Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
Default title
30 March 2000
Share
Commission on Human Rights
56th session
30 March 2000
Evening
The Commission on Human Rights this evening continued its debate on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world.
The Commission heard statements from country delegations who defended their human rights records and also levied accusations against other countries. Speakers underlined the importance of conflict-prevention mechanisms and the necessity to fight impunity in order to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights. They said that reconciliation and tolerance were basic elements towards developing a society based on the rule of law after conflict situations. The need to continue the search for missing or disappeared persons in a number of countries was stressed. Some delegations underscored that sovereign States could not be allowed to continue with human rights violations unchallenged, while others noted that the respect for sovereignty of States was one of the fundamental principles of international rights.
The following countries addressed the Commission this evening: Canada, Swaziland, Sri Lanka, Poland, Argentina, Eritrea, Belarus, Lebanon, Cyprus, New Zealand, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Syria, Armenia, Albania, Greece, Azerbaidjan and Bulgaria. The non-governmental organizations Centro de Estudios Europeos and the Transnational Radical Party also spoke. The International Labour Office also presented a statement.
The following countries spoke in right of reply: Egypt, the Czech Republic, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iraq, Cuba, the United States, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, India, Viet Nam, China, Pakistan, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Ethiopia and Italy.
The Commission will meet in closed meeting on Friday, 31 March, in order to deal with communications concerning alleged violations of human rights under its 1503 procedure. Particular situations relating to 75 countries have been placed before the Commission under this procedure. The next plenary of the Commission will be held at 10 a.m. on Monday, 3 April, when it will conclude its consideration of the question of the violation of human rights around the world by listening to remaining rights of replies. The Commission will then start its debate on economic, social and cultural rights.
Question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world
Under this agenda item, the Commission has before it a series of documents. There is a report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2000/26) on the situation in Cyprus describing continuing efforts to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, announcing the appointment of Alvaro de Soto as the Secretary-General's Special Advisor for Cyprus, reviewing "proximity talks" held from 3 to 14 December 1999 with the intent of "preparing the ground for meaningful negotiations leading to a comprehensive settlement" and reporting that these talks resumed in Geneva on 31 January.
There is a report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2000/28) on the human-rights situation in southern Lebanon and west Bekaa indicating that a note verbale had been sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel requesting information on the extent of implementation of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/12 on human rights in the region, and that no reply had been received to the request.
There is a report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2000/30) on the human-rights situation in the Republic of the Congo which reviews main developments since 1997, treaty mechanisms concerning the situation, activities of thematic Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups of the Commission, activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, information from United Nations bodies on internally displaced persons, refugees, and repatriated persons, and information from NGOs. The report notes, among other things, that as a result of the wars of 1997 and 1998, almost 810,000 of the 2.9 million inhabitants of the Republic of the Congo were forced to seek refuge in adjacent countries, that some 200,000 apparently had since returned to the area of the capital, and that currently some 580,000 Congolese were thought to be internally displaced.
There is a report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2000/31) on the human-rights situation in Sierra Leone which reviews reports of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the matter; information on reports submitted to the Commission and other human-rights bodies; and information on the activities of the High Commissioner's Office. The document notes, among other things, that human-rights officers of the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) had travelled extensively around the capital of Freetown while fighting was ongoing in late January 1999 and had found that ultimate responsibility for the combat, for most civilian casualties and for the related humanitarian emergency in the city rested with the rebel forces; that many civilians had been killed while being used by the rebels as human shields in combat or because they reportedly refused to come into the streets to demonstrate in favour of the rebels; or because they were trying to protect their property from looting and destruction. The report also contends that much of the killing seemed to have been arbitrary and to have been carried out by child fighters or rebel fighters under the influence of drugs or alcohol, although there also was evidence that some murders were targeted, including, reportedly, the murder of 200 police personnel. In addition the human-rights team found that many hundreds of civilians were treated for the amputation of limbs or other forms of mutilation. The report suggests that establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission would contribute to the process of healing without resort to further violence or measures of revenge.
Statements
MAX KERN (the International Labour Office) accounted for the measures, including action under article 33 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization, which had been taken to secure compliance by the Government of Myanmar with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance of Forced Labour Convention 1039 (No.29). The Government of Myanmar had not complied with the recommendations and there was an imperative need to put an end to this situation by every appropriate means.
Regarding the United Nations specifically, it was suggested that the Director-General request the Economic and Social Council to place an item on their July 2000 agenda concerning the failure of the government of Myanmar to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of Inquiry.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said that prevention and protection required, first and foremost, respect by governments for international human rights standards. If governments choose to ignore the wishes of their people and ruled by force or by authoritarian dictate, human rights would suffer and the UN's vital mission would be frustrated. The human rights situation in Burma continued to deteriorate and the prospects for any improvement looked bleak. Also in Iraq, the Government continued to rule by terror, undertaking indiscriminate arrests, imprisonment and executions in order to maintain its hold on power. The situation in Chechnya also remained a serious concern for Canada. Similar human rights concerns were also expressed by the delegation in Sudan, Afghanistan, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Colombia. In addition, the aftermath of conflict that had left countries in a fragile transition was referred to Kosovo and Sierra Leone. Pakistan, East Timor, Iran, China concerning Tibet, and Cuba were also mentioned in the assessment of different sorts of human rights violations. No country in the world, including Canada, was beyond criticism for its human rights record.
CLIFFORD MAMBA (Swaziland), said it was concerned about the acts of inhuman and degrading treatment of human beings by other human beings. There was no justification for such human rights violations and efforts to end them had to be enhanced. In this connection, it was essential to promote international cooperation. Further, the Commission had to create an environment conducive to dialogue and to avoid confrontation. Indeed, past experience had taught that a confrontational approach had only created divisions among countries and politicized the work of the Commission.
A culture of peace and stability had prevailed in Swaziland throughout modern history. Swaziland was undivided by ethnicity, languages, traditions and cultural values, all of which had proved to be an asset in the maintenance of peace. This did not mean that there was no diversity of opinions. However differences were dealt with through dialogue and broad participation of all the population. A national development strategy had been adopted and encompassed all social issues. Swaziland acknowledged however that there were areas that needed improvement.
H. M. G. S. PALIHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) said it had been the country's policy to share with openness the measures taken to promote human rights. Sri Lanka would continue this tradition and hoped the information would not be used by propaganda lobbyists of terror groups. The position advocated by the delegation was that voluntary cooperation between Member States and the Commission was both desirable and feasible. Sri Lanka had signed or ratified 14 international instruments. The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances had visited Sri Lanka last year and its report was before the Commission. The action taken by the Government and the non-governmental organizations’ community in Sri Lanka to address and readdress the relevant concerns was discussed. There were residual problems with regard to laws delays, however prosecutions had been launched against offenders. International NGOs and foreign experts and observers had been invited to observe judicial inquiries, prosecutions and criminal forensic investigations. The recommendations by the Working Group would be carefully considered. A Human Rights Treaty Body was to be invited in the course of the year.
The Sri Lankan National Human Rights Commission had completed three years of work. Central to the many facets of the Government's efforts to promote and protect human rights was its initiative to find a political solution to the ethnic issues in Sri Lanka. The LTTE was the only Tamil group that had remained outside the democratic process. Despite violence and terrorism, the Sri Lankan people remained supportive of the democratic process as that was the only way in which peace could be achieved. Terrorist attacks had to seize immediately. The solution had to be found through negotiation and the protection of the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. The international community could play an important role in negotiations with the LTTE. Last year's statement by Sri Lanka had accounted for the efforts of the Government to promote human rights even in the midst of violence by the LTTE. Sri Lanka cherished democracy and saw no other means to bring about a long-lasting durable peace.
KRZYSZTOF JAKUBOWSKI (Poland) said that his country was very sensitive to the question of sovereignty as in the past, its sovereign rights were often brutally abused and were subjected to foreign interference. But at the same time, Poland was in full agreement with the UN Secretary-General’s opinion that no State had the right to hide violations of human rights behind the principle of State sovereignty. Poland was deeply convinced that sovereignty could not mean impunity for genocide and human rights abuses. The Government shared the High Commissioner's view that the world should develop an international capacity for conflict prevention. The monitoring of human rights situations was an important element of that task and first of all it was also a primary duty of the Commission.
