Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
Default title
11 April 2000
Share
Commission on Human Rights
56th session
11 April 2000
Afternoon
High Commissioner for Refugees Delivers Address
The Commission on Human Rights discussed this afternoon what should be done in response to allegations of atrocities in Chechnya.
Numerous speakers backed the recommendation of High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who visited the violence-torn region of the Russian Federation last week and said a national, independent commission of inquiry should be established by the Russian Government to probe reports of massive human-rights violations committed by Russian troops and Chechen insurgents and to ensure that all perpetrators were punished.
A representative of Russia said the High Commissioner had not taken into account, in her activities, the right of States to non-interference in their internal affairs; that first-hand accounts of human-rights violations the High Commissioner had heard during her visit were the testimonies of "professional witnesses" whose sole objective was to provoke hysteria around the issue of Chechnya; and that the Government would continue to pursue firmly its policy of eradication of international terrorism and achievement of a lasting political settlement of the situation.
Others disputed the contention that events in Chechnya were solely an internal affair. A representative of Canada said responding to urgent situations was an important part of the High Commissioner's mandate and that she had discharged that responsibility by visiting Chechnya and by placing before the Commission a report identifying options for further action. A representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said there was a crucial need for Russia to cooperate with the mechanisms of the Commission.
Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC sought a solution in Chechnya which, while underlining the principle of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, also envisaged termination of military operations; release of prisoners and hostages; safe return of refugees and displaced persons; declaration and implementation of a general amnesty, commencement of dialogue with responsible Chechen representatives; agreement on separation of powers between local and federal authorities in keeping with the 1996 accord; freedom of religion; and reconstruction of Chechnya.
Supporting the Russian point of view were India, China and Belarus, which said developments in the North Caucasus were a manifestation of the problem of international terrorism, and it was for the Government of the Russian Federation to determine the steps it should take to protect its Constitutional order and territorial integrity. The international community should direct its efforts towards ensuring that terrorism and extremism did not destabilize legitimately established Governments and States, the Indian representative said.
Among non-governmental organizations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in a joint statement, termed establishment of a national commission of inquiry insufficient -- at this point a credible investigation could only be carried out by an international commission under the auspices of the United Nations.
The Commission also continued briefly its discussion of child rights and heard an address by Sadako Ogata, High Commissioner for Refugees, who said, among other things, that she hoped Commission would reflect on how inadequate and inequitable distribution of wealth and misappropriation and misuse of it perpetuated humanitarian crises, including refugee outflows.
Speaking over the course of the meeting were representatives of Japan, Russian Federation, Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Czech Republic, United States, Canada, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Norway, Latvia, India, China, Switzerland, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, South Africa, Lithuania, Belarus, Mexico, International League for Human Rights, International Peace Bureau, World Muslim Congress, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Amnesty International, Transnational Radical Party, Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", Reporters sans frontieres, Association of World Citizens, and War Resisters International.
The Commission ended its afternoon meeting at 6 and immediately began an evening session scheduled to adjourn at 9.
Statements
SADAKO OGATA, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, recalled that the various experts of the Commission had underlined the most appalling violations of human rights and humanitarian law in almost every region of he world that had forced hundreds of thousands of people to seek asylum across borders. Millions more were displaced inside their own countries and remained largely forgotten and out of reach of any assistance or protection. The vicious internal conflicts which underlay forced population movements were themselves rooted in deep ethnic, social and economic divisions within communities. They were compounded by the arms trade, drug trafficking and the violent struggle to control oil, diamonds, timber, territory or other natural resources.
Mrs. Ogata said she hoped that in examining the subject of poverty, the Commission would reflect, not only on how the lack of economic development hampered the enjoyment of human rights, but also on how inadequate and inequitable distribution, and misappropriation and misuse of economic resources perpetuated humanitarian crises, including refugee outflows. Nowhere was that more evident -- and in many, distressing ways -- than in Central Africa, where conflicts going back several decades, mass violations of humanitarian crises, had affected almost every country in the region.
