COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CONTINUES GENERAL DEBATE ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Commission on Human Rights
AFTERNOON
31 March 2005


Hears from Special Rapporteur on Right to Freedom of Opinion,
Chairperson of Working Group on Instrument to Protect
Persons from Enforced Disappearances


The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon continued its general debate on civil and political rights, hearing presentations from the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and from the Chairperson of the Working Group on a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances.

Ambeyi Ligabo, Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said the right to freedom of opinion and expression was a fundamental and inalienable right that contributed to the consolidation of democracy and to the development of mutual respect, dialogue and tolerance. Unfortunately, violations of this right continued to occur in many countries. He spoke about his missions to Côte d'Ivoire, Colombia, Serbia and Montenegro and Italy.

Speaking as a concerned country, Côte d’Ivoire said the Government had taken measures to implement the Special Rapporteur's recommendations related to strengthening national institutions. The State had also adopted laws on the press and on the creation of a national commission of human rights.

Colombia, speaking in the same capacity, said that today, Colombia was a democracy committed to defeating terrorism, resuscitating security, and regaining control for the State, not in order to install a dictatorship, but so as to ensure liberties for all citizens. There was a democratic, pluralistic political process, and there was no place for an armed opposition, only for a democratic one.
Serbia and Montenegro, also speaking as a concerned country, said the Special Rapporteur had obviously had extensive discussions with relevant domestic and international interlocutors, and had made a commendable effort to provide a balanced assessment and to make recommendations to improve protection of the freedom of opinion and expression; however, there were parts of the report which Serbia could not fully agree with.

Italy, speaking as a concerned country, said there could be no doubt to the Government's commitment to protect and promote the freedoms of opinion and expression. Striving for pluralism in the media, which was a value enshrined in the Constitution, had been a guiding principle for the Government. The report contained some misunderstandings about Italian laws and regulations in its treatment of public subsidies to newspapers.

Bernard Kessedjian, Chairperson of the Working Group on a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances, said forced disappearance was an odious crime which violated all the rights of the human person. The instrument aimed to eradicate for the future a practice which in the past and still today had made many victims on all continents. He hoped that the Commission would be able to adopt an effective instrument at its next session.

In the context of the general debate, speakers addressed, among other things, the issue of torture, pointing out that prohibition of torture was widespread and was generally considered an overriding rule of international law; however, experience showed that regrettably, the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment remained widespread, if not to say common, in many countries. Another issue raised by national representatives was terrorism, which, speakers agreed, could not be justified or tolerated under any circumstances whatsoever. At the same time, every step should be taken not to sacrifice fundamental human rights in the fight against terrorism, speakers maintained.

Speaking this afternoon in the context of the interactive dialogue held with the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression were Canada, Argentina, Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union), Norway, Indonesia, Iran and Cuba.

Providing statements as part of the general debate were the Representatives of Mexico, Congo, the United States, Peru, Paraguay (on behalf of MERCOSUR and the associated States), Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union), Qatar, Sri Lanka, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Bhutan, Kenya, Mauritania, Ukraine and Armenia.

Exercising their right of reply were Greece and Sri Lanka.

The Commission will meet in private at 10 a.m. on Friday, 1 April to discuss violations of human rights in specific countries under its confidential 1503 procedure. It will meet in public at 3 p.m. to continue its general debate on civil and political rights.

Documents on Civil and Political Rights

Under its item on civil and political rights, the Commission has before it several documents.

There is the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Ambeyi Ligabo, (E/CN.4/2005/64) which describes the activities of the Special Rapporteur during the past year, especially urgent appeals, allegation letters and press releases. It also contains a follow-up on the right to access information, a historical overview of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and a section on protection and security of media professionals. The Special Rapporteur believes that the right of access to information is one of the central challenges of the future, the report states. The report also contains conclusions and recommendations in which the Special Rapporteur takes stock of the situation of freedom of expression and opinion as a global phenomenon, with special references to the security of journalists, media concentration, national legislation on defamation, Internet governance and the right of access to information. The Special Rapporteur also recommends to Governments that they reinvigorate their action regarding the security of citizens and impunity, and invites them to adopt legislation on access to information, Internet governance and defamation in conformity with international human rights standards.

The first addendum to the report (Add.1) is not available.

The second addendum to the report (Add.2) is based on the mission of the Special Rapporteur to Côte d'Ivoire in January/February 2004. The Special Rapporteur notes that the first obstacle to peace and reconciliation is the intensity of the conflict and that violence, uncertainty and fear continue to dominate various aspects of ordinary life. The overwhelming presence of military forces and police roadblocks, which often harass and extort money from ordinary citizens, are a common feature of the countryside landscape as well as of the urban panorama. In this context, the fight against impunity should be one of the main priorities on the political agenda. As a first step, the Government should re-establish legality in full, disband and declare officially all militias illegal and pursue human rights violators in the justice system regardless to their ethnic and/or political affiliation. Moreover, the Government should draft specific bills and laws regarding hatred and its propaganda in order to, among other things, protect the right to freedom of opinion and expression of migrant workers. Government and civil society should also make joint efforts to reactivate and reinforce the work of existing media institutions and professional associations, which have been overwhelmed by the political fight.

