COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES CHAIRPERSON'S STATEMENT ON COLOMBIA

MORNING
27.04.1999
HR/CN/99/60


Adopts Resolutions on Occupied Palestine, Democratic Republic of Congo,
lavery, Rights of Migrants, Minorities, Indigenous People, Among Others

The Commission on Human Rights this morning issued a Chairperson's statement on the human rights situation in Colombia in which it praised the Colombian Government for its introduction of an integrated human rights strategy.

The Commission hoped that the peace talks between the Government and all the groups involved in the conflict would become permanent.

Commission Chairperson Anne Anderson read out the statement which also condemned all acts of terrorism and all violations of international humanitarian law committed by guerilla groups in Colombia. The high level of judicial impunity was deplored, and the Commission expressed grave concern over the attacks against human rights defenders.

Also this morning, the Commission continued to take action on draft resolutions on issues ranging from the human rights of specific groups and individuals to measures and decisions forwarded by the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. It decided to appoint, for a three-year period, a Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants to examine ways and means of overcoming obstacles existing to their full enjoyment of human rights. It also decided to re-establish the Working Group on a permanent forum for indigenous peoples within the United Nations system.

The Commission reaffirmed the continuing and unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination, including the option of a State, and looked forward to the early fulfilment of this right. This hotly debated resolution was adopted by roll-call vote with 44 in favour to one against and 8 abstentions.

On the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Commission adopted by consensus after an extensive debate an amended resolution in which it expressed concern at the preoccupying situation of human rights, particularly in the eastern parts of the country, and at continuing violations of human rights throughout the national territory, often with impunity, including the perpetuation of massacres. The Commission spoke of the occurrence of cases of summary or arbitrary executions, disappearances, torture, beatings, and arbitrary arrests and detention without trial, including of journalists, opposition politicians, and human-rights defenders.

The Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic Republic of the Congo for a further year and requested him and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and a member of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to carry out a joint mission to investigate all massacres carried out on the national territory.

The Commission adopted by consensus resolutions and decisions on the human rights of migrants and their families, rights of internally displaced persons, rights of persons belonging to ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, protection of human rights in the context of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), rights of indigenous people, the concept and practice of affirmative action, drinking water supply and sanitation services, and the strengthening of the Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, among others.

A resolution on contemporary forms of slavery was adopted by roll-call vote of 36 in favour to none against and 17 abstentions. There was concern from some delegations that the draft did not cover sufficiently all modern forms of slavery, notably sexual slavery, and for this reason, certain delegations felt obliged to abstain from the vote.

Delegates of Germany (on behalf of the European Union), the United States of America, Cuba, Canada, India, Sri Lanka, Palestine, Israel, Norway, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo addressed the meeting.

The Commission will resume its meeting at 3 p.m. to continue taking action on draft resolutions.

Chairperson's statement

ANNE ANDERSON, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, welcomed the analytical report on the situation of human rights in Colombia by the permanent office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogota. The Commission welcomed the renewal of the agreement between the Colombian Government and the High Commissioner for Human Rights on extending the mandate of the permanent office in Bogota until 30 April 2000. It considered of greatest importance the work which the office was undertaking for the protection and promotion of human rights, an element which may facilitate reconciliation between Colombians and the search for peace. The Commission noted the continued willingness of the Colombian Government to give full importance to the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Commission deplored the fact that Colombia had not implemented fully the report's recommendations, as well as those made by thematic mechanisms and other United Nations bodies. Strong cooperation with thematic rapporteurs and working groups was
necessary to improve the situation of human rights in Colombia.

Ms. Anderson said the Commission acknowledged the steps taken by the Colombian Government for the application of humanitarian standards in the conflict, and welcomed its continued cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the facilitation of its humanitarian activities in the country. It expressed its hope that peace talks between the Colombian Government and all the groups involved in the internal conflict would become permanent and would provide a decisive impulse until a sustainable peace was reached in Colombia.