The cycle of human misery and displacement was not limited to Africa. She recently had visited the Balkans, where a new impetus to return to some parts of the region, notably Croatia and Bosnia, had been offset elsewhere. In Kosovo, in particular, the massive return of ethnic Albanian refugees last July was soon followed by fresh violence and displacement of people from the Serb, Roma and other ethnic groups. She visited several areas in Kosovo and was shocked by the depth of hatred and resentment among the different ethnic communities.
In almost all those situations, whether in Central Africa or South Asia, Colombia or the Caucasus, refugee problems were closely linked to those of internally displaced people, in terms of the causes and consequences of he displacement, as well as humanitarian needs. Not surprisingly, the scale and scope of UNHCR's own activities on behalf of the internally displaced had dramatically increased. Today, the Office of the High Commissioner was providing protection and assistance not only to 17 million refugees and returnees, but also to some 5 million internally displaced people.
It was a matter of great concern that hundreds of thousands of people at risk, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Burundi, from Angola to Sierra Leone, as well as in Chechnya, in the Russian Federation -- many of them internally displaced -- could not be reached by international humanitarian agencies. Even where access was available, it was often very dangerous, and humanitarian personnel from different agencies and many non-governmental organizations had been killed or attacked, harassed or threatened.
C. VON HEIDENSTAM, Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on children in armed conflict, reported on the elaboration of a draft protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on involvement of children in armed conflict. The working group started off with a fair distribution of differing country positions. It was a great challenge, but once momentum was won, no one hesitated in the end to make his or her country's contribution to obtaining an honourable compromise text. The general perception of the draft optional protocol was that no person below the age of 18 should ever be used in war.
The optional protocol was the result of fruitful cooperation between the participants, with all keeping in mind the best interests of the child. The next step was to have the text of the optional protocol adopted by the Commission and sent on to ECOSOC and the General Assembly for adoption. A resolution was being prepared and the Chairman-Rapporteur warmly recommended that the Commission unite in adopting it in due time. It would be a useful human-rights instrument for combating the use of children as soldiers.
HIDEAKI KOBAYASHI (Japan) said many children in the world still found themselves in intolerable situations, despite the efforts of the international community and the gratifying progress it had made, including the almost universal ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The sale of children, sexual exploitation of children and the use of children as soldiers were particulary cruel violations of the rights of children, as they caused serious damage not only physically but psychologically.
The international community had shown its determination to tackle these problems through its work on new Optional Protocols to the Convention. The international community was urged to respond directly to the dismal situation of children in armed conflicts and to support the victims during and after these conflicts. Education was the most efficient way to make children able to defend themselves from abuse such as sexual exploitation, use as soldiers or use as child labour. There was a need for greater cooperation, as only with the full support of the international community could improvements be brought about.
VLADIMIR KALAMANOV (Russia) said the conclusions and observations presented by High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson regarding her visit to the Northern Caucasus had referred to her mandate and had cited many provisions of undoubted significance. But for reasons unknown, no mention was made of such inalienable provisions as General Assembly resolution 48/141 including the principle of respect for territorial integrity, national jurisdiction, as well as impartiality and objectivity in fulfilling her mandate.
The responsibility of federal States was to promote human rights and ensure law and order throughout their territories. The Chechen Republic had long been a centre of slave trade, extrajudicial executions, torture and forced displacement. And the perpetrators of these crimes had expanded their activities to neighbouring republics. Russia had to take resolute action.
The expression of international concern that the High Commissioner mentioned in her statement only began after the launch of the anti-terrorist campaign but not in 1995-1996, when a mass eviction of about 500,000 people from Chechnya took place, mutilation was introduced as a form of punishment, the slave trade flourished, and torture and degrading treatment became an everyday event in the Republic.
The first-hand accounts, which according to the High Commissioner represented the most important part of her visit to Chechnya, could be dismissed as testimonies of "professional witnesses" whose sole objective was to provoke hysteria around the issue of Chechnya. Russia had taken into consideration to the maximum possible extent all the wishes of the High Commissioner on her programme of stay in Russia so as to show her the truly difficult situation in the region. Russia was requested however to organize visits to some non-existent "filtration camps".