The third addendum to the report (Add.3) outlines the Special Rapporteur's mission to Colombia in February 2004 in which he notes that the 40-year-long conflict has hampered the economic and social growth of the country and undermined the development of the political system. In this context, the armed conflict has generated or facilitated the emergence of serious impediments to the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Long and unjustified delays in the investigation of crimes, coupled with many unresolved cases of the murder of journalists, trade unionists, teachers and human rights defenders that may never successfully be concluded, have consolidated a deep-rooted culture of impunity, creating intimidation and increasing fear amongst the general public. Moreover, the recurrent phenomenon of kidnapping has been a major feature of the criminal activities in Colombia, and has contributed greatly to the sense of insecurity and pervasive lawlessness. In rural areas the human rights situation, especially regarding indigenous peoples, the Afro-Colombian minority and other ethnic groups, is particularly serious, the report states.

The fourth addendum to the report (Add.4) concerns the Special Rapporteur's mission to Serbia and Montenegro in October 2004. The report states that ethnic divisions continue to be at the core of the political debate, and have hampered the economic and social growth of the region, thus undermining the development of democratic systems based on mutual respect and tolerance. The polarization of opinions, the stigmatization of ethnic groups and the use of hate speech aggravate the persistent instability and do not contribute to the creation of an enabling environment for the development of freedom of opinion and expression. Furthermore, the infiltration of criminal activities into the administration of the State and the political arena appears to be one of the major impediments to the development of freedom of opinion and expression. The exercise of freedom of expression is particularly difficult in the province of Kosovo. In addition, journalists appear to be often under severe pressure and to receive threats from criminal organizations. As far as minorities are concerned, the dialogue among the various minority groups living in Kosovo is making little or no progress at all.

The fifth and final addendum to the report (Add.5) contains information of the Special Rapporteur's mission to Italy in October 2004. The purpose of the mission was to ascertain whether the media concentration, coupled with conflict of interest, had an impact on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well to investigate allegations of the deterioration of the work environment of media professionals in Italy. The report addresses the following issues: the legal and institutional framework regarding the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the principal concerns and, in particular, the issue of media concentration and conflict of interest; and a number of more specific issues such as the situation of migrants and children as it relates to the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.

There is also the report of the Intersessional Open-ended Working Group to elaborate a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances, presented by its Chairperson-Rapporteur, Bernard Kessedjian, (E/CN.4/2005/66). The working paper reviewed by the Group suggested that a monitoring body should be able to receive and consider reports on the action taken by States to give effect to the future instrument; consider requests for disappeared persons to be sought and found under an emergency procedure; and conduct fact-finding missions to the territory of States parties in response to such requests, among other things.

Presentation by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

AMBEYI LIGABO, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said the right to freedom of opinion and expression was a fundamental and inalienable right that contributed to the consolidation of democracy and to the development of mutual respect, dialogue and tolerance. Any obstacle to the free circulation of ideas and opinions hindered the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Unfortunately, violations of this right continued to occur in many countries. Figures concerning violence against, among other things, media professionals, trade unionists and social workers, were on the increase. Reinforcing the rule of law would contribute a great deal to decrease cases of impunity.

Media security remained a grave concern, he stated. The growing phenomenon of media concentration appeared to be a threat to journalists' independence. The dominance of entertainment and fiction information had weakened the press. Guaranteeing freedom of opinion and expression on the Internet, and other new communication tools, was the central challenge for the future. The achievement of a global information society, in which also the poor could have access to modern technologies, could represent a leap forward for mankind, opening new paths for human and economic development. The increasing use of discriminatory forms of expression, such as hate speech, contributed to the deterioration of stability and drove ordinary citizens into a confrontational state of mind. In post-conflict societies, biased reporting could restart violence and destroy laborious efforts put into peace and reconciliation.

Last year's presented report on Côte d’Ivoire was now available in its final form. Regarding this year's visits to countries, in Colombia, despite the willingness of top Government officials to discuss human rights issues openly, the situation remained tense. The political debate was marked by the polarization of opinions in addition to the stigmatization of opposite positions. All sides had been perpetrating, in different forms and extents, grave human rights violations. In Serbia and Montenegro, ethnic divisions continued to be at the core of the political debate and they stifled the development of a strong democratic system based on mutual respect and tolerance. The exercise of freedom of expression was particularly difficult in the province of Kosovo. Italy had a strong tradition in the fields of freedom of expression and of association. A number of journalists and media personalities had complained of discrimination because of their criticism of the Government. The future of a pluralistic printed press could substantially be hindered by the quasi-hegemonistic power of television, he added.
Response by Concerned Countries

CLAUDE BEKE DASSYS (Côte d’Ivoire), speaking as a concerned country, said the Special Rapporteur had enjoyed the full cooperation of the authorities during his visit to Côte d’Ivoire. The Government had taken measures to implement the Special Rapporteur's recommendations related to strengthening national institutions. The State had also adopted laws on the press on the creation of a national commission of human rights. The country's television station had been transmitting a spot inviting the population to strive for peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately, the message could not reach the people living in the rebel held areas. The delegation noted with surprise the incorrect affirmation in the report of the Special Rapporteur, which said that the level of violence of the conflict was relatively tolerable in the regions controlled by the new forces. The Rapporteur could not affirm that because of the fact that since the ignition of the crisis, 85 per cent of the population had taken refuge in the areas controlled by the Government. More than 300 persons were killed in one day on 19 September 2002; and 70 gendarmeries were disarmed and killed by the rebels, among other things.