NORMA NASCIMBENE DE DUMONT (Argentina) said that the Commission was the competent body to study aspects related to human rights in Cyprus. Argentina considered that any solution to the problem of Cyprus should be with respect to the sovereignty of the island. As the Security Council had established in its resolutions, it was necessary to promote the creation of a federation where both communities were equal. The heavy military presence and large amount of weapons on the island served only to complicate efforts in achieving a political solution.
Argentina welcomed the efforts of the UN in the area, including the Secretary-General's mission, the UN peacekeeping forces and the work of the Committee on Disappeared Persons in Cyprus. It was necessary to alleviate tensions in the island with a view to achieving a lasting peace. The Commission was urged to appeal for the restoration of all human rights in Cyprus, in particular freedom of movement, freedom to choose one's place of residence and the right to property. It was unacceptable that in the twenty-first century, families could be reunited only on sporadic occasions, inheritance law was not recognized, and burials were subjected to unacceptable conditions.
AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) drew the attention of the Commission to the plight of Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin whose human rights were being systematically, wilfully and brutally violated by the Ethiopian Government. These crimes were committed with impunity because the relevant United Nations mechanisms, including this Commission, had preferred to remain silent.
Ethiopia had expelled 70,000 Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin, even though international observers had recognized that the deportees did not pose any threat to Ethiopian society. Ethiopia's programme of denationalization and ethnic cleansing was inconsistent with the victims’ legal status under Eritrean and Ethiopian laws as well as international law. These violations had been recorded by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. All the charges of human rights violations by Eritrea had been refuted by the same organizations and the U.S. State Department.
Ethiopia claimed that it had the right, according to the Meles Doctrine, to deport any aliens the Government liked. The Commission was urged to ensure an investigation on this matter. The Eritrean Government also called for a Special Rapporteur to report on the area. Finally, the Commission was strongly urged to speak up and not remain silent during this session as well.
STENISLAV OGURTSOV (Belarus) said that his country was moving along a transitional path aimed at building democracy and maintaining the rule of law. It was strengthening its promotion and protection of human rights. A true dialogue was also being carried out by the President of the country to strengthen the civil society and other institutions which would participate in the forthcoming national elections. A moratorium was also observed against the application of capital punishment. The Government of Belarus believed in dialogue and was ready to cooperate with international organizations with the aim of strengthening its democratic institutions. The criticisms coming from certain quarters would not help the Government, but would serve to isolate it and discourage it from furthering its efforts.
WALID NASR (Lebanon) said Israeli violations of human rights in southern Lebanon had continued since 1978 despite numerous UN Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. Israel’s maritime blockade and bombing was directed at children and old people. The bombing destroyed the infrastructure of Lebanon. The right of resistance, recognized by international law, applied also to Lebanon's resistance to Israeli occupation.
Israeli officials were vague about the Israeli army's withdrawal from southern Lebanon. They did not speak of withdrawing to international borders. As a matter of fact, the Israeli army intended only to redeploy in southern Lebanon. Israeli detention camps were an insult to humanity. Detainees held by Israel were subjected to torture and were denied basic conditions. Lebanese prisoners were suffering from all forms of human rights violations, including arrests without trial, continued imprisonment of those who had already served their terms, transfer of prisoners to Israeli prisoners, and banning humanitarian organizations from visiting prisoners. Further, Lebanese detainees in Israel were used as bargaining chips even when they had completed their terms. These violations demonstrated how Israel flouted all UN instruments and disregarded the will of the international community.
PETROS EFTYCHIOU (Cyprus) said that the gap between conventional and contractual State obligations had to be bridged. The Commission should no longer just be content with signing conventions and professing adherence to principles. The time was long overdue for States to practically show their respect for their obligations. Human rights abuses had been going on in Cyprus for 26 years. The restoration of human rights had been called for several times, as had an account for the missing persons, the freedom of movement, settlements and polity. No progress had been achieved in any of these respects.
Turkey continued to maintain 35,000 fully armed troops in the occupied area and not a single person of the 200,000 forcibly displaced people from 1974 had been permitted to return. The drama of the families of the missing remained unalleviated due to the inadequate humanitarian and political will. The destruction of Cypriot cultural heritage continued in the occupied territory, and the occupying regime forbade contact between the two sides, having suspended all communal activities.
The Cyprus problem had dragged on for far too long. Constructive cooperation was required on the basis of UN resolutions. A bi-zonal and bi-communal federation with a single sovereignty and international personality was suggested. Good will was expressed as there could only be immediate and long term benefits to gain from a solution of the problem.
ROGER FARRELL (New Zealand) said that while his country endeavoured to balance criticism of human rights violations with acknowledgement of progress, it would not shrink from speaking out when human rights were being flagrantly violated, or were under serious threat. New Zealand welcomed the significant progress made towards securing human rights in East Timor since the deployment last year of an international peacekeeping force. New Zealand was disturbed by events in Chechneya. While Russia's need of combatting terrorism was understandable, its disproportionate use of force was of concern. Regarding human rights developments in China over the past year, New Zealand recognized China's continuing efforts to promote the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. In Iraq, there was disturbing evidence of continuing violations of human rights. In Myanmar, serious violations of human rights also continued.
NEDZAD HADZIMUSIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said the process of reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina had been moving in a positive direction. However the path was not smooth one and the dimensions of this process were not always satisfactory. The return of refugees and displaced persons to their pre-war homes was a basic human right, yet progress remained slow and unsatisfactory. The principle problems hampering return were lack of security, insufficient employment and poor respect for property law. The few cases of violence directed at returners were however cause of serious concern in both entities. Landmines were still constantly claiming victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There were insufficient funds to deal with the very large number of landmines that remained. Reconciliation and tolerance were basic elements towards creating a steady, positive progress in the country, and developing a society based on the rule of law.
ALI KHORRAM (Iran) said that since the human rights situation in Iran was included in the agenda and a number of delegations had mentioned the country, a brief account of the reality in Iran was necessary. At the time of the revolution, the slogans shouted on the streets had been independence, freedom and an Islamic republic. Iran had tried to preserve independence politically and territorially. Iran was going through an indigenous evolution of its own kind which rested on grassroots movements. Last year the Government undertook the promotion of human rights fully and there were several achievements worth mentioning.
There had been elections of local councils increasing people's participation and further improving the legislation. The rule of law was upheld; there had been an emergence of civil society organizations; and a strengthening of the Islamic Human Rights Commission. The head of the judiciary had updated criminal procedures. Iran had invited a technical team to the country and had accepted to use international expertise. Women had been empowered in all areas; and there was freedom of expression to publicize views in mass media. The rights of citizenship had been addressed and the rights of the religious minority which were equal before the law were also protected.
In light of these achievements, Iran's inclusion in the agenda seemed less relevant than ever before. A realistic approach by the international community and NGOs was called for. Democracy had been institutionalized and was irreversible. Keeping Iran on the agenda would give the wrong image to the international community and to the people of Iran.
GHASSAN NSEIR (Syria) said that Israel continued to occupy the southern part of Lebanon and it had continued to bombard public utilities in the country. Israel had destroyed homes and made thousands homeless. The victims of the Israeli aggression had been living in desperate conditions. Israel had also continued detaining many citizens in violation of international norms. The occupation of southern Lebanon was an extension of the Israeli aggression on Arab territories and was in defiance of Security Council resolutions. The international community should pressurize the Government of Israel to evacuate from the territories it was occupying. In addition, the European Union's statement was simply a deviation of a non-governmental organization’s statement; it should act as a State and not like those NGOs speaking in the Commission.
KAREN NAZARIAN (The Republic of Armenia) said it was concerned about the lack of progress in the Cyprus situation in spite of the numerous UN resolutions and well-known recommendations which so far had not been fully implemented. It was essential to restore the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the Greek-Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians and other inhabitants of the island, including the right to preserve their cultural heritage from being systematically destroyed and desecrated, as was the case with the St. Makar Monastery.