The Commission and the High Commissioner were urged not to come up with hasty conclusions and not to believe in rumours and disinformation. The Russian side would continue to firmly pursue its policy of eradication of international terrorism, achievement of a lasting political settlement of the situation in the Chechen Republic, restoration of constitutional legality, law and order, human rights, and rehabilitation of social and economic life in the Republic.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the EU was concerned at reported gross human-rights violations in Chechnya, such as mass killings, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, violence against women, torture, arbitrary detention and pillaging. Even though criminal prosecutions had been initiated, a response on a different level was required. The EU called upon the Russian Federation to urgently establish, according to recognized international standards, a national, broad-based and independent commission of enquiry to promptly investigate alleged violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law committed in the Republic of Chechnya in order to establish the truth and identify those responsible, with a view to bringing them to justice and preventing impunity.
Russian authorities were further called upon to abide by their international commitments and to put an end to the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of military force, including attacks against civilians. The need for effective co-operation with the mechanisms of the Commission was crucial and Russian authorities were urged to accept without delay the requests already made related to those mechanisms, and to accept further requests in this field.
MIROSLAV SOMOL (Czech Republic) said the Czech Government fully appreciated the steps already taken by the Russian Federation, especially the appointment of a Special Representative of the President for Human Rights, and looked forward to the effective functioning of this office. The Czech Republic shared the view that the most effective way to assist both sides of the crisis was coordinated action carried out within the United Nations, the Council of Europe or the OSCE. A critical tone was required in a situations such as Chechnya. The Russian Federation was urged to avoid misunderstanding this critical tone as interference in its affairs, and instead to recognize it as an effort by the international community to encourage Russia to seek solutions to end the suffering of all people of the North Caucasus region.
The Czech Republic supported the High Commissioner's call for a full investigation of all human-rights violations and the setting up of an ad hoc independent commission of inquiry. Both international and national organizations should participate in resolving the humanitarian crisis in Chechnya and neighbouring republics. The international community and the UN system, including the Human Rights Commission, had a role to play in the process of seeking a political solution to the Chechen tragedy.
NANCY RUBIN (the United States) said the US was concerned about the many credible reports of human-rights and humanitarian-law violations in Chechnya by both Russia and Chechen forces. While the United States recognized Russia's right to defend its territorial integrity and protect its population against terrorism and attacks from insurgent groups, its methods could not be condoned. The violent secessionism and extremism of Chechen rebels, coupled with provocations in Dagestan and elsewhere, were legitimate security concerns. The United States had never disputed Russia's right, or indeed its responsibility, to fight terrorism on its soil.
But none of that could begin to justify the Russian Government's use of massive force against civilians inside Chechnya. That brutal war had damaged both Russia's democratic transformation and its reputation in the eyes of The world. Russia had began to take some steps in an attempt to address the Commission's concerns about its commitment to observing international human-rights standards in Chechnya. However, the United States shared the concerns expressed by the High Commissioner in her report, when she questioned whether the Russian Government's response to date matched the scale of the allegations of human-rights violations.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said that both the Russian authorities and the international community had important responsibilities to respond to accounts of violations of human rights and humanitarian law as reported by the High Commissioner in her testimony on her visit to Chechnya. The Russian authorities had the responsibility, under international law, to take decisive measures to halt all future violations of human rights and to fight impunity for past violations, including the unsolved December 1996 murder of Canadian nurse Nancy Malloy and her five ICRC colleagues. Canada therefore welcomed the appointment of a Russian special representatives for human rights in Chechnya, and hoped for an open and inclusive investigation of all allegations from all sides. This was necessary for any attempt to build long-term peace, stability and reconciliation in this troubled region.
Responding to urgent situations was an important part of the High Commissioner's mandate and she had discharged that responsibility by undertaking her visit and placing before the Commission a report identifying options for further action, including the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry with international participation. It was now incumbent on the Commission to respond in a credible and effective manner.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC countries were concerned over the humanitarian catastrophe and the fate and welfare of the people of Chechnya.
The OIC sought a solution in Chechnya which, while underlining the principle of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, also envisaged the adoption of several concrete steps including termination of military operations to begin the political process; release of prisoners and hostages; safe return of refugees and displaced persons; declaration and implementation of a general amnesty, commencement of dialogue with responsible Chechen representatives; agreement on separation of powers between local and federal authorities in keeping with the 1996 Accord; freedom of religion; and reconstruction of Chechnya by all possible means.