The report of the Special Rapporteur had indicated that article 35 of the Constitution contained provisions that contradicted the State's international obligations and its own legislation. For that matter, the Special Rapporteur should have cited the international treaties and the national law that were allegedly violated by the State. The Special Rapporteur had also said that 14 candidates had been found ineligible to participate in the presidential elections of October 2000 in violation of their right to freedom of opinion and expression. The fact was that these candidates had not fulfilled the conditions required for eligibility as candidates. While Côte d’Ivoire condemned human rights violations taking place anywhere and was willing to cooperate, the Commission's mechanisms should show impartiality.

CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia), speaking as a concerned country, said the interest taken in the work of the Special Rapporteur was appreciated, as was the dialogue. Colombia was a country of great complexities, and this was described in the report; however, the report did not show an exact or up-to-date picture of the situation. At present, Colombia was a democracy committed to defeating terrorism, resuscitating security, and regaining control, not in order to install a dictatorship, but so as to ensure liberties. There was a democratic, pluralistic political process, and there was no place for an armed opposition, only for a democratic one. Government opponents were not being stigmatized; any kind of criticism was not construed as an attack against the State, but as constructive criticism.

The State was combating guerrillas strongly. At no time had the Government had the intention to grant impunity within the framework of demobilization sought for by some armed groups. Pardon or amnesties were not granted for atrocious crimes. The anti-terrorist work had achieved normative status. Abductions were factors limiting the rights of the citizens, but work was being done to halt the scourge of abductions, which had gone down by some 41 per cent in recent months. Killings of journalists had also been reduced by 50 per cent in that same period, but Colombia would not be satisfied until it could say that no journalists had been killed. Protection was extended to many parts of society, including journalists, trade unionists and human rights defenders. There was also an ongoing dialogue with human rights organizations. Colombia was committed to its international commitments, and would live up to them.

DOJAN SAHOVIC (Serbia and Montenegro), speaking as a concerned country, said the Special Rapporteur had highlighted the complexities of the situation with regard to ongoing reforms in his country, and had touched upon continuing difficulties related to the development of the legal framework in the field of media. The Special Rapporteur had specifically emphasized problems of freedom of expression and opinion in the province of Kosovo and Metohija and had recommended that the international presence there take action to improve the situation. The United Nations Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) should take full consideration of the report, and the field offices of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Belgrade and Pristina should establish closer and more visible cooperation in the promotion of inter-ethnic dialogue, eradication of hate speech and raising public awareness of human rights.

The Special Rapporteur obviously had had extensive discussions with relevant domestic and international interlocutors, he noted, and had made a commendable effort to provide a balanced assessment and to make recommendations to further improve protection of the freedom of opinion and expression. However, there were parts of the report which his Government did not fully agree with, namely those concerning the autonomous province of Vojvodina. With more than 20 national minorities, this was the most ethnically diverse region of Serbia and Montenegro. The Ministry on Human and Minority Rights continued its efforts to enable the full integration of minorities in social life while preserving their national and cultural identities. Upon a recent visit, a delegation of the European Parliament had found inter-ethnic relations to be satisfactory.

Since the Special Rapporteur's visit, he added, an initiative aiming to privatise State-owned media had been undertaken at the federal level, with the involvement of the ministers of culture and media of both republics. In Serbia, a law on free access to information had been adopted in November 2004, and a Commissioner had been appointed by the Parliament in December. The procedure to establish the Broadcasting Council had also been completed. Meanwhile, the law on free access to information was in the process of being adopted in Montenegro, as was the law on media transparency and on prevention of media concentration.

PAOLO BRUNI (Italy) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his recognition of Italy's long tradition of freedom of opinion and expression, and said there could be no doubt to the Government's commitment to protect and promote the freedom of opinion and expression. Striving for pluralism in the media, which was a value enshrined in the Constitution, had been a guiding principle for the Government. A recent law had reorganized the entire broadcasting system, and was meant to promote the goal of pluralism by making it compatible with the strong impetus exerted by new technologies, including the digital system. Principles regarding the protection of competitiveness remained firm, and included a ban on the attainment of a dominant position in any component market of the integrated communications system. The growth in the number of channels due to digitalization had enabled new voices in information to be accessed. Specific rules enabled local broadcasters to expand their coverage area, and to increase their resources by raising the ceiling on advertising.

Overall, he continued, the ongoing privatisation of RAI -- the Italian public broadcasting corporation -- and the recently established procedures for electing members of the administrative board would gradually distance RAI from politics. Regarding other concerns, he said that the report contained some misunderstandings about Italian laws and regulations in its treatment of public subsidies to newspapers. Support to the press in Italy was strictly regulated, and directly controlled by Parliament; specific provisions had been designed to grant support to publications, which were deemed necessary as instruments of pluralism, regardless of their commercial value or political orientation. Italian authorities did not share the concern raised in the report regarding law 215/2004; ownership could not be singled out as a reason for incompatibility with a government position as this would contradict the Constitution's provisions protecting the fundamental right of individuals to hold private property and to be elected to public office. The law limited ownership by providing for suspension of management rights during public mandate. Finally, the Government had recently proposed a law concerning the decriminalisation of defamation lawsuits.