Today, as the world functioned as a whole, the defense of human rights and freedoms had become the responsibility of humanity at large. History had proven that impunity led to frequent repetition of gross and massive violations of human rights. The Commission's initiative to create effective legal mechanisms to combat impunity and restore State accountability was therefore to be welcomed.
KSENOFON KRISAFI (Albania) said that his delegation had listened to the report on Kosovo by the High Commissioner and to the report on the former Yugoslavia by the Special Rapporteur. The Albanian delegation welcomed the objectivity of the former and was shocked at the subjectivity of the latter. The Special Rapporteur had a mandate to protect human rights, not to engage in politics. The situation was in some cases worse now than it was a year ago.
The Special Rapporteur spoke as if the tragedy that hit Kosovo was normal. The Rapporteur seemed to be in oblivion and any progress made was denied according to him. He had spoken as if Milosevic was the only reality. When the refugees had returned, there had been only ruins and bodies. The incidents with unidentified people was dealt with remarkably well. Criminals on the other hand were still walking around unpunished, the victims and the executioners could not be put on the same level. Albanians were very grateful to the international community. The Albanian delegation also expressed its vigorous opposition to the removal of sanctions against Serbia.
DIMITRIS KARAITIDIS (Greece) said that since the Commission adopted its first resolution on Cyprus twenty-five years ago, the problem remained as acute as ever. Notwithstanding all the relevant Security Council resolutions, which had all been ignored by Turkey, 37 per cent of Cypriot territory remained under Turkish occupation since 1974 and the refugees were denied the right to return to their homes. The nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots who were forcibly displaced by the Turkish invading forces in 1974 were still being prevented from returning there. They continued to be internally displaced persons, arbitrarily deprived of their homes and properties. Out of 20,000 Cypriots and Maronites who chose in 1974 to stay in their ancestral homes, in the area occupied by Turkey, only about 600 had managed to remain there.
ISFANDIYAR VAHABZADA (Azerbaijan) said it was a historical fact that since the resettlement of Armenians in Transcaucasia in the first half of the nineteenth century, a genocide had been repeatedly committed against the Azerbaijani people. The winter of 1988 witnessed a further escalation of ethnic cleansing aimed at destroying the very traces of Azerbaijani presence in Armenia. With the approval of the Armenian authorities, the last 200,000 Azerbaijanis were forcibly deported from Armenia. During the ethnic cleansing of 1988 and 1989, altogether 216 Azerbaijanis died on Armenian territory. Full-scale hostilities began to unfold in 1991-1992 when Armenian armed units annihilated hundreds of blameless inhabitants of the town of Khojaly. As a result of the aggression, the armed forces of Armenia had occupied and were holding 20 per cent of the total territory of Azerbaijan. The conflict could not be solved until the occupying forces were withdrawn from Azerbaijani territory and all the refugees and displaced persons were returned to the places they were forcibly driven from.
PETKO DRAGANOV (Bulgaria) said his country had already aligned itself with the statement delivered by Portugal on behalf of the European Union. The representative of Bulgaria said a source for concern for his country was the treatment of ethnic minorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Particular concern was raised with regards to the Bulgarian minority. There had been no adequate solution to the grievances of the Bulgarian national minority. The leader of the Bulgarian national minority had been arrested and sued in the framework of a forcible mobilization campaign. Recent conflicts gave extremely worrying signs in the region.
There was constant pressure and specific measures of intimidation were used. Arbitrary acts by the local administration adversely affected the personal, material and professional interests of the Bulgarian minority. The right to speak their mother tongue was restricted even though effective bilingual education was guaranteed under the legislation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The delegation from Bulgaria admitted that in the context, perhaps the problems of the 50,000 strong Bulgarian minority did not seem very acute, however, these were grave human rights violations and as such a threat to the region. The international community was urged to use all mechanisms and tools to secure the future of democratization of the country and the region as a whole.
LAZARO MORA SECADE, of the Centro de Estudios Europeos, said that item 9 allowed for the manipulation of situations in States and at times, its consideration seemed to be a circus. It was not by force that one imposed resolutions on certain countries. The draft resolution which would be presented by Czech Republic on Cuba would not serve the purpose of the Commission. Instead, the aggression perpetrated by the United States against Cuba should be condemned. The successive United States administrations continued to maintain the economic embargo against Cuba. Human rights violations in the United States had been supported by documents and reports of different special rapporteurs.
EMMA BONINO, of Transnational Radical Party, said there were serious violations of civil and political rights in Italy, where the authorities respected neither the Constitution nor other laws or international treaties on the protection of human rights. Violations in the area of human rights concerned, among other things, the right to information, protest, free democratic election and impunity of those who violated established procedures. The existing electoral jungle in Italy obliged candidates to either renounce their candidacy or act fraudulently. The media was monopolized by a single entrepreneur, Silvio Berlusconi, who was also the leader of the official opposition. The public sector was strictly controlled by the party system. The public television was also violating the law. The Commission was urged to include the situation in Italy in its agenda so that it could be treated by the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. There were worrying signs in Europe which were being underestimated.
Rights of Reply
The representative of Egypt, speaking in right of reply, said that the allegation made by the non-governmental organization Freedom House was false. The clash in the village had not been related to religion as stated by Pope Shenouda the Third. Relations between Coptic Christians and Muslims had always been very good in Egypt. There had been a reduction of the number of complaints of maltreatment and torture. Egypt had always been against any violation of human rights. The international media had distorted the clash in the village, it had nothing to do with religion. The new Egyptian law on NGOs was a step forward and did not restrict their presence or freedom.
The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking in right of reply in reference to the statement of the Cuban Foreign Minister in which his country was mentioned as receiving orders from the United States, said that his country's human rights situation had had no problems since the Communist regime was dismantled. The person whom the Minister said was travelling around the world to denounce Cuba was simply one of the founders of the Charter 77 and an ardent advocate of human rights. The Government's attempt to send an envoy to Cuba had been turned down.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in right of reply, said the allegations levelled against it by the United States pursued political aims that had nothing to do with the issue of human rights. It was preposterous that the United States accused other countries of human rights violations, given its shocking record in the field which ranged from the existence of poverty-stricken people, racial discrimination, constant assassinations, to police brutality against Afro-Americans. All of this attested to the bleak reality in that country. In spite of this, the United States called other countries to account. The United States should take a look at its own human rights violations rather than slandering other countries.
The representative of Iraq, said in right of reply concerning the missing persons issue, that his country was participating with the Tripartite Committee which was looking into this issue. Iraq was also cooperating with the International Red Cross on this issue. Iraq had 1,700 people missing. The United Kingdom and the United States did not have missing persons but they were also involved in the process. The economic sanctions against Iraq had prevented investments and work on oil reserves. Kuwait had taken advantage of the situation and had assisted the United Kingdom and the United States in the ongoing bombing of Iraq. The Iraqi people had the right to ask for compensation for the suffering incurred through the continuing bombings and sanctions.
The representative of Cuba, speaking in right of reply, alluded to the statement made by the United States’ delegation and said that the delegate's intervention showed his Government's will to dictate the behaviour of the world which was cynical. The statement of the United States’ delegation, however, did not mention the shooting of blacks, such as Amadou Diallo who was brutally killed by racist police. In the same manner, responding to the representative of the Czech Republic, the Cuban delegation said that as in the cases of some individuals who served the interests of some States, the Czech Republic was a sort of satellite that changed its orbit. Instead of meddling in the affairs of others, the Czech Republic should resolve its own problems concerning the Roma people who were subjected to a system of apartheid.
The representative of the United States, speaking in right of reply, said there were certain minimal rules of civility which had to be obeyed in the Commission. In his political and polemical address, the Cuban representative had exceeded the limit. The United States representative recalled that the Czech Republic’s decision to introduce a resolution against Cuba was based on the past experience of the Czech people. In response to other statements, as the U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright had said in her address before the Commission last week, no nation should feel threatened by the work of the Commission which tried to adopt universal standards and promote human rights.