BJORN SKOGMO (Norway) stressed that as was the case in far too many violent conflicts, there were crimes and atrocities committed by the Russian and Chechen sides in the fighting. Norway was concerned by the violence and lack of respect for fundamental standards of humanity. While the international community had no sympathy for terrorists, and did not condone armed secession, one should focus on the human-rights aspects of the situation. The reports of violations were many, and they were too serious, too many and too well-documented not to be given due consideration. The impression Norway got from the High Commissioner's report, as well as from the response of the Russian Government, was that due consideration was not yet being given to the subject.
A more in-depth investigation of the alleged human-rights violations was required, and an impartial investigation was needed, with no impunity. The proposal for the establishment of an independent national commission of inquiry was supported by Norway. Such a commission should have unrestricted access in order to carry out its investigations. It was up to the Russian authorities to create the commission and to conduct an inquiry, and the Government should give due consideration to the many allegations and reports stemming from the situation in and around Chechnya.
ROMANS BAUMANIS (Latvia) said the human-right violations taking place in Chechnya could not be accepted. Latvia did not question the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation nor the obligation of the Russian authorities to fight terrorism. However, the indiscriminate manner in which the Russian authorities were conducting this campaign was intolerable. A minority in the region was responsible for the terrorist acts and the whole civilian population could not be made to pay for their crimes. The Latvian delegation questioned what the refugees could return home to as their were no homes, schools or hospitals left, only ruins.
Four proposals could lead to a long-lasting peace: assurance from Russian authorities that federal troops would observe human rights; establishment of a national commission of inquiry that was a cross-sectional nature; cooperation with the special mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights; and cooperation between the national commission of inquiry and the Commission itself. It was up to Russia to restore law in Chechnya with the help of the international community through a process of transparency and good will.
SAVITRI KUNADI (India) said developments in the Northern Caucasus region of the Russian Federation were a manifestation of the problem of international terrorism. It was for the Government of the Russian Federation to determine the steps it should take to protect its Constitutional order and territorial integrity. Note was taken of the statement by the delegation of the Russian Federation that Russia had not hidden the truth concerning Chechnya, was not limiting access to Chechnya, was taking active steps to resolve socio-economic problems there, had initiated a national process to look into human-rights issues and had remained open to dialogue on the subject.
It was to be hoped that the Commission would encourage these positive trends and would not take any action that could further complicate an already difficult and complex situation. The international community should direct its efforts towards ensuring that terrorism and extremism did not destabilize legitimately established Governments and States.
LI BAODONG (China) said the Chinese Government appreciated the open and transparent position adopted by the Government of the Russian Federation on the issue of Chechnya. It was a positive gesture on the part of Russian authorities to agree to a visit by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Second, China was opposed to any kind of terrorism, religious extremism and ethnic separatism and understood and supported the Government of the Russian Federation for its effort to safeguard national unity, territorial integrity and social stability, and hence supported it for taking necessary actions in Chechnya to this end.
Finally, the Chinese Government was of the view that the issue of Chechnya belonged to the internal affairs of the Russian Federation and that Russian authorities were capable of resolving related problems in an appropriate way.
FRANCOIS NORDMAN (Switzerland) said there was satisfaction that a constructive dialogue was under way between Russian authorities and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The declaration of the Russian delegation concerning the will of the Government to cooperate with the High Commissioner was gratifying, as were the positive measures taken by the Russian authorities recently concerning the humanitarian situation in Chechnya. The opening of an office of the representative of the President in Chechnya was an indication the good will and the participation of experts from the Council of Europe in that office was welcomed.
In spite of these efforts, Switzerland considered that the situation in Chechnya still remained of great concern. The Government was alarmed by reports of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law which might have been committed by the Russian armed forces. The same concern was expressed at allegations of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by the Chechen rebels.