Interactive Dialogue

WAYNE LORD (Canada) said the report was excellent. The Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression was congratulated on his visits. The delegate asked what measures the Special Rapporteur had taken to follow-up on his specific recommendations to Governments further to his country visits.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said regarding recommendations in paragraphs 55 and 56 which referred to concentration of the mass media and the vital importance of the written press, what follow-up could be taken on this, since in some respects they could seem to exceed the terms of reference of the Special Rapporteur.

ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg) said the Special Rapporteur had focused on the issue of the safety of journalists, and had noticed an increase in the number of attacks on journalists. More information was sought about what his view would be on the safety of journalists, particularly in a conflict situation. With respect to the decrease in the amount of printed media as opposed to electronic media, was there a link between the threats to traditional media and media concentration, and if so what strategies were recommended to preserve traditional forms?

PER IVAR LIED (Norway) said the freedom of opinion and expression were fundamental. The report said the Special Rapporteur had cooperated with the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders. How could the freedom of expression for human rights defenders be promoted in countries where there were difficulties in this area? Regarding journalists in conflict areas, how could the international community contribute to improving the safety of journalists in situations of armed conflict?

EDDI HARIYADHI (Indonesia) said freedom of expression was not just part of democracy, but it strengthened democracy as well. Concern was expressed in the report for certain areas where freedom of opinion was ignored, in particular in some countries where it was used in the fight against terrorism. This could contribute to instability, and the erosion of the fabric of society, which was detrimental to the promotion and protection of human rights. In this regard, the useful way for the Special Rapporteur to explain this issue was to expand on the legitimate restrictions on freedom of expression, as included in the Charter. The Special Rapporteur should give appropriate attention to this matter.

MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said the Special Rapporteur in paragraph 55 referred to the phenomenon of media concentration, and this should be further discussed in debates. Media concentration as presented by the Special Rapporteur could have a negative impact on the rights of individuals to access information and could also deviate the enjoyment of this right by individuals. Iran asked what the Special Rapporteur had in mind in pursuing this matter, and if he had any practical suggestions, could he follow up the question, as it was very important.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said Cuba was surprised when a group of Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts asked to visit the camps in Guantanamo and Iraq last June and in February this year. But the report did not contain a request by the Special Rapporteur to visit Iraq to offer a clarification on the fate of the journalists who had died in the attack led by the United States' forces. Did the Special Rapporteur intend to request to visit Iraq in order to investigate the fate of those journalists and what recommendations might be made in this context to limit censorship operating in these international conflicts? Journalists in Iraq were frequently controlled and directed by the United States regarding the information they could share with the public. What were the views of the Special Rapporteur regarding freedom of information and freedom of access to knowledge? Did the Special Rapporteur intend to encourage any kind of human rights approach with regard to access to knowledge as a human right for individuals and people? How did he intend to address the issue of transnational control for the media of the world, and did he advocate any standards of conduct to avoid control of the media as was now the case?

AMBEYI LIGABO, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, reacting to comments made by the concerned countries and during the interactive dialogue, said the number of journalists killed last year had increased, particularly in conflict areas. The perpetrators of the killings were those participating in the conflict. The print media, although it was irreplaceable, was in danger, including the journalists working in that field. The traditional printed media was not dying out even when electronic media were developing. With regard to follow-up measures to the Special Rapporteurs recommendations, he said there should be close cooperation by Governments on one hand and among the different mechanisms on the other. Concerning the concentration of the media in the hands of the few, he said the situation might curtail the dissemination of free information, and the developing countries were the victims of such a monopoly because of their limited access. He said that whenever there were violations of freedom of the press, the Special Rapporteur would visit such areas and report his findings to the Commission.

Presentation by the Chairperson of the Working Group on a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances

BERNARD KESSEDJIAN, Chairperson of the Working Group on a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances, said two sessions had been held in October 2004 and January-February 2005. These two sessions had been very productive thanks to the active contribution of all participants, including 75 Government delegations and 15 non-governmental organizations, in particular associations representing the families of victims of enforced disappearances. The level of experience and the spirit of responsibility that marked the entirety of the work of the Group had been of an exceptional level, and allowed the Group to successfully cross the different stages in the realization of the mandate.
The new instrument was a part of the work accomplished over more than twenty years, and should fulfil the expectations of the families of the victims. There had been hope that the Commission could judge it this session, but several delegations had thought that it would be better to prolong the work done for a further session in order to have the greatest possible consensus on this instrument, which would have a worldwide impact. Delicate questions had been answered, but some difficulties remained that had to be surmounted, in particular concerning non-State actors. Another difficulty was linked to the concept of the right to know and its reconciliation with the necessary protection of individual information. Finally, the Group could not reach agreement with regard to the form which the instrument would take - a convention or a protocol.

Forced disappearance was an odious crime which violated all the rights of the human person, and rested upon lies and forgetfulness. The instrument that was being prepared sprang from the three sources of human rights, penal law, and international humanitarian law. There was a need to identify adequate prevention mechanisms, to organize international cooperation for the prosecution and punishment of criminals, and to allow for a just reparation of the damage suffered by the families, and rehabilitate the victims who had a collective memory. It was hoped that the Commission would be able to adopt an effective instrument at its next session.

