COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS STARTS DEBATE ON THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
17 April 2001
Evening



Special Representative of Secretary-General on
Human Rights Defenders Introduces her Report



The Commission on Human Rights this evening started its debate on the promotion and protection of human rights, its agenda item under which it reviews the status of the international covenants on human rights; human rights defenders; information and education; and science and the environment.

The Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Hina Jilani, introducing her first report to the Commission, said that no region was free of the variety of repressive trends, measures and practices used to threaten the freedom of action of human rights defenders. The degree of violence used to silence voices in defense of human rights increased every day. Impunity for activity that blatantly threatened the security of human rights defenders was a serious issue. The methods used in targeting defenders were becoming more and more sophisticated and dangerous, as the range of perpetrators of violations grew larger. A certain number of human rights defenders were being intimidated and even threatened with death because of their participation in the current session of the Commission.

Most country delegations which took the floor praised the work of the Special Representative in carrying out the important task of protecting the rights of human rights defenders. Sweden, on behalf of the European Union, and South Africa called on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure that the Special Representative had the necessary funds to enable her to discharge her mandate effectively.

Many speakers addressed the importance of fighting impunity in order to ensure the rights of human rights defenders. Some delegations alleged violations in various countries and regions.

The issue of the death penalty was also the focus of a number of statements, with speakers either supporting a moratorium and eventual abolishment of capital punishment while others defended the right for each State to take its own stance depending on its circumstances.

Speaking on this agenda item were Representatives of Sweden on behalf of the European Union, the United States, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Norway on behalf of the Nordic countries, Japan, Cuba, South Africa, Italy, Norway, Pakistan, El Salvador on behalf of the Central American Group, the Republic of Korea, Zambia, India, Senegal, the World Health Organization, Singapore, Iraq, Switzerland, Austria, Albania, the Netherlands, and San Marino.

The University of Peace and International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims also took the floor.

Belarus spoke in exercise of its right of reply.

The Commission will meet again at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 April, to take action on draft resolutions.


Promotion and protection of human rights

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

There is a report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2001/87) on the status of the international covenants on human rights which lists States parties to the International Covenants on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and Civil and Political Rights; a report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2001/88) on impunity which lists replies received from States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on steps taken to combat impunity; and a note by the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2001/89 and Corr.1) on the question of the death penalty explaining that a report complied by the Centre for International Crime Prevention at the United Nations Office at Vienna will be made available to the Commission once it is received.

There is a report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2001/91) on fundamental standards of humanity, which states among its concluding remarks that recent developments in international law, and in particular of the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the adoption of the ICC Statute, shows that important progress has been made towards the clarification of legal uncertainties with regard to fundamental standards of humanity; that jurisprudence has made an important overall contribution to the protection of individuals in all situations through the re-assertion of the centrality of the principle of human dignity to human rights law and international humanitarian law; and that given the nature of contemporary conflicts, the question of the obligations of non-State armed groups towards those within a territory or population they control merits further study.

There is a report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2001/92) on public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights, which summarizes the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights through its publication programme, through electronic means, and through its external-relations programme, and on behalf of the upcoming World Conference against Racism; and reviews the activities of the United Nations Department of Public Information through its Information Service at Geneva and through other United Nations information centres and services and United Nations Offices.

There is a report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2001/93 and Add.1) on human rights and bioethics, which summarizes replies received from States on ways of ensuring proper coordination of bioethics activities throughout the United Nations system.

There is a report (E/CN.4/2001/94) of Hina Jilani, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, which concludes, among other things, that significant advances have been made in recent years in creating or strengthening legal and normative frameworks for the protection of human rights defenders in many parts of the world, but one recurrent problem remains the lack or inefficient implementation of these norms in practice; that the Special Representative is deeply concerned at the considerable number of communications she has already received that allege serious violations targeting human rights defenders; that she is particularly concerned that a variety of repressive trends, measures and practices persist which threaten the freedom of action of such people; that the activities of armed groups, sponsored by the State or acting independently, as well as those of military, paramilitary or other security groups, have become a major threat to the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and that the rights to freedom of association, assembly and movement are not specifically covered by any particular thematic mandate, and it is urgent to undertake a comprehensive review of the implementation of the Declaration on human rights defenders in this area and dwell in an appropriate manner on the investigation of individual cases.