ROGER FARRELL (New Zealand) said the New Zealand Government was deeply concerned by reports of human-rights abuses and by the humanitarian cost associated with the conflict in Chechnya. New Zealand recognized the Government of the Russian Federation's legitimate concerns about terrorist activities within its territory. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation's response to these concerns had been disproportionate. It was clear from the High Commissioner's report that the human-rights and humanitarian situation in the region required urgent action. The Russian Federation was urged to move with haste to respect and uphold the human rights of all those affected by the conflict, bearing in mind its international obligations. The High Commissioner's call on the Russian Federation to establish a credible independent commission of inquiry into reports of human-rights abuses was fully supported.
Reports of human-rights abuses committed by Chechen fighters were also a cause of concern. Nevertheless, the responsibility for addressing human-rights violations must rest primarily with the Russian authorities. The situation of internally displaced persons was of continuing concern and the Government of the Russian Federation was urged to do all within its power to ease the plight of those forced from their homes and also to grant access to international relief agencies to administer humanitarian assistance.
CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) said the scale and seriousness of these allegations made an expression of concern by the main human-rights body of this organization indispensable. Those who denied the veracity of these allegations should also have an interest in having them examined in a independent and therefore credible manner. The period between the two wars in Chechnya had been absent of political dialogue and of significant reconstruction and economic development. The outbreak of a second war was thus all but predictable. Terrorism could not be used as a wholesale label to justify the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force against an entire civilian population.
Yet another brutal full-scale armed conflict in Chechnya could only be prevented if a long-term political solution to the conflict and its underlying causes was found and carried out in good faith by the parties. The Commission was best equipped to deal with the alleged violations of international humanitarian and human-rights law. It should thus assert its leading role in the area of human rights and make a clear pronouncement on the human-rights situation in Chechnya.
PITSO MONTWEDI (South Africa) said South Africa was gravely concerned by the continuing violence in Chechnya, especially by reports, not least by the High Commissioner, about the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of military force against civilians. The scale of the humanitarian impact of the conflict was well-documented. The widespread loss of civilian life and the material destruction caused was deplorable. Both sides to the conflict should observe and honour international human-rights and humanitarian law. South Africa appreciated the High Commissioner's comprehensive, balanced and objective report, the contents of which had been noted.
South Africa unconditionally condemned acts of terrorism. The parties to the conflict had not exhausted all possibilities for peaceful resolution of the conflict before its escalation to the levels witnessed to date, just as both sides seemed not to have made a credible attempt to minimize civilian casualties.
AUDRIUS NAVIKAS (Lithuania) said Lithuania shared the concern expressed by the international community about the disproportionate use of armed force and the difficult situation of civilians in this region of Russia. Lithuania also supported efforts to persuade the Russian Government to create the possibility for providing humanitarian assistance to displaced persons and to solve existing problems in the region through political dialogue.
It was hoped that the Russian Federation would continue cooperation with international organizations and would establish, according to international standards, a national broad-based and independent commission of inquiry into serious allegations of human-rights violations in Chechnya.
M. YUSHKEVICH (Belarus) said terrorism was a tumor, and if it was not prevented or attacked it would spread across borders, undermining social systems and undermining the right to life. It had been recognized in the Vienna Declaration that the methods and practices of terrorism could only be prevented through measures taken by States. Russia was acting according to this prinicple.
The Russian Federation had to fight a threat to its territorial integrity, terrorism and organized crime simultaneously, and no State would be able to fight this battle in a perfect way where no one was hurt.
ALEXEY KOROTAEV, of International League for Human Rights, said it was important that there be an international commission of inquiry into allegations of war crimes and other atrocities in the North Caucasus. However, the League supported the efforts of the High Commissioner to foster an independent national commission of inquiry because historically, and in the present day, there had never been a case where an international commission of inquiry had been permitted to work meaningfully and for any length of time on Russian territory.
A national commission should contain persons of eminence and credibility in Russia, as well as independent Russian legal specialists who could provide assurances, both to the Russian public and the international community, that their inquiry was impartial and unbiased. The commission should be constituted separately from existing official and quasi-official bodies of the State and the armed forces.
JUNSEI TERASAWA, of International Peace Bureau, said the international community's utter indifference to the fate of the Chechen people had allowed Russia to unleash the most brutal military campaign against a civilian population ever seen in the Caucasus region. Despite the gruesome war crimes committed by the Russian federal forces, the West continued to give political and financial support to Russia. The tragedy which had befallen the whole of the Chechen population should not be blamed only on Russia but on the entire international community, including the Commission.