The Commission remained deeply concerned about the non-existence of a cease-fire and increasing grave abuses of international humanitarian law mainly by 'paramilitaries' and guerrillas, Ms. Anderson continued to state. It remained deeply concerned about the increase in the number of internally displaced people in Colombia and called for enhanced action by the Colombian authorities, in coordination with international bodies. The Commission welcomed the reduction in the number of violations attributed to the armed and security forces, and the police, but was concerned that the armed forces had not fulfilled their intention to suspend from active service all those in their ranks who were under formal juridical or disciplinary investigations for human rights violations until guilt or innocence was determined.

Ms. Anderson said the Commission regretted that the draft legislation on enforced disappearances had been withdrawn from the agenda of an urgent session of Congress in January and noted that it had been reintroduced. It reiterated to the Colombian Government the importance of adopting a law criminalizing enforced disappearance. The Commission reiterated its concern at the continued violence by 'paramilitary' groups in Colombia. It strongly condemned the crimes committed by these groups, including those of 'special private security and vigilante services'. It deplored the prolonged existence of high rates of judicial impunity in cases of serious crimes, in particular the failure in some to arrive at early and effective conclusions to the penal processes. It called upon the General Prosecutor to bring to trial without any delay all cases of serious allegations. It called upon the Colombian Government to give highest priority to developing concrete measures to integrate human rights education into the curricula of schools and universities throughout the country. It noted with great concern the effects of violence on the indigenous population and called upon the Colombian Government to take effective steps for improvement of their capacity to legal representation and for their physical protection.

Action on draft resolutions

In a resolution adopted by consensus, (E/CN.4/1999/L.63/Rev.1) on the human rights of migrants, the Commission requested States to effectively promote and protect the human rights of all migrants; decided to appoint, for a three-year period, a Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants to examine ways and means of overcoming obstacles existing to their full enjoyment of human rights, including obstacles and difficulties for the return of migrants who were non-documented or in irregular situations; to seek and receive information from relevant sources; to formulate recommendations; to promote effective application of international norms in the field; to recommend actions and measures at the national, regional and international levels; requested the Special Rapporteur to take into account bilateral and regional negotiations aimed, among other things, at addressing the return and reinsertion of migrants who were non-documented or in irregular situations;
requested the Chairperson of the Commission to appoint as Special Rapporteur an individual of recognized international standing and experience in the field; and requested all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and to invite the Special Rapporteur to visit their countries.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), speaking on draft resolution L.63 on the human rights of migrant workers on behalf of the European Union, associated countries and Norway, reaffirmed that the rights of migrant workers were important and that these countries had worked assiduously for the realization of those rights. The European Union regretted that it had not been able to more fully support the draft resolution because of the text. It should have had a more balanced basis. However, the European Union would join the consensus.

NANCY RUBIN (the United States) said his country was pleased to join the consensus since the draft resolution created a mandate that was comprehensive and global in scope, and fulfilled all criteria. It should be consistent with other thematic mandates. The human rights of the individual should be the focus. There were specific provisions to remedy the violations of the rights of migrants, whatever country they might be in, and at whichever point of their transition. It should be interpreted to cover the entire range of violations. The draft resolution should add to the protection of migrants, and a broad interpretation of the text would be the best way to achieve this.

The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.66) on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, in which it expressed its deep concern at the growing manifestations of racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination and degrading treatment of migrant workers in different parts of the world; urged countries of destination to review and adopt appropriate measures to prevent the excessive use of force and to ensure that their police forces and competent migration authorities complied with basic standards of decent treatment of migrant workers and their families; welcomed the fact that some additional Member States had ratified the Convention and called upon all States to consider the possibility of doing so as a matter of priority; and welcomed the launching of a global campaign for entry into force of the Convention.

