitrary detention. It was hoped that the draft resolution would further their protection and Pakistan was honoured to join the list of its co-sponsors.

A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said he was taking the floor to clarify his delegation’s position with reference to the draft declaration contained in resolution L.83. The title of the resolution should be the same as the title of the declaration. During the adoption of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Syrian delegation had stressed a number of points. The Declaration obliged States not to interfere in the internal affairs of other States; the Declaration not only gave NGOs rights but imposed on them responsibilities which compelled them to protect people who suffered from flagrant violations of human rights. Secondly, regarding the Declaration, the organization mentioned should be instructed to cooperate with national laws and any additional understanding was not binding on the States. During negotiations, it was reaffirmed that Article 20 of the declaration meant that emphasis should be put on the independence and sovereignty of States and interference should not be allowed.

In a consensus measure (E/CN.4/2001/L.85) on fundamental standards of humanity, the Commission decided to consider the question at its fifty-eighth session and requested the Secretary-General, in consultation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, to submit a further report to the Commission covering relevant developments.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.86) on promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, adopted by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour, to 16 against and 4 abstentions, the Commission affirmed that such an order required, among other things, the right of all peoples to self-determination, by virtue of which they could freely determine their political status and freely pursue development; the right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources; the right of all to development; promotion of an international economic order based on equal participation in the decision-making process, interdependence, mutual interest, solidarity and cooperation among all States; solidarity, by which global challenges must be managed in a way that distributed the costs and burdens fairly in accordance with basic principles of equity and social justice, ensuring that those who suffered or who benefitted least received help from those who benefitted most; the promotion and consolidation of transparent, democratic, just and accountable international institutions; respect for cultural diversity and the cultural rights of all; and the promotion of equitable access to benefits from the international distribution of wealth through enhanced international cooperation, in particular in economic, commercial and financial international relations; and, among other things, reaffirmed that all States should do their utmost to achieve general and complete disarmament under effective international control, as well as to ensure that the resources released by effective disarmament measures were used for comprehensive development, in particular that of the developing countries.


The result of the roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour (32): Algeria, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against (16): Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (4): Argentina, Guatemala, Peru and Uruguay.

A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union and countries associated with it, said that the EU believed that some of the issues raised in draft resolution L.86 were important. However, it believed that these issues went beyond the mandate as well as the competence and expertise of the Commission and that they therefore were more effectively dealt with in other fora. The draft resolution dealt with the relationship between States and not the relationship between the State and its citizens and the exercise of individual human rights, which was the first and foremost task of the Commission. Further, the resolution expressed rights which were not established or reflected as presented in any existing international human rights instruments. For these reasons, the EU would vote against L.86

A Representative of Algeria, in explanation of vote on L.86, said that it was hard to agree with the particular understanding that certain rights which had not yet been acknowledged should not be included. For example, the provisions of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not enjoyed by colonized peoples until 12 years later. The merit of this resolution was that it dealt with such a matter and Algeria thus intended to vote in its favour.

In a consensus resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.92) on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Commission reaffirmed the significance of the Convention as an effective international instrument; expressed its appreciation to States which had ratified or acceded to the Convention and invited States that had not yet done so to ratify or accede to the Convention and to subsequently enact the necessary legislation to give effect to the Convention’s provisions; and invited relevant United Nations organs and agencies to disseminate widely the Convention with a view to ensuring its universality and full and comprehensive implementation.

A Representative of the United States of America, in explanation of vote on L.92, said that his delegation was pleased to join the consensus on this issue. The United States had ratified the Convention on the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, among other instruments. However, the United States had fundamental concerns about the International Criminal Court. Thus, the United States did not agree to preambular paragraph 7 of the resolution. Also, the United States was not a signatory to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity of 26 November 1968, referred to in preambular paragraph 8, and thus did not agree to that paragraph either.


* *** *