In her report the High Commissioner quoted Russian justifications for the military operation. However, she omitted the Chechen position, which affirmed that Chechens had taken every legal step to exercise their constitutional right to self-determination and secession from the USSR during the breakup of the Soviet Union. The aim of the current Russian military campaign was to silence the legitimate Chechen claim for freedom by brutally punishing the whole nation. The war crimes and gross human-rights violations committed during the military campaign constituted acts of genocide against the Chechen nation.
MAQBOOL AHMAD, of World Muslim Congress, said human-rights violations amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity had undeniably been committed on a large scale, with brutality, relish and impunity, by the Russian army. These violations were so flagrant that any protests to the contrary would simply not be believable. The evidence was overwhelming. More than 200,000 men, women and children, forcibly displaced, escaping army assault, forced to find refuge in neighbouring countries, had found nothing but rubble when they returned home. The "filtration camps" were concentration camps where guards routinely beat and systematically tortured and humiliated the captives.
The Russian Government must honour the truce and agreement arrived at after the first Chechnyan war.
PATRICK BAUDOUIN, of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said the Federation had already presented its report on the situation in Chechnya in order to establish the legal responsibilities for the bombardment of the population. Indiscriminate and massive bombardment, summary executions, torture, ill-treatment and arbitrary detention, among others offenses, had been reported. Civilians had been the first target of the military operation carried out by the Russian and Chechen forces. During the occupation of villages, a cleansing operation had taken place at the frontiers which involved grave violations of the human rights and international humanitarian law.
The whole of the violations surveyed in the report constituted crimes of war and crimes against humanity due to their massive and systematic character, according to the definition of international instruments.
YUONNE TERLINGER, of Amnesty International, in a joint statement with Human Rights Watch, said both organizations had provided the international community with mounting evidence of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed by Russian forces in Chechnya. The reaffirmation by the High Commissioner that "primary responsibility for addressing human rights violations... rests with the Russian authorities" was welcomed. However, a national commission of inquiry into these allegations was not the effective response that victims of human-rights violations deserved and the rule of law required for the following reasons:
The response from the Russian authorities so far to credible allegations of human rights violations did not constitute a serious attempt to deal with the grave situation in the Chechen Republic. The Government refused to permit the High Commissioner access to detention places where torture and ill-treatment had reportedly taken place. This revealed the emptiness of the Government's rhetoric of transparency and political will to allow effective investigations into its human-rights record. The lack of real commitment by the Russian authorities to satisfactorily investigate human-rights abuses and prosecute those guilty was borne out by the pattern of inadequate investigations into allegations of human-rights violations and the culture of impunity that prevailed during the first Chechen conflict in 1994-1996. The Commission could not escape its responsibility to insist on credible and commensurate responses to the massive human-rights abuses which had been committed in Chechnya, and a UN-based commission of inquiry was a prerequisite.
AKHYAD IDIGOV, of Transnational Radical Party, said Russia, a worthy successor to the Soviet Union, continued the bloody epic it had begun in Afghanistan, passing through Lithuania, Ngorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Fergana, Georgia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Abkhazia, Ingushetia and Chechnya. That list would continue if no action was taken at the international level. Russian action taken against the Chechen people could only be described as genocide. The Chechens' right to self-determination was an important element of any attempt to establish stability and peace in the Caucasus. This key question could not be avoided.
The Russian Government had done all it could to cultivate fear among peoples living within its borders to win the 2000 presidential elections and to block the economic interests of western countries attempting to bypass Moscow. Negociations on Chechnya could only be effective if carried out with the authorities legally elected in 1997 under the leadership of President Aslan Maskhadov.
LAZARO PARRY, of Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", said the tragedy in Chechnya was of great concern. The war in that region was being carried out under the strategy of the oligarchy, which was represented by the corrupted class of the media. These new Machiavellian magnates, with the tacit understanding of the Kremlin, controlled 50 per cent of the Russian economy and were channeling the country's resources to their own advantage, including money provided by the International Monetary Fund.