The representative of Kuwait, said in right of reply, that Iraq had attempted to explain a situation which did not need any explanation. Everyone knew the situation in Iraq. The Iraqi delegation's lies could impress no one. The Kuwaiti delegation pitied the population of Iraq as they themselves had suffered from the Iraqi occupation and knew of the human rights abuses. Iraq had no freedom of expression and the highest number of missing people. Iraq had sent a note to the International Committee of the Red Cross refusing to cooperate with the Tripartite Committee.
The representative of Saudi Arabia, speaking in right of reply, said that the statement of the United States’ delegation concerning the conditions of women in his country was counter-truth. The principles applied were the same as in any other Islamic country. The situation of Saudi women was compatible with the history and laws of the country. The conditions of Saudi women were much better than women in the West.
The representative of India, speaking in right of reply, said his delegation regretted the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) members except Morocco, which had contained unwarranted reference to India. India enjoyed traditionally friendly ties with members of the OIC. India was a pluralistic society with the second largest Muslim population in the world. It gave ample scope to all its citizens regardless of their ethnic origin. It was regrettable that the OIC was used by one country with vested interests, in particular territorial ambitions vis-à-vis India.
The representative of Viet Nam, said in right of reply, that the allegations by the World Evangelical Fellowship against Viet Nam were groundless. Article 70 of the Vietnamese Constitution clearly stated that people were entitled to practice their religious rights and that all religions were equal in front of the law. The State protected religious organizations. The number of Christians had in fact doubled to an estimated 5 million people, 7 per cent of the Vietnamese population. The NGO's allegations were wrong and slanderous.
The representative of Cuba, in his second right of reply, said that the statement of the Cuban Foreign Minister was in defence of the principles and ethics that his country was perusing. The United States, instead, was guilty of double standards.
The representative of Iraq, speaking in his second right of reply, said that regarding missing Kuwaiti persons, Iraq was cooperating with the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Iraqi representative recalled that over 80,000 armoured vehicles, bombs and planes had been used to attack the country. The bombs created craters of 30 metres in diameter, which resulted in "missing persons". Kuwait allowed the United States and the United Kingdom to use its territory to bomb Iraq. Further, Kuwait stood responsible for the blockade against Iraq, which allowed it to exploit the oil reserves around their common border.
The representative of China, speaking in right of reply, said that many delegations had made unwarranted accusations against the human rights situation in China. There was a Chinese saying which stated that facts spoke louder than words. The facts were the following: in 1999 the human rights situation in China had improved to an unprecedented level. This had been acknowledged by the international community and by any unbiased person. Slander would be in vain.
The representative of Pakistan, speaking in second right of reply in reference to a statement by the delegation of India who said that the Organization of Islamic Conference had made reference to his country, said that he only referred to Kashmir, which was not part of India but a disputed area. Kashmir did not belong to India. He said that there was a big number of Muslims in India. In 1993, 500 Muslims were killed in Bombay by Hindu extremists.
The representative of the United States, speaking in second right of reply, said that his country regretted the tone of confrontation by China and some of its ironic statements. The United States applied the same standards to all countries, developing or developed. China tried to avoid scrutiny by advancing non-action motions. Further, the presidential election in the United States had no bearing on the views of the U.S. on human rights.
The representative of Kuwait, said in a second right of reply, that Kuwait was not threatening Iraq. He reminded Iraq that they were not the ones who had started a war by occupying the other. Nobody could believe Iraq’s unfounded accusations. Iraq had to release the more than 600 prisoners of war since the country had signed the Geneva Convention in 1949 and as such was obliged to release prisoners of war.
The representative of China, speaking in second right of reply, said that the United States' hegemonic attitude should be condemned. Its Cold War mentality was to be deplored. A resolution on the double standards of the United States should also be tabled.
The representative of India, speaking in second right of reply, wished to know, while retaining his right to a second right of reply, if Pakistan had spoken on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference or had expressed its own view.
The representative of Turkey, speaking in right of reply, said no country should be immune from criticism. However, it should not be irrelevant and wrong criticism. Turkey set a unique example in promoting human rights and fighting terrorism at the same time. Turkey was faithful to its international contractual obligations. That was why Turkey had intervened in 1974. It was an intervention not an occupation. The Greek side lacked political will. This also included a lack of humanitarian will. The Greek side was the one destroying the Turkish cultural heritage. Furthermore the Turkish delegation found it very ironic that Armenia had the audacity to criticize other countries human rights records.
The representative of Sri Lanka, speaking in right of reply in reference to a statement by International Educational Development, said that the NGO had made tendentious comments and misused a reprehensible killing of a prominent Sri Lankan lawyer to make wild allegations against the country and elected President. He challenged that entity or even the group which it represented to make any substantiated complaints. The entity in his country was recruiting children and dragging them into the war. The NGO was glorifying an entity which was committing terrorism.
The representative of Myanmar, speaking in right of reply with reference to the International Labour Office’s Governing Body decision mentioned earlier, said it was regrettable that the ILO Governing Body had adopted a recommendation against Myanmar and continued to take one-sided measures against the country. The decision by the Governing Body was unjust and Myanmar dissociated itself from it. Instead of trying to isolate Myanmar, the ILO should work together with it. The decision by the ILO was all the more regrettable in light of calls by many countries opposing the isolation of Myanmar and advocating a pragmatic approach. Myanmar would not bow to pressure to interfere in its internal affairs.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said in a second right of reply, that his country categorically rejected Canada's accusations. These were merely a repetition of unwarranted accusations, examples of double-standards and partiality. Canada had taken sides against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and had sided with the hostile enemy forces. Canada should stop the spreading of these slanderous accusations which were fabricated by hostile enemy forces. Canada should remain objective and impartial.
The representative of Ethiopia, speaking in right of reply, said his delegation was saddened by the European Union’s statement that treated the aggressor Eritrean regime and Ethiopia, its victim, on an equal footing. As a development and peace partner of Ethiopia, the European Union should continue to lend its strong support to the ongoing efforts of the Organization of African Unity to peacefully resolve the crisis triggered by the Eritrean aggression against the sovereignty of Ethiopia. As such, indulging in selective reading of the Organization's Peace Plan was not warranted.
The representative of Italy, speaking in right of reply, said that concerning the protection and right of access to the media, the Italian delegation would provide the Commission with documents related to allegations made by the Transnational Radical Party. This way, Governments, delegations, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, observers and non-governmental organizations would be able to compare the basic texts directly regardless of any electoral context.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/00/10 of 24 March 2000, the statement of Eritrea on page 6 should read as follows:
AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) said Ethiopia was purportedly a federal State organized on the basis of ethnicity. The minority ethnic regime of the day claimed that such an ethnic federalism would accommodate the political demands of all the ethnic groups of the country and promote the national interest of the whole country. The majority of Ethiopian intellectual and political leaders had, however, denounced it as ethno-apartheid.
Politically, the State was divided into Kilils (administrative zones), which had been compared to, and were reminiscent of, the arrangement of South Africa's Bantustans. The values and norms that informed the governing principles of the State were predicated on the political supremacy and economic hegemony of the ruling party, the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF).
At this point, following a point of order by Ethiopia, the Chairman interrupted the statement of Eritrea, saying that if the speaker wished to continue, he should not mention names of countries during a thematic discussion. The speaker continued his statement.
In press release HR/CN/00/18 of 29 March 2000, the statement of the Baha’i International Community on page 7 should read as follows:
TECHESTE AHDEROM, of Baha'i International Community, said the situation of the Baha'i community in Iran was now at an important crossroads; there were the beginnings of positive developments but it was not possible to document any improvement in the actual situation of the Baha'is. They were still targets of overt atrocities and they continued to suffer under the burden of more subtle forms of discrimination. As of 1 March, twelve Baha'is were being held in prison because of their religious beliefs; five had been sentenced to death; it was clear that the charges brought against all of them were based solely on their membership in the Baha'i community. There were recent reports of three more death sentences, and that two of those prisoners had been told orally that their death sentences had been confirmed.
The Commission must intercede on behalf of this beleaguered community. It should call on the Government to allow the Baha'is to bury their dead freely; allow them freedom of movement; allow them access to education and employment, security of person, civil rights, religious freedom. Iran also should set aside the death sentences and release the prisoners concerned; it should return community properties; it should ensure equal treatment by the judiciary and allow the re-establishment of Baha'i institutions.