There is a report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2001/95) on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, which reviews such cooperation on the basis of principles and on the level of adherence to international human rights instruments, of which all States currently have ratified at least one.

There is a note (E/CN.4/2001/96) submitted by Miguel Alfonso Martinez, Special Rapporteur appointed by the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to undertake a study requested by the Commission on human rights and human responsibilities, giving an outline of the anticipated study.

There is a note (E/CN.4/2001/117) by the Secretariat on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights, indicating that replies to a request for States' practices to that end received from nine countries are available for consultation in the files of the Secretariat.

There is a note by the High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2001/120) on the topic of towards a culture of peace, which contains the final report of an expert seminar on human rights and peace held in Geneva from 8-9 December 2000 and containing chapters on human rights and peace; lessons learned; and proposals for practical action at the international and national levels through such means as education, the media, and documentation and research.

Statements

HINA JILANI, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, introducing her first report to the Commission, said that the situation of human rights defenders was preoccupying in Colombia, Indonesia and Tunisia. Of particular concern was the variety of repressive trends, measures and practices used to threaten the freedom of action of human rights defenders. No region was free of these trends. The degree of violence used to silence voices in defense of human rights increased every day. Invoking State of Emergency legislation was a tool often used by Governments in order to nullify or weaken the guarantees accorded by national laws. Impunity for activity that blatantly threatened the security of human rights defenders was a serious issue. This was especially evident in relation to activities of military, paramilitary or other security groups. Women human rights defenders, in particular, faced grave risks and were often more vulnerable to prejudice, marginalization and to public repudiation, not only by State forces but by other social actors.

Assertion of democratic rights and the exercise of the freedom of association, assembly, information and movement were being penalized by many States, subjecting defenders to prosecution, violence and harassment. Serious note must be taken for laws enacted to criminalize certain aspects of human rights activity, and regulatory frameworks restricting the scope of activity of non-governmental organizations. Reporting of human rights abuse had become too risky because of the reprisals and repressive measures that defenders had to face. The methods used in targeting defenders were becoming more and more sophisticated and dangerous, as the range of perpetrators of violations grows larger. A certain number of human rights defenders were being intimidated and even threatened with death because of their participation in the current session of the Commission.

LARS RONNAS (Sweden), on behalf of the European Union, said that over the years it had become increasingly clear that without the involvement of civil society, effective promotion and protection of human rights could not be fully achieved. Human rights defenders, the courageous men and women in all parts of the world, had an indispensable role to play for the promotion and protection of human rights. Their role in informing civil society of the rights enshrined in international human rights instruments could never be replaced. Their contribution to the protection of others from human rights violations could not be appreciated enough. By documenting and exposing human rights violations and holding Governments accountable, by seeking remedies for victims and educating their fellow human beings on their human rights, these individuals played a crucial role in combatting violations and improving human rights situations. They uncovered and exposed deficits in the realization of human rights. They brought to light gross violations of those rights. They drew the attention of the general public and the Governments in their respective countries, as well as the international community, to cases and situations in which human rights were violated. They contributed to the fight against impunity, the negation of justice.

Attacks on human rights defenders frequently included intimidation and harassment, arbitrary arrest and detention, disappearances, torture and other physical violence. But they were sometimes harassed in more subtle and diffuse ways, such as social disqualification, loss of employment, denial of the right to work and of medical care and education for their children, and loss of housing or land. The reprisals often affected not only the defenders themselves, but also their relatives, friends and associates. In December 1998, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, commonly known as the Human Rights Defenders Declaration. The Declaration reaffirmed, clarified and strengthened established international legal norms pertaining to the important work of human rights defenders. It provided an important basis for effective implementation by building upon the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the general corpus of international law.

The European Union called on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights defenders was provided with all necessary means to enable her to discharge her mandate effectively. Human rights defenders represented the conscience of all human beings whose human rights were violated. The international community had the responsibility to protect human rights defenders in all parts of the world.