General Debate on Civil and Political Rights

JOSE ANTONIO GUEVARA (Mexico, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States - GRULAC), commended the international community on concluding the drafting of guidelines and principles for reparations to victims of grave violations on international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The accumulation of experience, knowledge and dedication had resulted in developing State's obligations regarding reparations. The principles and guidelines did not create new obligations, but clarified the rights of the victims, as well as modalities and mechanisms for redress. The basic principles and guidelines should quickly become a useful tool for States, and for the victims whose rights had been violated. The inclusion of references to both international human rights law and international humanitarian law was welcomed, as both were equally relevant to obligations on the State to redress victims' rights. The Commission should proceed to adopt those guidelines and principles, and recommend their adoption by the United Nations General Assembly. The process itself had been inclusive, participatory and transparent. The text had solid support from all regional groups, and it had been accepted by consensus. Flexibility should now be expressed to adopt the guidelines as a whole by consensus.

On the issue of enforced disappearances, he said that GRULAC was also pleased with the progress that had been made during the third session of the Working Group on the drafting of a legally binding instrument on protection against enforced disappearances. The future instrument should be an autonomous instrument, and should embody the commitment of States to combat this phenomenon, and provide for a supervisory body to monitor compliance with the instrument. All delegations should work to join in the emerging consensus during the forthcoming, final session of the Working Group. Negotiations on the text should conclude before the end of 2005, so that the final document could be circulated and submitted for approval at the sixty-second session of the Commission on Human Rights.

ROGER JULIEN MENGA (Congo) said Congo did not spare efforts to actively and constructively participate in the Working Group of involuntary and enforced disappearances. The work of the Group consisted of ambitious classical and innovative legal aspects. The Commission's resolution 2004/40 of last year had invited the Group to draft a binding legal instrument aimed at the protection of all persons against enforced disappearances. However, there was no unanimity on the exact form the instrument would take and whether it would be a convention or an optional protocol to any existing legal instrument. Furthermore, there was no consensus on the type of monitoring mechanism to put in place. Despite all efforts made by the Chairperson of the Working Group to reach a consensus before the end of his mandate, the Group was unable to terminate its work. If additional time had been accorded to the Group, the draft-binding instrument would have been achieved by now and submitted to the Commission. The Group should be given additional time to conclude its work.

MARK LAGON (United States) said to advance civil and political rights was at the very heart of the Commission's work and the United States was tabling and co-tabling resolutions on promoting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and on democracy and the rule of law. These were two crucial pillars required for the advancement of civil and political liberties. A free society respected the rights of individuals to assemble peacefully and to associate freely - for political advocacy, a free and independent press, literary expression, trade union activities, religious belief and practice, and for individuals who could espouse minority or dissident religious or political beliefs. A free society supported legal protection for individuals exercising the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Only in such a system could people fully flourish as free human beings, exercising their rights.

Democracy was the best guarantor of the inalienable human rights which the Commission aimed to protect and extend. Credible elections meeting international standards were a crucial element of democracy, but it encompassed so much more than elections. The independence of the judiciary and the accountability of members of the legislature and the executive were essential to a vibrant democracy. People in society should be aware of the opportunity to resort to the legal system when their rights were infringed or deprived. Democracy afforded access to the judicial system by members of disadvantaged groups, and due process of law. Freedom was on the march around the world. The Commission should live up to its original vision and its potential, and redeem its record by helping to advance that march, and not stand in its way. To suggest that some cultures did not long for civil and political liberties, and for democracy as their best guarantor, was a form of bigotry. The Commission should take practical steps on free assembly and democratic institutions to advance the values which all of human kind desired and deserved.

JUAN PABLO VEGAS TORRES (Peru) said the Government and civil society of Peru continued to make efforts to construct a more inclusive democracy in which respect for human rights took pride of place. This required leadership, patience and the gradual strengthening of institutions, as well as positive international stimuli to support domestic initiatives. In the latter regard, the proposal to establish a fund for democracy was welcomed, as were the activities of the Community of Democracies. During the present session of the Commission on Human Rights, Peru would once more sponsor a draft resolution. Also noting that the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission had been released, he said that the draft basic principles and guidelines on reparations for victims of grave human rights violations had served as an important tool in guiding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Those guidelines should be adopted during the present session. Peru would also support the draft resolution, to be introduced by Argentina, on the right to truth.

Among national developments, he cited the landmark decision by the Constitutional Court, which had ruled that human rights violations committed by troops and police were not to be tried in military courts. This constituted a first step in including military jurisdiction within the regular judicial process. The National Terrorism Chamber had also been given the right to prosecute the crimes of genocide, torture and enforced disappearances, as well as other violations of human rights. In terms of legislation, the Congress had introduced 16 initiatives based on the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, including for the establishment of a national reconciliation council. Regionally, one of the provinces most marked by political violence had taken the initiative to present a regional comprehensive plan for reparations. A national human rights plan was being prepared for adoption next October. Overall, the country’s external and internal policies represented two sides of the same conception, which closely linked democratic principles and human rights.