* *** *
56th session
30 March 2000
Evening
The Commission on Human Rights this evening continued its debate on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world.
The Commission heard statements from country delegations who defended their human rights records and also levied accusations against other countries. Speakers underlined the importance of conflict-prevention mechanisms and the necessity to fight impunity in order to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights. They said that reconciliation and tolerance were basic elements towards developing a society based on the rule of law after conflict situations. The need to continue the search for missing or disappeared persons in a number of countries was stressed. Some delegations underscored that sovereign States could not be allowed to continue with human rights violations unchallenged, while others noted that the respect for sovereignty of States was one of the fundamental principles of international rights.
The following countries addressed the Commission this evening: Canada, Swaziland, Sri Lanka, Poland, Argentina, Eritrea, Belarus, Lebanon, Cyprus, New Zealand, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Syria, Armenia, Albania, Greece, Azerbaidjan and Bulgaria. The non-governmental organizations Centro de Estudios Europeos and the Transnational Radical Party also spoke. The International Labour Office also presented a statement.
The following countries spoke in right of reply: Egypt, the Czech Republic, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iraq, Cuba, the United States, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, India, Viet Nam, China, Pakistan, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Ethiopia and Italy.
The Commission will meet in closed meeting on Friday, 31 March, in order to deal with communications concerning alleged violations of human rights under its 1503 procedure. Particular situations relating to 75 countries have been placed before the Commission under this procedure. The next plenary of the Commission will be held at 10 a.m. on Monday, 3 April, when it will conclude its consideration of the question of the violation of human rights around the world by listening to remaining rights of replies. The Commission will then start its debate on economic, social and cultural rights.
Question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world
Under this agenda item, the Commission has before it a series of documents. There is a report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2000/26) on the situation in Cyprus describing continuing efforts to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, announcing the appointment of Alvaro de Soto as the Secretary-General's Special Advisor for Cyprus, reviewing "proximity talks" held from 3 to 14 December 1999 with the intent of "preparing the ground for meaningful negotiations leading to a comprehensive settlement" and reporting that these talks resumed in Geneva on 31 January.
There is a report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2000/28) on the human-rights situation in southern Lebanon and west Bekaa indicating that a note verbale had been sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel requesting information on the extent of implementation of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/12 on human rights in the region, and that no reply had been received to the request.
There is a report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2000/30) on the human-rights situation in the Republic of the Congo which reviews main developments since 1997, treaty mechanisms concerning the situation, activities of thematic Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups of the Commission, activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, information from United Nations bodies on internally displaced persons, refugees, and repatriated persons, and information from NGOs. The report notes, among other things, that as a result of the wars of 1997 and 1998, almost 810,000 of the 2.9 million inhabitants of the Republic of the Congo were forced to seek refuge in adjacent countries, that some 200,000 apparently had since returned to the area of the capital, and that currently some 580,000 Congolese were thought to be internally displaced.
There is a report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2000/31) on the human-rights situation in Sierra Leone which reviews reports of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the matter; information on reports submitted to the Commission and other human-rights bodies; and information on the activities of the High Commissioner's Office. The document notes, among other things, that human-rights officers of the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) had travelled extensively around the capital of Freetown while fighting was ongoing in late January 1999 and had found that ultimate responsibility for the combat, for most civilian casualties and for the related humanitarian emergency in the city rested with the rebel forces; that many civilians had been killed while being used by the rebels as human shields in combat or because they reportedly refused to come into the streets to demonstrate in favour of the rebels; or because they were trying to protect their property from looting and destruction. The report also contends that much of the killing seemed to have been arbitrary and to have been carried out by child fighters or rebel fighters under the influence of drugs or alcohol, although there also was evidence that some murders were targeted, including, reportedly, the murder of 200 police personnel. In addition the human-rights team found that many hundreds of civilians were treated for the amputation of limbs or other forms of mutilation. The report suggests that establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission would contribute to the process of healing without resort to further violence or measures of revenge.
Statements
MAX KERN (the International Labour Office) accounted for the measures, including action under article 33 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization, which had been taken to secure compliance by the Government of Myanmar with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance of Forced Labour Convention 1039 (No.29). The Government of Myanmar had not complied with the recommendations and there was an imperative need to put an end to this situation by every appropriate means.
Regarding the United Nations specifically, it was suggested that the Director-General request the Economic and Social Council to place an item on their July 2000 agenda concerning the failure of the government of Myanmar to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of Inquiry.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said that prevention and protection required, first and foremost, respect by governments for international human rights standards. If governments choose to ignore the wishes of their people and ruled by force or by authoritarian dictate, human rights would suffer and the UN's vital mission would be frustrated. The human rights situation in Burma continued to deteriorate and the prospects for any improvement looked bleak. Also in Iraq, the Government continued to rule by terror, undertaking indiscriminate arrests, imprisonment and executions in order to maintain its hold on power. The situation in Chechnya also remained a serious concern for Canada. Similar human rights concerns were also expressed by the delegation in Sudan, Afghanistan, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Colombia. In addition, the aftermath of conflict that had left countries in a fragile transition was referred to Kosovo and Sierra Leone. Pakistan, East Timor, Iran, China concerning Tibet, and Cuba were also mentioned in the assessment of different sorts of human rights violations. No country in the world, including Canada, was beyond criticism for its human rights record.
CLIFFORD MAMBA (Swaziland), said it was concerned about the acts of inhuman and degrading treatment of human beings by other human beings. There was no justification for such human rights violations and efforts to end them had to be enhanced. In this connection, it was essential to promote international cooperation. Further, the Commission had to create an environment conducive to dialogue and to avoid confrontation. Indeed, past experience had taught that a confrontational approach had only created divisions among countries and politicized the work of the Commission.
A culture of peace and stability had prevailed in Swaziland throughout modern history. Swaziland was undivided by ethnicity, languages, traditions and cultural values, all of which had proved to be an asset in the maintenance of peace. This did not mean that there was no diversity of opinions. However differences were dealt with through dialogue and broad participation of all the population. A national development strategy had been adopted and encompassed all social issues. Swaziland acknowledged however that there were areas that needed improvement.
H. M. G. S. PALIHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) said it had been the country's policy to share with openness the measures taken to promote human rights. Sri Lanka would continue this tradition and hoped the information would not be used by propaganda lobbyists of terror groups. The position advocated by the delegation was that voluntary cooperation between Member States and the Commission was both desirable and feasible. Sri Lanka had signed or ratified 14 international instruments. The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances had visited Sri Lanka last year and its report was before the Commission. The action taken by the Government and the non-governmental organizations’ community in Sri Lanka to address and readdress the relevant concerns was discussed. There were residual problems with regard to laws delays, however prosecutions had been launched against offenders. International NGOs and foreign experts and observers had been invited to observe judicial inquiries, prosecutions and criminal forensic investigations. The recommendations by the Working Group would be carefully considered. A Human Rights Treaty Body was to be invited in the course of the year.
The Sri Lankan National Human Rights Commission had completed three years of work. Central to the many facets of the Government's efforts to promote and protect human rights was its initiative to find a political solution to the ethnic issues in Sri Lanka. The LTTE was the only Tamil group that had remained outside the democratic process. Despite violence and terrorism, the Sri Lankan people remained supportive of the democratic process as that was the only way in which peace could be achieved. Terrorist attacks had to seize immediately. The solution had to be found through negotiation and the protection of the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. The international community could play an important role in negotiations with the LTTE. Last year's statement by Sri Lanka had accounted for the efforts of the Government to promote human rights even in the midst of violence by the LTTE. Sri Lanka cherished democracy and saw no other means to bring about a long-lasting durable peace.
KRZYSZTOF JAKUBOWSKI (Poland) said that his country was very sensitive to the question of sovereignty as in the past, its sovereign rights were often brutally abused and were subjected to foreign interference. But at the same time, Poland was in full agreement with the UN Secretary-General’s opinion that no State had the right to hide violations of human rights behind the principle of State sovereignty. Poland was deeply convinced that sovereignty could not mean impunity for genocide and human rights abuses. The Government shared the High Commissioner's view that the world should develop an international capacity for conflict prevention. The monitoring of human rights situations was an important element of that task and first of all it was also a primary duty of the Commission.