The war unleashed by the Russian authorities against the Chechen people under the pretext of combating "terrorists, criminals and bandits", had no purpose except attempting to cleanse the region of its ethnic and Islamic minorities. The people of Chechnya claimed autonomy and independence, but the Government of Russia, in place of seeking a political solution to the conflict, was using artillery against these minorities.
GEORGE GORDON-LENNOX, of Reporters sans frontières, said the Russian offensive in Chechnya had been accompanied by grave violations of human rights, including attacks against the free press. Chechnya was one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists. A dozen of reporters had been killed between 1994 and 1996 while covering the first Chechen war. Three Chechen cameramen had been killed during bombings by the federal army in December 1999. Some 20 journalists had been kidnapped since 1997. A reporter of the Russian agency Itar Tass was believed to have been killed by his kidnappers on 20 February.
While most of the Russian media backed the Russian Government, the Russian authorities had not hesitated to stifle opposition. Since the outbreak of the conflict, Russian officials had been hostile towards journalists and reporters working in Chechnya, in particular foreign correspondents, dozens of whom had been interrogated and accused of wanting to discredit the Russian forces. Access to Chechnya remained conditional on accreditation delivered by the military forces. It was impossible to obtain such accreditation.
DAVID LITTMAN, of Association of World Citizens, said no one had devoted the time, the intellectual energy nor the funds needed when the warning signs in Chechnya were first there. The Commission was meeting in another special meeting repeating that destructive and genocidal conflicts should not have been allowed to happen, repeating that the guilty should be punished and that "next time" the Commission must act sooner.
Three elements should be highlighted for future action: the importance of the work on codification of the "fundamental standards of humanity"; the importance of the Commission hearing from representatives of groups engaged in armed conflicts; and finally the need for better articulation of efforts at conflict resolution between the UN system, regional inter-governmental bodies, national governments and NGOs. Such cooperation and coordination was difficult, given the different mandates and structures involved, but there was a need to act together creatively.
MICHEL MONOD, of War Resisters International, said the High Commissioner had described with compassion the sufferings of Chechen women trapped in a conflict which they did not want and of which they were now the innocent victims. They lived in wagons with their children and some had been submitted to incredible tortures. The fate of young Russians involuntarily trapped in the conflict was to be mentioned, too. Many had died in a war they did not want and in which they had been forced to participate.
Five years ago, during the first war in Chechnya, mothers of Russian soldiers had gone to that country to bring back their sons. The Chechen combatants had given the prisoners back to the mothers. It was not possible this time because hatred and resentments were too high. Was it acceptable that young men who had been studying together for years should be forced to kill each another?
TEIMOURAZ RAMISHVILI (the Russian Federation) said comments were still being heard about the disproportionate use of force in Chechnya. What sort of measures would be considered proportionate to eradicate not dozens or hundreds but thousands of armed groups? It was regrettable that numerous delegates had continued along lines they had adopted months ago. Other delegates had adopted a more responsible approach.
Russia, on its part, would continue to investigate allegations of violence and study all material submitted to it by NGOs and national and international organizations.
ALICIA PEREZ DUARTE (Mexico) said there was concern about the results obtained by the Working Group which had elaborated an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child with regard to sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Mexico was not fully satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations because the protocol might not be effective in protecting certain rights of the child and would not suppress some unacceptable practices.
In addition, Mexico was concerned that the constant reference to domestic legislation would contravene the principle of the primacy of international conventions over domestic legislation. It would seriously jeopardize international cooperation, which was indispensable for combating effectively violations of children's rights. Mexico, for its part, also attached great importance to the total eradication of the participation of children in armed conflicts.
* *** *
56th session
11 April 2000
Afternoon
High Commissioner for Refugees Delivers Address
The Commission on Human Rights discussed this afternoon what should be done in response to allegations of atrocities in Chechnya.
Numerous speakers backed the recommendation of High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who visited the violence-torn region of the Russian Federation last week and said a national, independent commission of inquiry should be established by the Russian Government to probe reports of massive human-rights violations committed by Russian troops and Chechen insurgents and to ensure that all perpetrators were punished.