The Commission adopted by roll-call vote of 36 in favour, none against and 17 abstentions a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.69) on the contemporary forms of slavery, in which it expressed its grave concern at such offences; noted that the Secretary-General had not yet received any information about the reliability of allegations regarding the removal of organs and tissues of children and adults, and, in order to enable the Commission to examine this question, again requested him to seek information; called upon States to consider reviewing or enacting laws to prevent the use of the Internet for trafficking and sexual exploitation on women and children; to take action to protect particularly vulnerable groups, such as children and migrant women, against exploitation of the prostitution of others and slavery-like practices, including the possible establishment of national bodies to achieve this objective; to develop national plans of action; to consider ratifying pertinent international instruments; and requested the Secretary-General to give effect to his decision to reassign to the relevant Working Group a professional staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as was the case in the past, to work on a permanent basis to ensure continuity of the implementation of resolutions related to the topic. Before adopting the resolution, the Commission voted on the retention of preambular paragraph 5, and operative paragraphs 3 and 5.b. This was adopted in roll-call vote with 32 in favour, 14 against and 7 abstentions.

The result of the vote on the whole resolutions was:

In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against: None.

Abstentions: Argentina, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The result of the vote on retaining part of the resolution was:

In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against: Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Abstentions: Argentina, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Japan, Liberia, Republic of Korea and South Africa.

WILHEM HOYNCK (Germany), on behalf of the European Union, said members of the Union and countries associated with it were deeply committed to combatting slavery wherever it took place. The important contribution made by non-governmental organizations in this field was most worthy since many reports of contemporary forms of slavery were provided by them. There were many new forms of slavery, notably sexual, which should be given ample attention by the Commission. Criminal offences of this kind should not cover only slavery, but also organ theft. It was regretted that no open-ended discussion had taken place allowing a more balanced and comprehensive text and definition of the issue.

GEORGE MOOSE (the United States) regretted that the text of the draft resolution made no mention of real life slavery such as in Sudan, but referred to organ sales. This was an attempt to propagate a myth which had no basis in fact. A tourist from the United States was beaten up in Guatemala on the basis of his misleading conception. The United States called therefore for a vote on preamble paragraph 5 and operative paragraphs 4 and 5b.

JUAN FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said his country was greatly surprised after having listened to the previous orators. Cuba strongly believed in the content of L.69, and the co-sponsors called for a roll-call vote.

ROSS HYNES (Canada) said his country strongly supported the draft resolution, but agreed with the European Union's statement that there were other aspects of this issue deserving attention. For this reason, Canada would have to abstain from the vote.

The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.70) on internally displaced persons, in which it expressed appreciation to Governments and other organizations which had provided assistance and protection to internally displaced persons and had supported the work of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the subject; encouraged the Representative to continue his analysis of the causes of internal displacement, the needs of those displaced, measures of prevention and ways to strengthen protection; thanked Governments which had invited the Representative to visit and encouraged them to follow up on his recommendations; called upon all Governments to facilitate his activities, in particular those with situations of internal displacement which had not yet extended invitations or responded positively to requests for information from the
Representative; welcomed the development of frameworks of cooperation to address the needs of internally displaced persons; welcomed efforts to establish a global information system on such persons; welcomed regional initiatives undertaken; and called upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights to develop projects to promote the rights of internally displaced persons.

The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.71) on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, in which it reaffirmed the obligation of States to ensure that such persons could fully and effectively exercise all human rights and fundamental freedoms; urged States and the international community to promote and protect the rights of such persons through facilitation of their participation in all aspects of life and society and the economic progress and development of their countries; recommended that the human-rights treaty bodies give particular attention to the rights of such persons; called upon the Secretary-General to make available, at the request of Governments, qualified expertise on minority issues; invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue efforts to improve coordination and cooperation of relevant United Nations agencies and programmes active in the field; and called upon States and other relevant entities to participate actively in the work of the relevant Working Group.

The Co mmission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.72) on the protection of human rights in the context of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), in which it invited States, United Nations organs, and international and non-governmental organizations to take all necessary steps to protect HIV-related human rights; to strengthen national mechanisms to that end; to eliminate stigmatization of and discrimination against those infected and affected by HIV/AIDS, especially for women, children and vulnerable groups; invited assistance to developing countries, particularly the least-developed countries and those in Africa, to aid their efforts to prevent the spread of the epidemic; urged States to ensure that laws and policies respected human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS; requested them to develop and support services to educate those infected in their rights; requested them to combat discrimination, prejudice and stigma in relation to HIV/AIDS; and requested them to develop and support appropriate mechanisms to monitor and enforce HIV/AIDS-related human rights.