NORMA NASCIMBENE DE DUMONT (Argentina) said that the Commission was the competent body to study aspects related to human rights in Cyprus. Argentina considered that any solution to the problem of Cyprus should be with respect to the sovereignty of the island. As the Security Council had established in its resolutions, it was necessary to promote the creation of a federation where both communities were equal. The heavy military presence and large amount of weapons on the island served only to complicate efforts in achieving a political solution.
Argentina welcomed the efforts of the UN in the area, including the Secretary-General's mission, the UN peacekeeping forces and the work of the Committee on Disappeared Persons in Cyprus. It was necessary to alleviate tensions in the island with a view to achieving a lasting peace. The Commission was urged to appeal for the restoration of all human rights in Cyprus, in particular freedom of movement, freedom to choose one's place of residence and the right to property. It was unacceptable that in the twenty-first century, families could be reunited only on sporadic occasions, inheritance law was not recognized, and burials were subjected to unacceptable conditions.
AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) drew the attention of the Commission to the plight of Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin whose human rights were being systematically, wilfully and brutally violated by the Ethiopian Government. These crimes were committed with impunity because the relevant United Nations mechanisms, including this Commission, had preferred to remain silent.
Ethiopia had expelled 70,000 Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin, even though international observers had recognized that the deportees did not pose any threat to Ethiopian society. Ethiopia's programme of denationalization and ethnic cleansing was inconsistent with the victims’ legal status under Eritrean and Ethiopian laws as well as international law. These violations had been recorded by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. All the charges of human rights violations by Eritrea had been refuted by the same organizations and the U.S. State Department.
Ethiopia claimed that it had the right, according to the Meles Doctrine, to deport any aliens the Government liked. The Commission was urged to ensure an investigation on this matter. The Eritrean Government also called for a Special Rapporteur to report on the area. Finally, the Commission was strongly urged to speak up and not remain silent during this session as well.
STENISLAV OGURTSOV (Belarus) said that his country was moving along a transitional path aimed at building democracy and maintaining the rule of law. It was strengthening its promotion and protection of human rights. A true dialogue was also being carried out by the President of the country to strengthen the civil society and other institutions which would participate in the forthcoming national elections. A moratorium was also observed against the application of capital punishment. The Government of Belarus believed in dialogue and was ready to cooperate with international organizations with the aim of strengthening its democratic institutions. The criticisms coming from certain quarters would not help the Government, but would serve to isolate it and discourage it from furthering its efforts.
WALID NASR (Lebanon) said Israeli violations of human rights in southern Lebanon had continued since 1978 despite numerous UN Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. Israel’s maritime blockade and bombing was directed at children and old people. The bombing destroyed the infrastructure of Lebanon. The right of resistance, recognized by international law, applied also to Lebanon's resistance to Israeli occupation.
Israeli officials were vague about the Israeli army's withdrawal from southern Lebanon. They did not speak of withdrawing to international borders. As a matter of fact, the Israeli army intended only to redeploy in southern Lebanon. Israeli detention camps were an insult to humanity. Detainees held by Israel were subjected to torture and were denied basic conditions. Lebanese prisoners were suffering from all forms of human rights violations, including arrests without trial, continued imprisonment of those who had already served their terms, transfer of prisoners to Israeli prisoners, and banning humanitarian organizations from visiting prisoners. Further, Lebanese detainees in Israel were used as bargaining chips even when they had completed their terms. These violations demonstrated how Israel flouted all UN instruments and disregarded the will of the international community.
PETROS EFTYCHIOU (Cyprus) said that the gap between conventional and contractual State obligations had to be bridged. The Commission should no longer just be content with signing conventions and professing adherence to principles. The time was long overdue for States to practically show their respect for their obligations. Human rights abuses had been going on in Cyprus for 26 years. The restoration of human rights had been called for several times, as had an account for the missing persons, the freedom of movement, settlements and polity. No progress had been achieved in any of these respects.
Turkey continued to maintain 35,000 fully armed troops in the occupied area and not a single person of the 200,000 forcibly displaced people from 1974 had been permitted to return. The drama of the families of the missing remained unalleviated due to the inadequate humanitarian and political will. The destruction of Cypriot cultural heritage continued in the occupied territory, and the occupying regime forbade contact between the two sides, having suspended all communal activities.
The Cyprus problem had dragged on for far too long. Constructive cooperation was required on the basis of UN resolutions. A bi-zonal and bi-communal federation with a single sovereignty and international personality was suggested. Good will was expressed as there could only be immediate and long term benefits to gain from a solution of the problem.
ROGER FARRELL (New Zealand) said that while his country endeavoured to balance criticism of human rights violations with acknowledgement of progress, it would not shrink from speaking out when human rights were being flagrantly violated, or were under serious threat. New Zealand welcomed the significant progress made towards securing human rights in East Timor since the deployment last year of an international peacekeeping force. New Zealand was disturbed by events in Chechneya. While Russia's need of combatting terrorism was understandable, its disproportionate use of force was of concern. Regarding human rights developments in China over the past year, New Zealand recognized China's continuing efforts to promote the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. In Iraq, there was disturbing evidence of continuing violations of human rights. In Myanmar, serious violations of human rights also continued.
NEDZAD HADZIMUSIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said the process of reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina had been moving in a positive direction. However the path was not smooth one and the dimensions of this process were not always satisfactory. The return of refugees and displaced persons to their pre-war homes was a basic human right, yet progress remained slow and unsatisfactory. The principle problems hampering return were lack of security, insufficient employment and poor respect for property law. The few cases of violence directed at returners were however cause of serious concern in both entities. Landmines were still constantly claiming victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There were insufficient funds to deal with the very large number of landmines that remained. Reconciliation and tolerance were basic elements towards creating a steady, positive progress in the country, and developing a society based on the rule of law.
ALI KHORRAM (Iran) said that since the human rights situation in Iran was included in the agenda and a number of delegations had mentioned the country, a brief account of the reality in Iran was necessary. At the time of the revolution, the slogans shouted on the streets had been independence, freedom and an Islamic republic. Iran had tried to preserve independence politically and territorially. Iran was going through an indigenous evolution of its own kind which rested on grassroots movements. Last year the Government undertook the promotion of human rights fully and there were several achievements worth mentioning.
There had been elections of local councils increasing people's participation and further improving the legislation. The rule of law was upheld; there had been an emergence of civil society organizations; and a strengthening of the Islamic Human Rights Commission. The head of the judiciary had updated criminal procedures. Iran had invited a technical team to the country and had accepted to use international expertise. Women had been empowered in all areas; and there was freedom of expression to publicize views in mass media. The rights of citizenship had been addressed and the rights of the religious minority which were equal before the law were also protected.
In light of these achievements, Iran's inclusion in the agenda seemed less relevant than ever before. A realistic approach by the international community and NGOs was called for. Democracy had been institutionalized and was irreversible. Keeping Iran on the agenda would give the wrong image to the international community and to the people of Iran.
GHASSAN NSEIR (Syria) said that Israel continued to occupy the southern part of Lebanon and it had continued to bombard public utilities in the country. Israel had destroyed homes and made thousands homeless. The victims of the Israeli aggression had been living in desperate conditions. Israel had also continued detaining many citizens in violation of international norms. The occupation of southern Lebanon was an extension of the Israeli aggression on Arab territories and was in defiance of Security Council resolutions. The international community should pressurize the Government of Israel to evacuate from the territories it was occupying. In addition, the European Union's statement was simply a deviation of a non-governmental organization’s statement; it should act as a State and not like those NGOs speaking in the Commission.
KAREN NAZARIAN (The Republic of Armenia) said it was concerned about the lack of progress in the Cyprus situation in spite of the numerous UN resolutions and well-known recommendations which so far had not been fully implemented. It was essential to restore the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the Greek-Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians and other inhabitants of the island, including the right to preserve their cultural heritage from being systematically destroyed and desecrated, as was the case with the St. Makar Monastery.