SICHAN SIV (the United States) said that one of the international community's first lines of defense was the United Nations Special Rapporteurs. Of particular concern was the fact that the Special Rapporteur was faced with death threats and intimidation in her own country. There were as many kinds of human rights defenders as there were human rights that needed defending. Many had paid a heavy price for their beliefs. In Cuba, serious analysis and even suggestions were deemed seditious. In Aceh and in several other parts of Indonesia, the torture and abuse of human rights workers had become all too frequent, and those who committed these crimes were seldom held accountable. Similarly, in Cambodia, this same culture of impunity continued to impede the efforts of NGOs and individuals to end human rights violations and bring those responsible to justice. In Colombia, 129 labour leaders were murdered last year, many by paramilitary organizations. At least 22 had faced the same fate this year. In Burma where forced labour was common, those who worked for human rights had been sentenced to prison terms of extraordinary duration for the crime of labour activism.

In the Russian Federation, the nation's only nationwide independent television station seems to have been toppled over the weekend, not because of market forces, but from government pressure. Sadly, there were a few countries where the Government was so repressive that no human rights defenders could exist. One was Turkmenistan, where there were no local human rights monitoring groups. Government restrictions on freedom of speech, press and association precluded any effort to investigate and criticize publicly its human rights policies.

RAMADAN BARG (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said there was an innocent Libyan citizen who continued to suffer from countries that were making a political point. The person was unjustly judged in the Lockerbie case. His human rights had been violated when he was unjustly accused. He spent many years in detention and being interrogated. His human rights were violated when a judgment was made against him. This judgment was based on suppositions and conjecture which were based on witnesses who made accusations that the court recognized as lies. The judgment, in the end, was based on a large quantity of contradictory evidence. The verdict, in the end, was purely political. There was no certainty in the conviction. Libya was convinced that the result of the case was a contradictory one. The obvious error committed against that citizen could be reversed by freeing him and returning him to his own country. Until then, he was seen as a hostage. Those who had a conscience and defended human rights should support the cause of this man, and demand his release.

PETTER F. WILLE (Norway), speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, said that many and most serious human rights violations took place in situations of internal conflict and strife, characterised by disruption of internal order, tension and acts of violence. These situations were the most difficult ones as regards the protection of human rights and international humanitarian law. As repeatedly stated, legislation in itself was not sufficient to protect individuals. Ways of ensuring implementation of existing norms of protection was the core element in the work relating to fundamental standards of humanity.

The adoption in 1998 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court had significant impact on the discussions on fundamental standards of humanity. The Statute also applied to crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court when committed in the context of internal armed conflict. Ensuring that non-State actors complied with fundamental standards and safeguards represented an important challenge. The fundamental standards of humanity were a comprehensive concept which covered the various forms of individual responsibility for non-State actors under international criminal law. They included genocide, war crimes, violations of international humanitarian law and other crimes against humanity.

MASARU WATANABE (Japan) said his country recognized that the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms was primarily the responsibility of each country, as prescribed by the Vienna Declaration. In order to help States fulfil this responsibility, the United Nations had been developing various international human rights instruments stemming from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, the adoption of international human rights instruments was one of the most successful outcomes of the UN's activities in the field of human rights. Japan was a party to all six fundamental human rights treaties and it strongly supported the aims of the United Nations towards universal ratification of these instruments. Japan called upon all Governments, which were not party to these instruments, to ratify or accede to them at the earliest possible opportunity.

Since the European Union was going to submit a draft resolution on the question of the death penalty, Japan wanted to state its position on this issue. Japan believed that the question of whether to retain or abolish capital punishment should be carefully studied by each State, fully taking into account the sentiments of its people, the state of its domestic crime and its criminal justice policy in general. In this context, attention was drawn to the fact that at the Third Committee of the fifty-fourth General Assembly, the European Union had withdrew a draft resolution of a similar nature. This clearly showed that there was no consensus on the matter. Japan last year continued its contributions to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to support its activities, giving about $ 810,000 in response to the Annual Appeal 2000. Japan sincerely hoped that these contributions were used effectively for the promotion and protection of human rights around the world.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that his country gave special importance to the treatment that the item of the so-called human rights defenders received in the Commission. In fact, with the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights and the Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, a complex and labourious effort of this Commission for 14 years had finally ended. The time devoted to this objective constituted, by itself, a clear indication of its political sensibility and importance. The adoption by consensus of the Declaration had only been possible when its text convinced all the States that this instrument could not be potentially used, under an apparent convert of the defense of human rights, as a spurious tool for the foreign policy of some Member States against others, but on the contrary, that it was conceived as an element of stimulus to international cooperation.