FRANCISCO BARREIROS (Paraguay), speaking on behalf of MERCOSUR and the associated States, said MERCOSUR firmly believed that the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms was an essential element to democracy. At the same time, on several occasions, MERCOSUR had reaffirmed that democracy, development and respect for human rights were interdependent. The process of sub-regional integration was going to consolidate those basic principles. Since 14 years when the process of integration started, progress had been achieved and the process had consolidated the defence and promotion of democracy. The members of MERCOSUR and the associated States had been mutually cooperating in the effective promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms through institutional mechanisms established for that purpose. MERCOSUR believed that the strengthening of the policies of the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the reinforcement of democracy would provide tangible benefits to the people as well as to the process of sub-regional integration.

With regard to the elaboration of a draft binding legal instrument on forced disappearances, MERCOSUR believed that the adoption of such an international instrument would be a benefit to the victims of violations of human rights. While MERCOSUR supported the mandate and the work of the Working Group, adequate time should be given to it so that it would terminate its work in drafting the instrument.

ALPHONSE BERNS (Luxembourg), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, a series of international instruments had been adopted with the aim of promoting and protecting those human rights covered in it. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was one of the cornerstones for the promotion and protection of human rights. Certain rights were recognized in the Covenant, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to a fair trial, the right of detained persons to be treated with humanity, the right to liberty and security, and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The diverse political, cultural and socio-economic system of the States parties to the Covenant demonstrated the recognition of the importance of these rights. But whether or not States were party to the Covenant, all should ensure that their legislation and administrative practices guaranteed and respected human rights.

No region, nor any country, could claim to have a perfect record on human rights. The abolition of the death penalty helped to enhance human dignity and develop respect for human rights. The right to life admitted no exceptions. Recourse to extrajudicial execution or targeted assassination could never be justified, under any circumstances. A legally binding instrument on the protection of all persons against enforced disappearance would bridge the gaps in the international framework as it stood at present. The prohibition of torture was widespread, and was generally considered an overriding rule of international law; however, experience showed that regrettably, the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment remained widespread, if not to say common, in many countries. Freedom of opinion and expression was fundamental to good governance and the rule of law, yet it continued to be violated in far too many places. Closely linked was the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. Despite the best efforts of the Commission and the United Nations system as a whole, regional organizations and national governments, the rights of countless human beings continued to be violated around the world. The Commission should redouble its efforts to build a world based on the inherent dignity of the human person, and the respect of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

SHEIKH KHALED BIN JASSIM AL-THANI (Qatar) said that his country had embarked on a comprehensive package of reform, including constitutional, political, economic, social and cultural reforms. The protection and promotion of civil and political rights remained central to this campaign, which had begun with the municipal elections in 1998. The new Constitution, which had been approved by a popular referendum in 2003, would come into force in June 2005. It endorsed the principle of the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights, thereby securing economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights. The list of civil and political rights guaranteed by the new Constitution included equality before the law, probation of discrimination, respect for the integrity of the person, probation of torture, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of religion or belief. The constitutional protection of civil and political rights had also been strengthened by the adoption of laws including the Penal Code, the Labour Law, and the Law on Societies and Private Institutions.

Recognizing that democracy rested upon the rule of law, which safeguarded the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, he said that law enforcement agencies had responsibilities to uphold and secure the rights and freedoms embodied in domestic law, as well as those recognized by the international human rights instruments ratified by the State. Thus, Qatar had adopted new laws to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and public prosecutors. A number of institutions had also been established and entrusted with mandates for the protection and promotion of human rights, including the National Human Rights Commission, the Bureau of Human Rights Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Human Rights Section in the Ministry of the Interior. Qatar had also given legal status to non-Muslim religions, and had allowed them to construct places of worship.

SAMANTHE P.W. PATHIRANA (Sri Lanka) said Sri Lanka's long standing democratic traditions had allowed its citizens to enjoy the exercise of universal human rights from as far back as 1931, providing a sound foundation for nation building after independence and to face the challenges of insurgencies and terrorism, which posed a severe threat to the country's progress. Even under extraordinary security conditions imposed upon the people of Sri Lanka by insurgency and terrorism, regular elections were conducted and governments had changed at regular intervals following due electoral processes. Electoral improvements were continuously implemented including a recent bill unanimously passed in Parliament with the support of all political parties regarding identity cards for voters. Sri Lanka had been and continued to be a home for all religious faiths and it was a matter of pride that those religions had co-existed in harmony for centuries, enriching the multicultural diversity of the nation.

Freedom of opinion and expression was enshrined in the Constitution of the country, he said. Recent measures taken to strengthen the normative framework included the repeal of the Criminal Defamation Law and approval by the Cabinet of the Freedom of Information Bill as well as the establishment of a self-regulating independent Press Complaints Commission. The Government had agreed to a visit by the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, however, since he could not made a proposal with regard to possible dates in 2004, arrangements would be made for another date.

HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea) said it was widely recognized that it was impossible to achieve sustainable development without the rule of law, democracy, and respect for human rights. The past 60 years had seen evidence of a gradual but remarkable improvement in the civil and political rights situation around the globe. However, innumerable cases of violations of fundamental freedoms were still being reported from many parts of the world. The absolute prohibition on the use of torture was a widely accepted norm, but unfortunately the practice still continued and in some cases had even increased. Members of the international community should actively seek means to bring an end to this practice.