Today, as the world functioned as a whole, the defense of human rights and freedoms had become the responsibility of humanity at large. History had proven that impunity led to frequent repetition of gross and massive violations of human rights. The Commission's initiative to create effective legal mechanisms to combat impunity and restore State accountability was therefore to be welcomed.
KSENOFON KRISAFI (Albania) said that his delegation had listened to the report on Kosovo by the High Commissioner and to the report on the former Yugoslavia by the Special Rapporteur. The Albanian delegation welcomed the objectivity of the former and was shocked at the subjectivity of the latter. The Special Rapporteur had a mandate to protect human rights, not to engage in politics. The situation was in some cases worse now than it was a year ago.
The Special Rapporteur spoke as if the tragedy that hit Kosovo was normal. The Rapporteur seemed to be in oblivion and any progress made was denied according to him. He had spoken as if Milosevic was the only reality. When the refugees had returned, there had been only ruins and bodies. The incidents with unidentified people was dealt with remarkably well. Criminals on the other hand were still walking around unpunished, the victims and the executioners could not be put on the same level. Albanians were very grateful to the international community. The Albanian delegation also expressed its vigorous opposition to the removal of sanctions against Serbia.
DIMITRIS KARAITIDIS (Greece) said that since the Commission adopted its first resolution on Cyprus twenty-five years ago, the problem remained as acute as ever. Notwithstanding all the relevant Security Council resolutions, which had all been ignored by Turkey, 37 per cent of Cypriot territory remained under Turkish occupation since 1974 and the refugees were denied the right to return to their homes. The nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots who were forcibly displaced by the Turkish invading forces in 1974 were still being prevented from returning there. They continued to be internally displaced persons, arbitrarily deprived of their homes and properties. Out of 20,000 Cypriots and Maronites who chose in 1974 to stay in their ancestral homes, in the area occupied by Turkey, only about 600 had managed to remain there.
ISFANDIYAR VAHABZADA (Azerbaijan) said it was a historical fact that since the resettlement of Armenians in Transcaucasia in the first half of the nineteenth century, a genocide had been repeatedly committed against the Azerbaijani people. The winter of 1988 witnessed a further escalation of ethnic cleansing aimed at destroying the very traces of Azerbaijani presence in Armenia. With the approval of the Armenian authorities, the last 200,000 Azerbaijanis were forcibly deported from Armenia. During the ethnic cleansing of 1988 and 1989, altogether 216 Azerbaijanis died on Armenian territory. Full-scale hostilities began to unfold in 1991-1992 when Armenian armed units annihilated hundreds of blameless inhabitants of the town of Khojaly. As a result of the aggression, the armed forces of Armenia had occupied and were holding 20 per cent of the total territory of Azerbaijan. The conflict could not be solved until the occupying forces were withdrawn from Azerbaijani territory and all the refugees and displaced persons were returned to the places they were forcibly driven from.
PETKO DRAGANOV (Bulgaria) said his country had already aligned itself with the statement delivered by Portugal on behalf of the European Union. The representative of Bulgaria said a source for concern for his country was the treatment of ethnic minorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Particular concern was raised with regards to the Bulgarian minority. There had been no adequate solution to the grievances of the Bulgarian national minority. The leader of the Bulgarian national minority had been arrested and sued in the framework of a forcible mobilization campaign. Recent conflicts gave extremely worrying signs in the region.
There was constant pressure and specific measures of intimidation were used. Arbitrary acts by the local administration adversely affected the personal, material and professional interests of the Bulgarian minority. The right to speak their mother tongue was restricted even though effective bilingual education was guaranteed under the legislation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The delegation from Bulgaria admitted that in the context, perhaps the problems of the 50,000 strong Bulgarian minority did not seem very acute, however, these were grave human rights violations and as such a threat to the region. The international community was urged to use all mechanisms and tools to secure the future of democratization of the country and the region as a whole.
LAZARO MORA SECADE, of the Centro de Estudios Europeos, said that item 9 allowed for the manipulation of situations in States and at times, its consideration seemed to be a circus. It was not by force that one imposed resolutions on certain countries. The draft resolution which would be presented by Czech Republic on Cuba would not serve the purpose of the Commission. Instead, the aggression perpetrated by the United States against Cuba should be condemned. The successive United States administrations continued to maintain the economic embargo against Cuba. Human rights violations in the United States had been supported by documents and reports of different special rapporteurs.
EMMA BONINO, of Transnational Radical Party, said there were serious violations of civil and political rights in Italy, where the authorities respected neither the Constitution nor other laws or international treaties on the protection of human rights. Violations in the area of human rights concerned, among other things, the right to information, protest, free democratic election and impunity of those who violated established procedures. The existing electoral jungle in Italy obliged candidates to either renounce their candidacy or act fraudulently. The media was monopolized by a single entrepreneur, Silvio Berlusconi, who was also the leader of the official opposition. The public sector was strictly controlled by the party system. The public television was also violating the law. The Commission was urged to include the situation in Italy in its agenda so that it could be treated by the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. There were worrying signs in Europe which were being underestimated.
Rights of Reply
The representative of Egypt, speaking in right of reply, said that the allegation made by the non-governmental organization Freedom House was false. The clash in the village had not been related to religion as stated by Pope Shenouda the Third. Relations between Coptic Christians and Muslims had always been very good in Egypt. There had been a reduction of the number of complaints of maltreatment and torture. Egypt had always been against any violation of human rights. The international media had distorted the clash in the village, it had nothing to do with religion. The new Egyptian law on NGOs was a step forward and did not restrict their presence or freedom.
The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking in right of reply in reference to the statement of the Cuban Foreign Minister in which his country was mentioned as receiving orders from the United States, said that his country's human rights situation had had no problems since the Communist regime was dismantled. The person whom the Minister said was travelling around the world to denounce Cuba was simply one of the founders of the Charter 77 and an ardent advocate of human rights. The Government's attempt to send an envoy to Cuba had been turned down.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in right of reply, said the allegations levelled against it by the United States pursued political aims that had nothing to do with the issue of human rights. It was preposterous that the United States accused other countries of human rights violations, given its shocking record in the field which ranged from the existence of poverty-stricken people, racial discrimination, constant assassinations, to police brutality against Afro-Americans. All of this attested to the bleak reality in that country. In spite of this, the United States called other countries to account. The United States should take a look at its own human rights violations rather than slandering other countries.
The representative of Iraq, said in right of reply concerning the missing persons issue, that his country was participating with the Tripartite Committee which was looking into this issue. Iraq was also cooperating with the International Red Cross on this issue. Iraq had 1,700 people missing. The United Kingdom and the United States did not have missing persons but they were also involved in the process. The economic sanctions against Iraq had prevented investments and work on oil reserves. Kuwait had taken advantage of the situation and had assisted the United Kingdom and the United States in the ongoing bombing of Iraq. The Iraqi people had the right to ask for compensation for the suffering incurred through the continuing bombings and sanctions.
The representative of Cuba, speaking in right of reply, alluded to the statement made by the United States’ delegation and said that the delegate's intervention showed his Government's will to dictate the behaviour of the world which was cynical. The statement of the United States’ delegation, however, did not mention the shooting of blacks, such as Amadou Diallo who was brutally killed by racist police. In the same manner, responding to the representative of the Czech Republic, the Cuban delegation said that as in the cases of some individuals who served the interests of some States, the Czech Republic was a sort of satellite that changed its orbit. Instead of meddling in the affairs of others, the Czech Republic should resolve its own problems concerning the Roma people who were subjected to a system of apartheid.
The representative of the United States, speaking in right of reply, said there were certain minimal rules of civility which had to be obeyed in the Commission. In his political and polemical address, the Cuban representative had exceeded the limit. The United States representative recalled that the Czech Republic’s decision to introduce a resolution against Cuba was based on the past experience of the Czech people. In response to other statements, as the U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright had said in her address before the Commission last week, no nation should feel threatened by the work of the Commission which tried to adopt universal standards and promote human rights.
The representative of Kuwait, said in right of reply, that Iraq had attempted to explain a situation which did not need any explanation. Everyone knew the situation in Iraq. The Iraqi delegation's lies could impress no one. The Kuwaiti delegation pitied the population of Iraq as they themselves had suffered from the Iraqi occupation and knew of the human rights abuses. Iraq had no freedom of expression and the highest number of missing people. Iraq had sent a note to the International Committee of the Red Cross refusing to cooperate with the Tripartite Committee.