It was necessary to avoid that the terms 'defenders' be reserved to the activity of individuals and groups in opposition to the States. This approach would consolidate a confrontational perception of the cooperation in the issue of human rights. The financing from abroad of the activities of the so-called defenders of the human rights continued, reflecting clear patterns of selectivity and political manipulation. Sometimes, it served to mask the financing of activities which were incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations. The United States Government which kept a criminal and genocidal blockade against the Cuban people, at the same time, devoted millions of the Federal Budget to the promotion, organization and financing of counter-revolutionary groups that tried to impede the exercise of the rights to self-determination of the Cuban people.

HAIKO E. ALFELD (South Africa) said his country was particularly encouraged by the Special Representative's stated determination to pursue a constructive approach for the improvement of the situation of human rights defenders together with Governments concerned. The undertaking to take full advantage of existing field presences of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as potential sources of information on violations, and the inclusion of her possible recommendations in the elaboration of technical cooperation programmes, thus made perfect sense. South Africa commended the Special Representative for the strong emphasis she placed on cooperation with existing special procedures, treaty bodies, specialized agencies, regional human rights mechanisms and non-governmental organizations. With regard to the cooperation with regional human rights mechanisms, South Africa urged the Special Representative to prioritize the possible elaboration of a regional strategy for the enhancement of the protection of human rights defenders in Africa, including through a close collaboration with the African Commission on Human and People's Rights, which was to consider the issue at its forthcoming session. South Africa was convinced of the crucial importance of the provision of adequate financial, human and technical resources, to enable the Special Representative to fulfil her mandate effectively. It would be a shame if the expectations raised by the creation of the mandate and the invaluable lifesaving potential thereof were to be undermined by a lack of resources.

CLAUDIO MORENO (Italy) said that it was well known that in recent years, Italy had become the destination of a veritable exodus from the Balkans and the Mediterranean and masses of illegal immigrants from Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. These illegal immigrants had fallen victim to the most abominable abuses committed by networks of organized crime. These abuses included sexual exploitation, pornography, drug trafficking and organ trade. The international community must intervene to put an end to these abuses and put in place preventive measures at the national, regional and international levels. The international conference of Palermo, the objective of which was the drafting of a convention against transnational organized crime, had indicated the path to follow in protecting the rights of migrants and the fight against all forms of exploitation.

At the national level, Italy had accorded special priority to the condition of women migrants who were often subjected to racial, economic, social and gender-based discrimination. The new Italian law on immigration favoured the reunification of families, thereby enabling numerous women and children to rejoin their husbands and fathers in Italy.

ROALD NAESS (Norway) said one of the most important achievements of last year's session of the Commission was the decision to appoint a Special Representative for human rights defenders. The very broad support for this mandate illustrated the strong desire to acknowledge the work being done by human rights defenders and to promote and protect their rights. It also showed that the time was right to establish a mechanism to promote and implement the declaration that was adopted by consensus in the General Assembly in 1998. Norway was among those who were convinced that the time was right to give concrete effect to the Declaration and to establish such a mandate. It believed that the mandate would raise awareness of the very serious difficulties encountered by many human rights advocates around the world.

Some delegations, however, had expressed concern about the establishment of the mandate. Possible duplication and overlap with other special procedures were among the arguments advanced. In Norway's view, the report of the Special Representative showed that there was little to fear. She clearly had already established good working relations with other parts of the special procedures system so as to avoid such problems. She could therefore benefit from work done elsewhere and forge cooperation based on synergies. The need for close cooperation with relevant treaty bodies, other mechanisms and other parts of the UN system was highlighted in the report, and Norway strongly encouraged the Special Representative to continue working in this direction. The delegation was convinced that the mandate could make a difference. Through dialogue and cooperation, the Special Representative could assist Governments in improving the promotion and protection of the work and the rights of human rights defenders. Her mandate could also help to enhance understanding of the important role played by human rights advocates in every society.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said that despite the protection afforded by the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and the growing international recognition of the importance of the work of human rights defenders, they remained vulnerable, subjected often to harassment, intimidation, arbitrary detention, torture and disappearances. Some had paid the highest price - sacrificing their lives in pursuit of their ideals and convictions. In Pakistan, the community of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) was extremely active in various fields. Thousands of civil society organizations were making positive contributions to the promotion and protection of all human rights as well as social and economic development of the country. They continued to make significant contributions in the fight against illiteracy, in promoting the right of all Pakistani children, particularly girls, to education; and in promoting higher health standards.