The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.68) on the Working Group of the Commission to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994, in which it welcomed the continuation and positive nature of the deliberations of the Working Group, particularly the measures taken to ensure effective input by organizations of indigenous people; welcomed the decisions of the Economic and Social Council approving the participation of organizations of indigenous people in the work of the Group, and urged the Council to process all pending applications as soon as possible; recommended that the Working Group meet for 10 working days prior to the fifty-sixth session of the Commission; and encouraged organizations of indigenous people which were not already registered to participate and wished to do so to apply for authorization in accordance with the established procedures.

AYMEE HERNANDEZ QUESADA (Cuba), speaking on draft resolution L.68 on minorities, said his delegation supported the request that the draft be agreed upon without a vote. The difficulty concerned the speed of working on the vote which made it difficult for Cuba to make the statement which it had wanted to.

The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.73) on the Working Group on indigenous populations of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in which it urged the Working Group to continue its comprehensive review of developments and of the diverse situations and aspirations of the world's indigenous people; recommended that the Economic and Social Council authorize the Working Group to meet for five working days prior to the fifty-first session of the Subcommission; invited the Working Group to consider ways in which the expertise of indigenous peoples could contribute to the work of the Working Group; invited the Working Group to continue its review of activities of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People; welcomed the affirmation by the General Assembly that a major objective of the Decade was the adoption of a declaration on the rights of indigenous people and its recognition that among the important objectives of the Decade is the establishment of a permanent forum for indigenous people in the United Nations system; welcomed the invitation from the Government of Costa Rica to host a workshop for research and higher education institutions focusing on indigenous issues in education; invited the Working Group to submit its views on the activities of the Decade to the High Commissioner for Human Rights; emphasized the important role of international cooperation in making the Decade a success; encouraged governments to contribute to the Voluntary Fund for the Decade; encouraged them to implement the goals of the Decade and prepare relevant programmes and plans to that end; and requested the High Commissioner to ensure that the indigenous people's unit in her Office was adequately staffed and resourced.

The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.74) on a permanent forum for indigenous peoples within the United Nations system, in which it noted that the General Assembly had reaffirmed its support for the establishment of such a forum and urged governments to participate actively in the relevant open-ended intersessional ad hoc Working Group established by the Commission to that end; took note of the constructive debate and dialogue which took place during the previous session of the Working Group, indicating a trend towards possible consensus with regard to various aspects of the subject matter; decided to re-establish the Group to meet for eight working days prior to the fifty-sixth session of the Commission, and requested it to submit one or more concrete proposals on the establishment of a permanent forum for consideration by the Commission at that session; and invited the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group to submit a working paper to Member States and other participants containing suggestions and possible alternatives on all aspects of the matter.

AYMEE HERNANDEZ (Cuba), speaking on draft resolution L.74, said his country paid tribute to the delegation of Denmark which had worked toward a consensus vote. Cuba also comended the Working Group's efforts and results and said that it needed to continue its work. Cuba agreed to the text of the draft resolution and hoped it could be agreed upon without a vote.

S. S. GANEGAMA ARACHCHI (Sri Lanka) said that with regard to draft resolution L.74, the Asian Group drew the attention of the Commission to the statement made to the open-ended Working Group on this issue. This whole statement should be reviewed, since the comments were made with the intention of developing a broad consensus.

H. K. SINGH (India) said her country associated itself with the comment of Sri Lanka and reminded the Commission of the statement of the Asian Group which cautioned that as there was no precedent, their vote depended on the final views on the mandate and how it was stated. The more inclusive and broader the mandate, the least likely it would be acceptable. Any proposal for a permanent forum needed consensus and any attempt to push it through would be counterproductive. Paragraph 5 called for a working paper on informal consultations and called on the special rapporteur to consult with the Commission and other groups including the Asian Group.

The Commission adopted by consensus a measure (decision 5 in E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/45) on a study of indigenous land rights, in which it approved the requests of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities that the Secretary-General transmit as soon as possible the progress report on the relevant working paper to governments, indigenous peoples and intergovernmental and non--governmental organizations for their comments, data and suggestions.