The representative of Saudi Arabia, speaking in right of reply, said that the statement of the United States’ delegation concerning the conditions of women in his country was counter-truth. The principles applied were the same as in any other Islamic country. The situation of Saudi women was compatible with the history and laws of the country. The conditions of Saudi women were much better than women in the West.
The representative of India, speaking in right of reply, said his delegation regretted the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) members except Morocco, which had contained unwarranted reference to India. India enjoyed traditionally friendly ties with members of the OIC. India was a pluralistic society with the second largest Muslim population in the world. It gave ample scope to all its citizens regardless of their ethnic origin. It was regrettable that the OIC was used by one country with vested interests, in particular territorial ambitions vis-à-vis India.
The representative of Viet Nam, said in right of reply, that the allegations by the World Evangelical Fellowship against Viet Nam were groundless. Article 70 of the Vietnamese Constitution clearly stated that people were entitled to practice their religious rights and that all religions were equal in front of the law. The State protected religious organizations. The number of Christians had in fact doubled to an estimated 5 million people, 7 per cent of the Vietnamese population. The NGO's allegations were wrong and slanderous.
The representative of Cuba, in his second right of reply, said that the statement of the Cuban Foreign Minister was in defence of the principles and ethics that his country was perusing. The United States, instead, was guilty of double standards.
The representative of Iraq, speaking in his second right of reply, said that regarding missing Kuwaiti persons, Iraq was cooperating with the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Iraqi representative recalled that over 80,000 armoured vehicles, bombs and planes had been used to attack the country. The bombs created craters of 30 metres in diameter, which resulted in "missing persons". Kuwait allowed the United States and the United Kingdom to use its territory to bomb Iraq. Further, Kuwait stood responsible for the blockade against Iraq, which allowed it to exploit the oil reserves around their common border.
The representative of China, speaking in right of reply, said that many delegations had made unwarranted accusations against the human rights situation in China. There was a Chinese saying which stated that facts spoke louder than words. The facts were the following: in 1999 the human rights situation in China had improved to an unprecedented level. This had been acknowledged by the international community and by any unbiased person. Slander would be in vain.
The representative of Pakistan, speaking in second right of reply in reference to a statement by the delegation of India who said that the Organization of Islamic Conference had made reference to his country, said that he only referred to Kashmir, which was not part of India but a disputed area. Kashmir did not belong to India. He said that there was a big number of Muslims in India. In 1993, 500 Muslims were killed in Bombay by Hindu extremists.
The representative of the United States, speaking in second right of reply, said that his country regretted the tone of confrontation by China and some of its ironic statements. The United States applied the same standards to all countries, developing or developed. China tried to avoid scrutiny by advancing non-action motions. Further, the presidential election in the United States had no bearing on the views of the U.S. on human rights.
The representative of Kuwait, said in a second right of reply, that Kuwait was not threatening Iraq. He reminded Iraq that they were not the ones who had started a war by occupying the other. Nobody could believe Iraq’s unfounded accusations. Iraq had to release the more than 600 prisoners of war since the country had signed the Geneva Convention in 1949 and as such was obliged to release prisoners of war.
The representative of China, speaking in second right of reply, said that the United States' hegemonic attitude should be condemned. Its Cold War mentality was to be deplored. A resolution on the double standards of the United States should also be tabled.
The representative of India, speaking in second right of reply, wished to know, while retaining his right to a second right of reply, if Pakistan had spoken on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference or had expressed its own view.
The representative of Turkey, speaking in right of reply, said no country should be immune from criticism. However, it should not be irrelevant and wrong criticism. Turkey set a unique example in promoting human rights and fighting terrorism at the same time. Turkey was faithful to its international contractual obligations. That was why Turkey had intervened in 1974. It was an intervention not an occupation. The Greek side lacked political will. This also included a lack of humanitarian will. The Greek side was the one destroying the Turkish cultural heritage. Furthermore the Turkish delegation found it very ironic that Armenia had the audacity to criticize other countries human rights records.
The representative of Sri Lanka, speaking in right of reply in reference to a statement by International Educational Development, said that the NGO had made tendentious comments and misused a reprehensible killing of a prominent Sri Lankan lawyer to make wild allegations against the country and elected President. He challenged that entity or even the group which it represented to make any substantiated complaints. The entity in his country was recruiting children and dragging them into the war. The NGO was glorifying an entity which was committing terrorism.
The representative of Myanmar, speaking in right of reply with reference to the International Labour Office’s Governing Body decision mentioned earlier, said it was regrettable that the ILO Governing Body had adopted a recommendation against Myanmar and continued to take one-sided measures against the country. The decision by the Governing Body was unjust and Myanmar dissociated itself from it. Instead of trying to isolate Myanmar, the ILO should work together with it. The decision by the ILO was all the more regrettable in light of calls by many countries opposing the isolation of Myanmar and advocating a pragmatic approach. Myanmar would not bow to pressure to interfere in its internal affairs.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said in a second right of reply, that his country categorically rejected Canada's accusations. These were merely a repetition of unwarranted accusations, examples of double-standards and partiality. Canada had taken sides against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and had sided with the hostile enemy forces. Canada should stop the spreading of these slanderous accusations which were fabricated by hostile enemy forces. Canada should remain objective and impartial.
The representative of Ethiopia, speaking in right of reply, said his delegation was saddened by the European Union’s statement that treated the aggressor Eritrean regime and Ethiopia, its victim, on an equal footing. As a development and peace partner of Ethiopia, the European Union should continue to lend its strong support to the ongoing efforts of the Organization of African Unity to peacefully resolve the crisis triggered by the Eritrean aggression against the sovereignty of Ethiopia. As such, indulging in selective reading of the Organization's Peace Plan was not warranted.
The representative of Italy, speaking in right of reply, said that concerning the protection and right of access to the media, the Italian delegation would provide the Commission with documents related to allegations made by the Transnational Radical Party. This way, Governments, delegations, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, observers and non-governmental organizations would be able to compare the basic texts directly regardless of any electoral context.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/00/10 of 24 March 2000, the statement of Eritrea on page 6 should read as follows:
AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) said Ethiopia was purportedly a federal State organized on the basis of ethnicity. The minority ethnic regime of the day claimed that such an ethnic federalism would accommodate the political demands of all the ethnic groups of the country and promote the national interest of the whole country. The majority of Ethiopian intellectual and political leaders had, however, denounced it as ethno-apartheid.
Politically, the State was divided into Kilils (administrative zones), which had been compared to, and were reminiscent of, the arrangement of South Africa's Bantustans. The values and norms that informed the governing principles of the State were predicated on the political supremacy and economic hegemony of the ruling party, the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF).
At this point, following a point of order by Ethiopia, the Chairman interrupted the statement of Eritrea, saying that if the speaker wished to continue, he should not mention names of countries during a thematic discussion. The speaker continued his statement.
In press release HR/CN/00/18 of 29 March 2000, the statement of the Baha’i International Community on page 7 should read as follows:
TECHESTE AHDEROM, of Baha'i International Community, said the situation of the Baha'i community in Iran was now at an important crossroads; there were the beginnings of positive developments but it was not possible to document any improvement in the actual situation of the Baha'is. They were still targets of overt atrocities and they continued to suffer under the burden of more subtle forms of discrimination. As of 1 March, twelve Baha'is were being held in prison because of their religious beliefs; five had been sentenced to death; it was clear that the charges brought against all of them were based solely on their membership in the Baha'i community. There were recent reports of three more death sentences, and that two of those prisoners had been told orally that their death sentences had been confirmed.
The Commission must intercede on behalf of this beleaguered community. It should call on the Government to allow the Baha'is to bury their dead freely; allow them freedom of movement; allow them access to education and employment, security of person, civil rights, religious freedom. Iran also should set aside the death sentences and release the prisoners concerned; it should return community properties; it should ensure equal treatment by the judiciary and allow the re-establishment of Baha'i institutions.
* *** *