The 1998 Declaration on Human Rights Defenders referred to rights and responsibilities of individuals, groups and others. It was obvious that a heavy responsibility also rested with NGOs in carrying out their work. They had the responsibility to ensure that the reporting carried out by them to the Commission was accurate. Untrue allegations could not help their cause. The reputation and standing of NGOs was tarnished when certain Government-sponsored NGOs were brought to the Commission with the specific purpose of targeting countries which were potential adversaries. Pakistan was the target of a number of such NGOs.

MARIO CASTRO GRANDE (El Salvador), on behalf of the Central American Group, said a new culture based on the respect of non-violence and human rights should be implemented. The promotion of a culture of peace was essential for the region. The Governments of the members of the Central American Group were committed to strengthening a culture of peace. Programmes were being held, and that had captured the interest of the media. Other forums analysed the role of the armed forces in the region. The Central American Parliament last year adopted a resolution calling for a year of a culture of peace. The Central American Group wanted peace to be considered a human right, which could guide peoples and nations. In this context, the General Assembly in 1984 stated the peoples of the planet had a sacred right to peace.

The role of education was recognized in building a culture of peace and non-violence. These central values should be entrenched. The main objective was to build solidarity among individuals and nations. This would lead the way to conflict resolution. A culture of peace would be an underpinning of the economic, social and culture rights of nations. To promote a culture of peace, a genuine political desire was necessary -- both at the national and international levels.

YOUNG-SAM MA (the Republic of Korea) said that if a culture of peace was to be instilled, more had to be done to prevent wars between States and conflicts between ethnic groups. This could be achieved through a comprehensive approach to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, eradicate poverty, put an end to discrimination and overcome exclusions of others. Celebrating cultural diversity and nurturing a spirit of tolerance were key to reaching a culture of peace. In this regard, grave concern was expressed at the recent trend of cultural superiority and arrogance, since rigid categorization and exclusion of certain cultures could lead to animosity and aggression against other cultures and ethnic groups. Such intolerance was manifested early this year through the destruction of Buddhist cultural heritage in Afghanistan, shocking the international community.

A culture of peace could not be achieved through the efforts of the Government alone. The role of the Government was bound to shrink in this age of globalization, and civil society was increasingly filling the vacuum by extending into areas beyond the Government's ability. The role of civil society was growing daily. Civil society's active role could also be seen in the work of the Commission. Non-governmental organizations, with their valuable expertise and dedication, played a catalytic role in the Commission.

B. BOWA (Zambia) said that his Government had established in 1996 a Human Rights Commission in order to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights in the country. The Government of Zambia believed in the principle of the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and inter-relationship of all human rights. However, the enjoyment of human rights could only be ensured with active promotion and protection. The mandate of the Zambian Human Rights Commission was to investigate human rights violations and mal-administration of justice, among other things. It was further empowered to initiate investigations of alleged human rights violations on its own or upon receipt of a complaint. Human rights defenders played a role that was not easy as they exposed the worst violations of human rights which might otherwise went unnoticed. Their work carried with it risks of violence world wide.

The Zambian delegation strongly supported communication and dialogue between Governments and the Special Representative as an important aspect of her mandate. That was because the Zambian delegation firmly believed that dialogue should be established between human rights defenders and Governments to discuss issues of concern. In addition, the Zambian delegation was concerned that the Commission was at times subjected to politicization by States, which should be avoided.

A. GOPINATHAN (India) said that the spread of human rights education at the global level still remained a distant goal. The promotion of human rights education required a sound foundation of the spread of literacy and education. It also necessitated coverage of a large number of institutions so as to adopt a comprehensive and holistic approach. There was a need to target the educational institutions at the school and university levels. However, the programme could not be limited to these institutions only. No uniform approach applicable to all countries could be prescribed; every country would have to design its human rights education strategy on the basis of its own needs and priorities.