MICHAEL DENNIS (the United States) asked for the word people to be amended to peoples, in conformity with usual practice.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said that the decision to change the word people to peoples should be referred back to the work of the Subcommission where this issue was quite important for some delegations. Cuba was not opposed to the change, but thought that this ought to be noted.

The Commission adopted by consensus a measure (E/CN.4/1999/L.59) on the concept and practice of affirmative action, in which it decided to endorse the decision of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to undertake a study on the topic.

The Commission adopted by consensus a measure (E/CN.4/1999/L.65) on a forum on economic, social and cultural rights, the Social Forum, in which it decided that the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities should further review, in light of the ongoing discussions by the Commission on its working methods, the establishment of a forum, to be called the Social Forum, to meet during the Subcommission's annual sessions.

The Commission adopted by consensus a measure (E/CN.4/1999/L.80) on drinking water supply and sanitation services, in which it decided that the issue should be given further consideration by the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in preparation for a study on the realization and promotion of this right.

The Commission adopted by consensus resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.7) on the strengthening of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in which the Commission reaffirmed the importance of ensuring universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human-rights issues, and requested the High Commissioner to ensure that the fulfilment of her mandate and the activities of her Office were guided by these principles; reiterated the need to ensure that all necessary financial, material and personnel resources were provided without delay; welcomed the increased voluntary contributions to the Office, in particular those from developing countries; reaffirmed that the tasks of the High Commissioner included promotion and protection of the right to development; called upon her to continue to emphasize the promotion and protection of economic, social and cultural rights; recommended that the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly provide the Office with ways and means commensurate to its increasing tasks, as well as more resources for special rapporteurs; invited all Governments considering voluntary contributions to the Office to consider providing unearmarked contributions as a way of treating all human rights in a fair and equal manner; and emphasized the need for an increase in the allocation of resources from within the United Nations regular budget for advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights.

The Commission adopted by roll-call vote of 44 in favour to 1 against and 8 abstentions a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.4/Rev.1) on the situation in occupied Palestine, in which it reaffirmed the continuing and unqualified Palstinian right to self-determination, including the option of a State, and looked forward to the early fulfilment of this right; and requested the Secretary-General to transmit the present resolution to the Government of Israel and other Governments.

The roll-call results were as follows:

In favour: Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Kingdom and Venezuela.

Against: the United States.

Abstentions: Argentina, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Liberia, Romania and Uruguay.

DAVID PELEG (Israel) said his country strongly objected to draft resolution L.4 Rev.1 since it purported to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. It also was not in accordance with the interim agreement. The fundamental commitment to withdraw all outstanding disagreements was stated in the Wye Memorandum. Israel would react accordingly to any Palestinian attempt to change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The draft resolution only referred to resolutions 181 and 194, the first of which was made null and void, both of which had never been made part of the negotiations which were based on Security Council resolutions. This was inconsistent with productive involvement with the peace process. Israel supported the right of peoples to self-determination. By taking part in the status negotiations, Palestinians were already taking part in the determination of their future. However, this right did not remove the rights of other peoples. Israel called on the Commission to vote against the draft resolution since this would provide better support to the peace process, and would not politicise the work of the Commission. This last was most important.

NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine) said he was not surprised by the Israeli statement which was misleading as the resolution involved had been included the peace process. Palestine did not understand how Israel could have taken the position it had since the resolution was in harmony with the peace process. Israel said that it agreed on the right of people to the right to self-determination. If this were true, then how could the Palestinian people enjoy the right to self-determination when they were occupied. Israel should withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territory and then it would enjoy peace. President Clinton had reiterated that the Government of the United States agreed that the Palestinian people should live and enjoy self-determination and be free. The representative hoped that the United States would support this draft resolution.

GEORGE MOOSE (the United States) did not believe that the Commission should seek to insert itself into the peace process. Nor should it prejudge issues that the Israelis and Palestinians still had left to resolve. The draft resolution was the same as earlier versions. There was a request for a vote, and the United States would vote against it.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), on behalf of the European Union said it would support the draft resolution and welcomed the fact that the text confirmed the right of the Palestinian people to the right to self-determination. The European Union had changed its vote from abstention to acceptance of the draft resolution. The peace negotiations should be brought to a prompt conclusion and should not be prolonged indefinitely.