Eliminating the impunity of human rights violators was critical to the prevention of future violations. Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, including sexual violence against women during the time of armed conflict, were inconceivable, and all Governments should bring to justice the perpetrators of such crimes. The recent scourge of terrorism posed an impending threat to fundamental human rights as well as to international peace and security. Terrorism could not be justified or tolerated under any circumstance. At the same time, every step should be taken to avoid sacrificing fundamental human rights in the fight against terrorism.

DORU COSTEA (Romania) recalled that, together with its partners, Romania had been submitting a series of resolutions to the Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations General Assembly since 1999, which aimed to increase awareness of the potential of democracy to create a solid foundation for the protection of human rights. Specifically, the adoption of resolution 2000/47 on "Promoting and consolidating democracy" had been lauded as setting the standard on the principle of democracy. That text had also provided the basis for deeper discussions on the interdependence between democracy and human rights, and the link between democracy and the rule of law, in two expert seminars organized by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The debates that had taken place in the Commission on the subject of democracy had broadened areas of common understanding and shared values on the issue of democratic governance, he noted. Recent developments in countries in which free elections had taken place for the first time should be welcomed, and efforts should be made to identify needs and to offer support to those Governments willing to reinforce their democratic institutions. The Commission should also strengthen its message towards other bodies, including the Security Council, which should base its decisions on a longer-term perspective envisaging the transition from violent conflict to the establishment of democratic institutions. The long-term ambitions of the Commission and the Office of the High Commissioner should be to enhance coherence and coordination, and to undertake effective operational activities for democratisation. Overall, the United Nations should strive to provide new political and material resources for democratisation, to assume its responsibility to promote democracy and to contribute to good global governance, and to realize the universal aspiration to democracy.

LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Costa Rica) said Costa Rica respected civil and political rights and believed in constructing and developing a society that would allow citizens to participate in its economic, social and cultural development. Costa Rica respected the right to life of its citizens. Capital punishment had been abolished in Costa Rica since the nineteenth century on the belief that the respect for human life was fundamental. The imposition of the death penalty could not be a remedial measure. Costa Rica vehemently condemned acts of terrorism and contributed to the fight against that phenomenon. His country also believed that the fight against terrorism should be carried out with full respect to the human rights of all people. States had the obligation to respect human rights under international humanitarian law.

Costa Rica would like to add its concern to that of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with regard to the practice of torture in many countries. Costa Rica urged all States to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

EDDI HARIYADHI (Indonesia) said the full and unfettered enjoyment of human rights was a common ideal cherished by all. Civil and political rights, together with economic, social and cultural rights, formed the backbone of the fundamental human rights that lay at the core of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No right better illustrated an individual's right to participate in a society than the right to vote. Although elections were not a new experience for the Indonesian people, this fundamental right was afforded to them three times last year. The election, which made Indonesia the world's third largest fully-fledged democracy, was a lengthy and complex one, and domestic and international observers monitoring it deemed it peaceful, free, fair, and transparent. Thus, a grassroots democracy was prospering in Indonesia.

The Government was committed to addressing the issues under this item and the principles which supported and preserved the fundamental freedoms at stake: among them judicial independence, due process and equal protection. A major guarantee of the enjoyment of civil and political rights lay in just and effective law enforcement. The Government was committed to respecting the principles set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the obligations it had assumed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both the Government and the people were striving for democracy and greater well being. The enjoyment of civil and political rights was important to people's ability to participate in society, make choices about their lives, and live with dignity. Nevertheless, the full realization of all human rights required that attention be paid to the equal treatment of the two categories of human rights and the balance between rights and duties.

SONAM T. RABGYE (Bhutan) said its draft Constitution, which would usher in a parliamentary democracy, had been publicly released to the population of Bhutan on 26 March 2005. This historic occasion marked the culmination of the process of political reforms initiated by the King upon his coronation in 1972. The devolution of power and the process of political change in the country had always emanated from the throne; although the Bhutanese people remained perfectly happy with the existing political system, had always enjoyed human rights, and remained apprehensive about changing a tried and tested system, the King had insisted that the country's political system not be dependent on a single person.

Bhutan had consistently followed a holistic development approach, which emphasized equitable and sustainable development, environmental protection, preservation of culture and tradition, and good governance. These ideals had found a central place in the draft Constitution. The draft Constitution also guaranteed fundamental rights including the right to life, liberty and security of person, freedom of speech, opinion and expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to information, peaceful assembly and the freedom of association. In the next month, the King would conduct negotiations with people from all districts of the country on the draft Constitution. Thereafter, it would be enacted in the National Assembly.

PHILIP RICHARD. O. OWADE (Kenya) said human rights were not an abstract ideology in Kenya; they were a firm recognition of the intrinsic worth and dignity of the individual; a reaffirmation that all human beings were equal and that they should be treated in a humane and respectful manner. Kenya was particularly perceptive about human rights because of its history, having gone through a painful oppressive colonial rule, which negated and trampled upon all fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. Kenya gained its independence only after a long and arduous struggle. Kenya was a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and took its obligations seriously. The Kenyan Constitution guaranteed to all persons within its territory, the right to non-discrimination on any grounds including race, colour, sex, language, religion, political and other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Kenya had ratified the Convention against Torture in 1999 and had taken active steps to implement the provisions of the Convention both in its legal and administrative mechanisms. A new training manual for the police that embodied instructions in human rights and respect for them had been introduced as well. The use of corporal punishment had been abolished in the conviction that this form of punishment was inhumane and degrading.