The system of education in India sought to promote the ideals that underpinned the Indian Constitution, namely justice, equality, dignity of the individual and secularism. In this sense, the Indian system was already geared to the promotion and protection of fundamental human rights. India recognized that much more remained to be done at the national level and that it had to go a long way before it could claim to have a vibrant system of human rights education. India was committed to taking all necessary steps in this regard.

DIEGANE SAMBE THIOUNE (Senegal) recalled that after 13 years of efforts, the Commission's Working Group on elaborating a declaration on human rights defenders had succeeded and the declaration had been adopted by consensus. Its adoption constituted a turning point in the world crusade against human rights violations and an essential step towards improving the protection of human rights defenders. The Commission, in its resolution 2000/61, had reaffirmed the importance of the declaration, its promotion and implementation, without forgetting the role of individuals and other non-governmental organizations. The Commission had further expressed its deep concern that in many countries human rights defenders had been subjected to violence, harassment, arbitrary detention and extra-judiciary killings.

The delegation of Senegal was convinced that there would be no human rights without the defenders of human rights, who were 'unwanted', but they were the conscience of human morality. Their role was to watch the respect of human rights and to inform those who violated human rights about their obligations to respect these rights. The Senegalese authorities supported the efforts of human rights defenders and would cooperate with them in all aspects concerning the respect and promotion of human rights.

KATIE STRONG, of the World Health Organization, said that the organization was in the process of consultations designed to develop an agenda and work plan for WHO in the area of ethical, legal and social implications of genomics, especially for developing countries. Recent advances in genomics meant that soon a variety of tests for disease susceptibility would also be available. The ethical and social implications of genetic testing were two-fold. The first was to ensure that results of genetic testing did not lead to discrimination, either for employment, insurance or education, or stigmatization of families or communities. The second was to ensure that the genetic tests known to be effective in promoting healthy communities were available to all, including those in developing countries.

A new proven, beneficial genetic technology targeted for use in developed countries was often prohibitively expensive for those in developing countries and diseases that caused a high burden in developing countries might be overlooked in the research and development process of many companies. This meant that the application of genomics to address serious diseases in low-income countries was not fully developed. Furthermore, there was a risk that genetic information could be used to discriminate against individuals and communities that became associated with disease-causing genes. Such an association had the potential to create what had been called a 'genetic underclass'.

SEE CHAK MUN (Singapore) said that since 1997, similar draft resolutions on the question of the death penalty had been submitted to the Commission calling for a moratorium with a view to abolishing the death penalty. The European Union had once against submitted this year an almost identical draft resolution with only slight revisions for updating purposes. From the point of view of streamlining and rationalizing the work of the Commission, was it purposeful for the Commission to adopt identically the same resolution year after year? It was not unreasonable to expect that once the Commission had adopted a draft resolution, even though not unanimously, there was no further need to take up the issue again?

Mention had been made that the death penalty, imposed for whatever purpose was cited, conflicted with the very concept of human rights and human dignity. But that statement carried the assumption that for every capital punishment that was carried out, there had been a miscarriage of justice, and that innocents had been executed. Quite the contrary, for those capital punishments carried out under due process of law, few had been cited as a miscarriage of justice.

HUSSAIN S. MULA (Iraq) said that his country was the victim of aggression by the United Stated and the United Kingdom which had used destructive weapons against it. Several parts of Iraq had been destroyed. According to the United States State Department, 300,000 tons of depleted uranium had been used. By contrast, the Dutch commission had found that 800,000 had been used. The dangerous effects of uranium on the environment and human health were well known. Specialized doctors in Iraq had had to treat numerous diseases caused by depleted uranium. The British Guardian newspaper had also indicated that thousands of soldiers who had taken part in the Gulf War were threatened by death. The use of uranium was prohibited by several instruments, including the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Charter. The Commission was called upon to study the effects of depleted uranium on the enjoyment of human rights.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said his Government supported the efforts of the Special Representative and welcomed her approach which was based on rights and the necessity of calling States to their obligation in the protection of human rights. She had also cooperated with other UN mechanisms and had used existing structures which allowed them to preserve and strengthen the specificity of their mandates. The Swiss delegation would have liked to receive additional information on the procedures followed by the Special Representative concerning urgent appeals. It was regrettable that many States such as Guatemala, Indonesia, Iran, and Malaysia did not reply to the communications she had addressed to them.