WAYNE LORD (Canada) said his country would maintain its abstention on this draft resolution. It remained the view of Canada that this was an issue to be resolved by Israel and Palestine, and his country urged these two to implement the decisions taken at the Wye Plantation.

BJORN SKOGMO (Norway) said his country would have preferred different wording of the draft resolution, but accepted to vote for it.

The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.30) on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in which it welcomed the commitment of the Government to a process of democratization; recognition by the authorities that massacres were committed against refugees and internally displaced persons in 1996 and 1997; the appointment of a Government Minister for Human Rights; the release of a number of prisoners whose arrests were irregular or politically motivated; the Government decision to establish a national commission of inquiry to investigate alleged human-rights violations in the country (formerly Zaire) between 1996 and 1997; the Government's announced intention to ratify Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and international human-rights treaties; and the setting up of human-rights education programmes for members of the military and the police.

The resolution expressed concern at the adverse impact of the continuing conflict on the situation of human rights and its severe consequences for the security and well-being of the civilian population; at the preoccupying situation of human rights, particularly in the eastern parts of the country, and at continuing violations of human rights throughout the national territory, often with impunity, including the perpetuation of massacres; at the occurrence of cases of summary or arbitrary execu tions, disappearances, torture, beatings, and arbitrary arrests and detention without trial, including of journalists, opposition politicians, and human-rights defenders; at reports of sexual violence against women and children and the forcible recruitment of children as soldiers and combatants; at the trial of civilians and imposition of the death penalty by military courts; at the situation of human-rights defenders; at the large number of displaced persons and refugees who had disappeared between 1994 and 1997; and at the proliferation and illicit distribution and trafficking in arms in the region.

The resolution urged all parties to the continuing conflict in the country to work towards a rapid and peaceful settlement and to respect human rights; and called upon the Government to fulfil its responsibility to protect human rights; to fulfil its commitment to reform and restore the judicial system; to implement fully its commitment to democratization; to prepare for the holding of free and fair elections; to remove remaining restrictions on the activities of political parties; to remove restrictions still affecting the work of non-governmental organizations; to ensure full respect for freedom of opinion and expression; to cooperate fully with the International Tribunal for Rwanda; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic Republic of the Congo for a further year; to request him and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and a member of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to carry out a joint mission to investigate all massacres carried out on the national territory; and requested the international community to support the Human Rights Field Office in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Commission voted by roll-call vote twice on amendments to the draft resolution. First, it voted to include operative paragraphs 2a, 2b and 2c. This was rejected by one in favour, 26 against, and 25 abstentions.

The result of the vote was:

In favour: Rwanda.

Against: Argentina, Austria, Canada, China, Congo, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Sudan, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Abstentions: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia and the United States.

Second, the Commission voted on inclusion of the rest of the text of L.102 and this was rejected by one in favour, 27 against, and 24 abstentions.

The result of the vote was:

In favour: Rwanda.

Against: Argentina, Austria, Canada, China, Congo, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Sudan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Abstentions: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.

WILHEM HOYNCK (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said it had listened to the Rwanda and European Union negotiating proceedings and had fully understood the amendments and had made a number of proposals of modifications which had not been incorporated. The European Union asked for one vote on all amendments on resolution 102.

AUBIN MINAKU (the Democratic Republic of the Congo) said that it was extremely regrettable that the delegation of Rwanda was using the Commission forum to continue its war of aggression against the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This was why it had tabled the draft resolution. The draft resolution had been added to by a plethora of amendments. The European Union and the Democratic Republic of the Congo had wanted to contribute to peace, but the Rwandan delegation had not contributed to the process. In a spirit of dialogue and consensus, the European Union and the Democratic Republic of the Congo had decided to agree to certain amendments proposed by Rwanda. The delegation of Rwanda had continued to submit its draft resolution against the Democratic Republic of the Congo with many harsh amendments based on unjustified arguments. Rwanda had gone back on its word, and the Tutsi ethnic group were making use of the genocide by passing Rwanda off as a victim in order to gain the sympathy of the international community. The situation was being manipulated consistently by Rwanda. The proposed amendments were based on fallacious and unfounded statements.

