COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
23 April 2001
Evening





Decides to Appoint Independent Expert,
Open-Ended Working Group on Disappearances




The Commission on Human Rights adopted this evening resolutions to strengthen efforts to end enforced or involuntary disappearances and to bolster respect for freedom of opinion and expression.

The actions came as the Commission continued its consideration of resolutions tabled under its agenda item on civil and political rights.

In a consensus resolution on enforced or involuntary disappearances, the Commission, among other things, decided to renew for a period of three years the mandate of its Working Group on such disappearances; requested the chair of the fifty-seventh session of the Commission on Human Rights, upon consultation with the Commission bureau and regional groups, to appoint an Independent Expert to make an examination of the existing international criminal and human rights framework of protection of persons from enforced or involuntary disappearances; and decided to create, at its fifty-eighth session, an inter-sessional open-ended Working Group with a mandate to elaborate, in the light of the findings of the Independent Expert, a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances.

In an amended resolution on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, adopted by a roll-call vote of 44 in favour and none opposed, with 8 abstentions, the Commission, among other things, expressed its continued concern at the extensive occurrence of detention, long-term detention, extrajudicial killings, persecution and harassment, threats, acts of violence, and discrimination directed against persons who exercised the right to freedom of opinion and expression; called for further progress towards the release of persons detained for exercising the right; and expressed its concern at the number of cases which were facilitated and aggravated by such factors as abuses of states of emergency, exercise of powers specific to states of emergency without formal declaration and too vague a definition of offenses against State security.

Japan and the United States withdrew their co-sponsorship of the resolution after amendments which they said could unfairly restrict freedom of expression in some cases.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 24 April, and is expected to conclude over the course of the morning debate under its agenda items on advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights, and rationalization of the work of the Commission.

Action on resolutions concerning civil and political rights

Debate on draft resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.56) was begun and then postponed for consultations.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.57) on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances, adopted by consensus, the Commission encouraged the relevant Working Group, in carrying out its mandate, among other things, to pay particular attention to cases transmitted to it that referred to ill-treatment, serious threatening or intimidation of witnesses of enforced or involuntary disappearances or relatives of disappeared persons and to cases of disappearance of persons working for the promotion and protection of human rights; deplored the fact that some Governments had never provided substantive replies concerning cases of such disappearances in their countries or acted on the recommendations concerning them made in the reports of the Working Group; urged the Governments concerned to cooperate with the working group, in particular by inviting it freely to visit their countries; to take steps to protect witnesses, lawyers, and families of disappeared persons; in situations of many unresolved cases of disappearances, to continue their efforts to shed light on the fates of the persons concerned and to set appropriate settlement machinery in train with the families of those individuals; reminded Governments that all such acts of disappearance were crimes punishable by appropriate and serious penalties; that they should ensure that immediate and impartial investigations were conducted; that impunity was simultaneously one of the underlying causes of enforced disappearances and one of the major obstacles to the elucidation of cases thereof; decided to renew for a period of three years the mandate of the Working Group; requested the chair of the fifty-seventh session of the Commission on Human Rights, upon consultation with the bureau and regional groups, to appoint an Independent Expert to make an examination of the existing international criminal and human rights framework of protection of persons from enforced or involuntary disappearances, and to report to the fifty-eighth session of the Commission and the first session of the newly established Working Group; decided to create, at its fifty-eighth session, an inter-sessional open-ended Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights, with the mandate to elaborate, in the light of the findings of the Independent Expert, a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances.

A proposed amendment to delete operative paragraph 12 of the resolution was defeated on a roll-call vote of 4 in favour and 34 opposed, with 15 abstentions. A proposed amendment to delete the last line operative paragraph 11 was defeated on a roll-call vote of 5 in favour and 37 opposed, with 11 abstentions.

A proposed amendment to delete the last line of operative paragraph 11 of the resolution as defeated on a roll-call vote of 5 in favour and 37 opposed, with 11 abstentions.


ALICIA ELENA DUARTE Y NORONA (Mexico), speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), said that over the past few weeks, both States and NGOs had confirmed their interest in Commission positions on enforced or involuntary disappearances. This was not exclusive to one State or one region. It was hoped the consensus would be achieved on the draft resolution on disappearances.

MICHAEL DENNIS (the United States of America) said the United States remained opposed to the establishment of an inter-sessional Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances as it would duplicate work being done by existing bodies. There was a contradiction inherent in the creation of a new Working Group before the need for any group was established by the study envisaged in the previous paragraph.

PIERRE PETIT (France) said there was nothing to prevent the expert on enforced or involuntary disappearances from doing his or her work in a year, and presenting his findings at the next session.

NORMA NASCIMBENE DE DUMONT (Argentina) stressed that the text of this resolution had been achieved with a great amount of work, long discussions and negotiations. Argentina felt that this was the end of the road and had intended to have the resolution adopted by consensus. She appealed to all those who felt that forced disappearances were an aberration to vote against the amendment proposed by the United States of America.

MASARU WATANABE (Japan) said Japan recognized the situation of victims of enforced or involuntary disappearances, and strongly supported the part of the resolution in which the Commission extended the mandate of the Working Group. However, it had reservations about creating a new open-ended Working Group. There were several international instruments that already covered disappearances. Further, most Governments did not have an interest in a new international instrument. Japan would not support operative paragraph 12 of the draft resolution.

MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said Canada supported a greater focus by the Commission on enforced disappearances and the development of any new standards needed to meet the standards of international instruments such as, among others, the Treaty of Rome and the Convention against Torture. This draft proposal fell below these standards. Attraction should not be drawn away from existing groups such as the working group on enforced disappearances. Canada abstained on the American proposal to delete paragraph 12 and voted in favour of the proposed amendment to paragraph 11. The Canadian delegation supported the resolution as a whole.

SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) said India attached utmost importance to the issue of enforced or involuntary disappearances. The renewal of the working group’s mandate for three years was supported by India. However, India noted a contradiction in the appointment of an Independent Expert and creation of an inter-sessional Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances. Also, India was opposed to the proliferation of human rights mechanisms, particularly as the existing ones remained starved of human and economic resources. For these reasons, India did not support this resolution.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said the delegation strongly supported the establishment of an instrument to protect all people from disappearances. Pakistan was forced to abstain in the vote on the deletion of paragraph 12 because that should have been done at the next session of the Commission, but it did support the last sentence of paragraph 11.

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said Libya would go along with the consensus on the resolution on enforced or involuntary disappearances, although the delegation had reservations. The resolution referred to decisions in the Rome Statute, but Libya had not yet signed the Rome Statute that was to give rise to the International Criminal Court because the system had not yet been fully implemented. The preparatory committee had many substantial issues to consider. There should be prosecutions of anyone who violated human rights, and Libya supported the international criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which had tried many criminals. But there were many other people who had escaped from justice. Why had the international community not tried to catch other war criminals? Why should Pinochet appear before a court, when other people who had cooperated in the disappearances under him did not have to?

AUDREY GLOVER (the United Kingdom) said the UK would vote in favour of the amendment to the draft resolution on enforced disappearances on the understanding that its language could not be interpreted to mean that States had engagements under treaties to which they were not parties.


Consideration of draft resolution L.56 was then resumed.

In an amended resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.56) on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, adopted by a roll-call vote of 44 in favour and none opposed, with 8 abstentions, the Commission expressed its continued concern at the extensive occurrence of detention, long-term detention, extrajudicial killing, persecution and harassment, threats, acts of violence, and discrimination directed against persons who exercised the right to freedom of opinion and expression; called for further progress towards the release of persons detained for exercising the right; expressed its concern at the number of cases which were facilitated and aggravated by such factors as abuses of states of emergency, exercise of powers specific to states of emergency without formal declaration and too vague a definition of offenses against State security; encouraged States to review procedures and legislation to ensure that any limitations on the right to freedom of expression were only such as were provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights and reputations of others, or for the protection or national security or of public order, public health, or morals; recalled that the primary responsibility for promoting the right to freedom of expression rested with the State and noted with concern increasing reports of actions having a negative impact on exercise of the right; urged Governments to implement effective measures to eliminate the atmosphere of fear which often prevented women victims of violence from communicating freely on their own behalf or through intermediaries; invited States to submit comments on the Principles on Freedom of Information Legislation developed by the Special Rapporteur; invited the Rapporteur to draw the attention of the High Commissioner for Refugees to situations and cases which were of particularly serious concern, and to share best practices in promoting freedom of expression; stressed the importance of a diversity of sources of information, including mass media, at all levels, and the importance of a free flow of information as a way of promoting full enjoyment of the freedom of opinion and expression; and affirmed the vital importance for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression of compliance by each State with the obligations established under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in particular article 4.

Results of the roll-call vote on resolution L.56 were as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Latvia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand, the United Kingdom, Uruguay,
the United States, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Opposed: None

Abstaining: China, Cuba, Japan, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Syrian Arab Republic.

Amendments proposed to operative paragraphs 2, 14, and 16(a) of resolution L.56 were approved by a roll-call vote of 43 in favour and 3 opposed, with 7 abstentions.

GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV (Russian Federation) said that the free expression of opinions was both topical and relevant. There had been in recent years in the Commission an unjustified trend of being concerned with details and comments that had no direct bearing on the topic. This trend had not spared this resolution. The co-sponsors had ignored the opinions of delegations that did not agree with them. The result was that an ever-larger number of thematic resolutions, formerly decided by consensus, were being put to a vote. This could have been avoided if the sponsors had truly been committed to listening to their partners. During the initial consultations on the resolutions, those consulted had explained that a number of provisions were unacceptable, specifically those concerning conflict prevention and resolution, where the focus was solely on the gender aspect of these practices. During the consultations, this unjustified trend to include in thematic resolutions unrelated details continued. Human rights defenders had no special legal status with regard to the exercise of specific rights.

HOCINE SAHRAOUI (Algeria) said concerns that Algeria had expressed on resolution L.56 had been taken into account during negotiations, and Algeria would support the resolution.

MASARU WATANABE (Japan) said Japan agreed that the promotion and incitement of racial discrimination was a great violation of human rights and should not be permitted. However, Japan had a reservation about the new paragraph 17 bis to draft resolution L.56 -- that once freedom of expression was unduly restricted by Government power, it often took an extreme effort by the population to restore it. The Commission needed to be careful to protect these rights. Japan withdrew as a co-sponsor of the resolution.

MICHAEL DENNIS (the United States) said that it was with regret that the delegation withdrew its co-sponsorship of resolution L.56. The delegation did not agree with the amendment relating to article 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed freedoms of speech, expression and free assembly. The US did not accept any obligations under this Convention, particularly under article 4, to the extent that they were protected under US laws.





* *** *