MOHAMED SALECK OULD MOHAMED LEMINE (Mauritania) said the Constitution of Mauritania guaranteed fundamental freedoms and consecrated integral pluralism. The fight against poverty and under-development aimed to allow individuals to fully exercise their civil and political rights. Besides the economic, social and cultural efforts, the judicial bases of the rule of law were constantly reinforced. Mauritania was also Party to the main judicial instruments linked to human rights. The national programme for the promotion and protection of human rights allowed for every citizen to be aware of their rights.

Mauritanian justice had recently given the proof of its professionalism and independence during the trial of those implicated in the coup attempt of 2003. The physical and moral integrity of the suspects had been respected, as had been their right to a public and equitable trial. National and international media had covered this trial, contributing thus to the realization of the right for each citizen to know the truth on any issue, whether national or international. This right was guaranteed by the Constitution and was made concrete by the existence of a free, diverse and dynamic press. All these measures were evidence of a single will - that to promote and protect all individual and collective liberties - and to assure to a greater extent the primacy of the law.

VOLODYMYR BIELASHOV (Ukraine) said societies that respected the rule of law and civil and political rights, and practiced democracy, did their best to allow their citizens to fully realize their economic, social and cultural rights. The advancement of democracy and economic openness constituted the best foundations for domestic stability and international order. Democratically-governed nations were more likely to secure peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, combat international terrorism and crime, rule responsibly, uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms, and improve human health. Furthermore, adhering to the rule of law was necessary to build a stable political and economic environment that benefited all countries and protected citizens from unjust actions by the Government. Without the rule of law, States lacked the legal framework for civil society to flourish, for sustainable economic development to occur, for checks on executive and legislative power to function, and for legal foundations for free and fair elections and political process to operate. Thus, while one must note that the relevant mechanisms to ensure civil and political rights had existed under the previous regime, there had been a gap between existing legislation and the practice applied by that regime.

The Government of Ukraine had made all efforts to ensure that national legislation in the field of human rights was in conformity with relevant international human rights standards and principles, he said. The country supported the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, and hoped that it would succeed in elaborating a legally binding instrument to protect persons from enforced disappearances, filling gaps in the existing international legal framework. Due attention was also paid to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. As a party to Protocol Six of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ukraine had already outlawed the death penalty; the country also remained committed to fighting torture, and held that freedom of opinion and expression were fundamental to good governance and the rule of law. An independent and efficient legal system was also an essential element in the prevention, suppression and punishment of human rights violations, and all States should enhance their efforts to combat impunity.

ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia) said Armenia believed there was no better way to unravel the individual talents and capacities of members of its society for the benefit of all than to promote their individual freedoms, their rights and equal opportunities. Its domestic experience over the past fourteen years had had its ups and downs. However, in essence, it was an uninterrupted process of achieving benchmarks in effective protection and promotion of civil and political rights through continuous institution building. Armenia believed that what mattered were the institutions that needed to function irrespective of political trends. Armenia was certainly not in a position to boast of completion of the tasks at hand. The country was well aware of its shortcomings in expanding the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance. However, the development of its institutions and legal frameworks had been a result of consistent policy implementation and commitment to such principles and values.

While commending the Special Rapporteur's impressively broad focus on diverse problems related to the realization of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Armenia shared strong concerns about the use of forms of expression having discriminatory connotations or resulting in hate speech, incitement of hatred or war mongering.

Right of Reply

GEORGIOS PARTHENIOU (Greece), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in response to the statement of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said in connection with the incorrect denomination of the State in question used in that statement, there was Security Council Resolution 817 of 1993, according to which the State had been admitted to the United Nations "being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over the name of that State"”. This difference had not yet been settled.

WANNAKUWATTEWADUGE FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said that after the tsunami disaster of 26 December 2004, the Government had received unprecedented assistance and solidarity from other Governments, United Nations and international organizations, non-governmental organizations and the public from all over the world. Sri Lanka was most grateful for that assistance. The Government held that all groups engaged in relief efforts in the country did so for purely humanitarian purposes, and that such aid was not conditional, nor intended to create religious disharmony. Therefore, it was preposterous for the non-governmental organization Becket Fund to suggest that legislation was being prepared to jail faith-based aid workers from carrying out purely humanitarian missions. Perhaps the Becket Fund was referring to a private member's bill on unethical conversions, which had been turned down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional last year. As in any democracy, a private member could bring a bill to Parliament, and there was an opportunity to question any provision therein, and to challenge it in the Supreme Court, as had been done on numerous occasions by political parties, trade unions, civil society organizations and even individuals. As for the concern expressed that, if not for faith-based organizations, the children of Sri Lanka might not have a home, a dose of medicine or a meal, the Becket Fund should read Sri Lanka's statement under item 10 of the agenda, and recall that, since independence, the Government had provided free education and health services to all citizens without discrimination. This was confirmed by the country's high standing on the UNDP Human Development Index. It was disappointing that an non-governmental organization, which proclaimed to stand for religious liberty, had chosen to use this forum to cast aspersions on an ancient religion that preached tolerance and was followed by millions around the world.

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