CANISIUS KANANURA (Rwanda) said that it withdrew its amendment 7b. It would accept a block vote on the two proposals the European Union was willing to accept, 2b and 5b. The amendments were based on the findings of the Special Rapporteur, and it was a matter of principle not to see the Commission voting against his words.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), on behalf of the European Union, said the Union would vote against the draft since it had put forward a compromise which had not been accepted.

MINAKU (the Democratic Republic of the Congo) said his country would vote against the draft resolution for several reasons. Paragraphs 2b and 2c covered ethnic cleansing which had already been studied in the first mould of draft resolution L.30. This was an extremist attempt by Rwanda which would make the text more repetitive and less useful.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said his country had close relationships with two close neighbours of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and felt that the deep conflicts currently taking place were due to the colonial past. Cuba did not wish to throw wood on the fire and called on Rwanda and other countries to find a politically negotiated peace. Cuba was not going to further the division with a vote. Therefore, it would not participate in the vote.

KAMEL MORJANE (Tunisia) said it was obvious that Tunisia regretted the situation as it had hoped for a fraternal resolution of the situation. The two countries were sister countries, and in the interest of the African continent, Tunisia would abstain from the vote on the two proposals by Rwanda.

KANANURA (Rwanda) said his country would vote in favour of the draft resolution but continued to hold reservations. The draft resolution had not condemned the ethnic hatred and violence against citizens. In view of evidence of ethnic cleansing the draft should have recognized it as such and should have made provisions for the safe return of victims. Massacres had taken place and the draft resolution had not acknowledged that ethnic genocide had taken place. The hostages taken by the Government should have been mentioned. Rwanda was surprised that since women and children had been victimized that the draft resolution had not attempted to give a gender perspective of the atrocities that had taken place. The draft resolution should have addressed the threat to neighbouring countries and should have provided more adequate arrangements for these neighbours. Rwanda saw this as a beginning but not a complete step in this direction. President Clinton had said that those atrocities should have been called by their real name, 'genocide' on his visit to the area and Rwanda concurred.

MINAKU (the Democratic Republic of the Congo) said his country had fought for consensus. Draft resolution L.30 was very balanced and was in line with the objective and constructive report made by the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There was recognition therein that progress had been made in the humanitarian area in the country. Violations had occurre d and continued to occur, but there would be work done to remedy this according to the report. This was why his country would vote for the draft resolution.

GEORGE MOOSE (the United States) said his country appreciated the efforts of attempting to reach a consensus, as well as the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. The United States regretted that a peaceful solution had not been found, and wished for such a solution that would respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. The grave concerns of the consequences of the conflict were recalled, most especially those of ethnic cleansing and arbitrary detention. The Special Rapporteur should pay special attention to these concerns.

CORRIGENDUM

The statement by Laura Dupuy of Uruguay, which was carried on page 11 of press release
HR/CN/99/57 of 26 April, 1999, should read as follows:

LAURA DUPUY (Uruguay) said that the report of the Bureau covered four different mechanisms. There were other aspects of work covered by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights which had an impact on these mechanisms and their goal of protecting and promoting human rights. There was no doubt that the revision of the whole United Nations system could not be achieved overnight, since it was a long and drawn out process. The analysis of all the components of the system was necessary. There was a need to ensure a single technical mechanism to consider confidential communications. Deteriorating situations should be identified as soon as possible, since this would warn the international community sooner and would help create greater cooperation between States. The United Nations system should be seen as impartial. Small changes could easily reach consensus. All decisions should be in the hands of the Commission. There was margin for
manoeuvre for all delegations before any changes were agreed on in the fifty-sixth session of the Commission. Uruguay would either vote for change or support the status quo, depending on what was better to promote and protect human rights. Uruguay supported draft resolution L.101.