With regard to capital punishment, it remained a grave source of concern. The application of capital punishment was unacceptable against persons who committed the crime before the age of 18. It was also revolting to see insane persons being executed for crimes. Switzerland was also concerned about cases of executions after a long wait on death row, which was a cruel act according to the UN conventions.

GEORG MAUTNER-MARKHOF (Austria) said that human rights education was an essential element of the country's foreign policy. Austria not only tried to foster joint international and regional initiatives, but also called for better coordination between governmental and non-governmental organizations and stressed the importance of an intensified dialogue with civil societies and grass-roots movements in order to implant awareness for human rights in all segments of society. Austria acknowledged the special role and responsibility of the High Commissioner in developing appropriate methodologies for different target groups. Austria therefore encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner to continue its efforts to engage not only Governments, but first and foremost all actors of the UN system who could help in determining needs of and interest in human rights education and in ensuring and controlling the necessary follow-up.

KSENOFON KRISAFI (Albania) said his Government supported the work of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Hina Jilani. In Albania, an office of a human rights Ombudsman had been created with an independent mandate to promote and protect human rights. The Ombudsman was empowered to investigate complaints of human rights violations lodged by citizens. The Governmental structure of the country had been established in such a manner that each State power did not interfere in the affairs of the other. The judiciary was also independent.

BAREND C. A. F. VAN DER HEIJDEN (the Netherlands) said that human rights defenders paid the ultimate price for the cause that they were serving. Very often, the world did not even know their names or the sacrifices they were prepared to make. Yet it was their vision and courage that paved the way for others to enjoy their rights and freedoms. The report of the Special Rapporteur confirmed the many difficulties and risks that human rights defenders were facing. Albert Einstein once called Mahatma Gandhi a beacon for generations to come. That was indeed what he turned out to be. Amongst the countless men and women who risked their lives today in the struggle for human rights and fundamental freedoms, there were surely a number of future heroes whom history would prove right in the end. This was because they were fighting for a just cause.

FEDERICA BIGI (San Marino) said his country supported any initiatives which aimed at abolishing the death penalty or the application of a moratorium on capital punishment. The death penalty represented a negation of the fundamental freedoms of the individual -- the right to life. No one would deny the right and obligations of a State to punish criminals, however, no crime could justify depriving an individual of his or her life. Such a decision was immoral and inhumane. Past experience had shown that the application of the death penalty did not prompt an increase in the rate of criminality in a given country. The death penalty was therefore unacceptable.

LUCAS ASSUNCAO, of the University of Peace, said that human rights principles must equally prevail in post-authoritarian regimes and in ongoing democratic transition and consolidation processes. More than ever it was necessary to strengthen coalitions between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations agencies and civil society organizations to ensure the promotion and protection of the multiple facets of human rights comprising civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Education was a fundamental tool to promote and consolidate peace and to advance human rights. There was an urgent need to develop practical training programmes and to target research drawing on case studies of conflict resolution, successes in mediation, reconciliation and democratic transition processes for civil society leaders, parliamentarians, media, public prosecutors, police corps, teachers, judges, lawyers and UN staff.

ANDERS BUHELT, of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, said that his organization was sending communications to the Foreign Ministers of States which had not ratified the Convention against Torture. The organization was committed to securing protection for health professionals and others engaged in caring for victims of torture. It was with deep regret that the organization informed the Commission that personnel at rehabilitation centres around the world were increasingly becoming targets for attack. In December 200, three field workers in Aceh were tortured and killed by Indonesian security forces. And in Turkey, the organization remained concerned about the ongoing harassment, and in one case torture, of health professionals working in support of victims of torture.

Right of reply

A Representative of Belarus, speaking in a right of reply, referred to the case of Dimitry Zavadsky which was referred to by the United States. The Representative indicated that Mr. Zavadsky was not arrested because he was making a documentary but because he had crossed the border illegally. He added that the High Commissioner for Human Rights had been informed of the circumstances of the arrest on several occasions.



* *** *