A representative of Russia said the High Commissioner had not taken into account, in her activities, the right of States to non-interference in their internal affairs; that first-hand accounts of human-rights violations the High Commissioner had heard during her visit were the testimonies of "professional witnesses" whose sole objective was to provoke hysteria around the issue of Chechnya; and that the Government would continue to pursue firmly its policy of eradication of international terrorism and achievement of a lasting political settlement of the situation.
Others disputed the contention that events in Chechnya were solely an internal affair. A representative of Canada said responding to urgent situations was an important part of the High Commissioner's mandate and that she had discharged that responsibility by visiting Chechnya and by placing before the Commission a report identifying options for further action. A representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said there was a crucial need for Russia to cooperate with the mechanisms of the Commission.
Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC sought a solution in Chechnya which, while underlining the principle of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, also envisaged termination of military operations; release of prisoners and hostages; safe return of refugees and displaced persons; declaration and implementation of a general amnesty, commencement of dialogue with responsible Chechen representatives; agreement on separation of powers between local and federal authorities in keeping with the 1996 accord; freedom of religion; and reconstruction of Chechnya.
Supporting the Russian point of view were India, China and Belarus, which said developments in the North Caucasus were a manifestation of the problem of international terrorism, and it was for the Government of the Russian Federation to determine the steps it should take to protect its Constitutional order and territorial integrity. The international community should direct its efforts towards ensuring that terrorism and extremism did not destabilize legitimately established Governments and States, the Indian representative said.
Among non-governmental organizations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in a joint statement, termed establishment of a national commission of inquiry insufficient -- at this point a credible investigation could only be carried out by an international commission under the auspices of the United Nations.
The Commission also continued briefly its discussion of child rights and heard an address by Sadako Ogata, High Commissioner for Refugees, who said, among other things, that she hoped Commission would reflect on how inadequate and inequitable distribution of wealth and misappropriation and misuse of it perpetuated humanitarian crises, including refugee outflows.
Speaking over the course of the meeting were representatives of Japan, Russian Federation, Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Czech Republic, United States, Canada, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Norway, Latvia, India, China, Switzerland, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, South Africa, Lithuania, Belarus, Mexico, International League for Human Rights, International Peace Bureau, World Muslim Congress, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, Amnesty International, Transnational Radical Party, Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", Reporters sans frontieres, Association of World Citizens, and War Resisters International.
The Commission ended its afternoon meeting at 6 and immediately began an evening session scheduled to adjourn at 9.
Statements
SADAKO OGATA, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, recalled that the various experts of the Commission had underlined the most appalling violations of human rights and humanitarian law in almost every region of he world that had forced hundreds of thousands of people to seek asylum across borders. Millions more were displaced inside their own countries and remained largely forgotten and out of reach of any assistance or protection. The vicious internal conflicts which underlay forced population movements were themselves rooted in deep ethnic, social and economic divisions within communities. They were compounded by the arms trade, drug trafficking and the violent struggle to control oil, diamonds, timber, territory or other natural resources.
Mrs. Ogata said she hoped that in examining the subject of poverty, the Commission would reflect, not only on how the lack of economic development hampered the enjoyment of human rights, but also on how inadequate and inequitable distribution, and misappropriation and misuse of economic resources perpetuated humanitarian crises, including refugee outflows. Nowhere was that more evident -- and in many, distressing ways -- than in Central Africa, where conflicts going back several decades, mass violations of humanitarian crises, had affected almost every country in the region.
The cycle of human misery and displacement was not limited to Africa. She recently had visited the Balkans, where a new impetus to return to some parts of the region, notably Croatia and Bosnia, had been offset elsewhere. In Kosovo, in particular, the massive return of ethnic Albanian refugees last July was soon followed by fresh violence and displacement of people from the Serb, Roma and other ethnic groups. She visited several areas in Kosovo and was shocked by the depth of hatred and resentment among the different ethnic communities.
In almost all those situations, whether in Central Africa or South Asia, Colombia or the Caucasus, refugee problems were closely linked to those of internally displaced people, in terms of the causes and consequences of he displacement, as well as humanitarian needs. Not surprisingly, the scale and scope of UNHCR's own activities on behalf of the internally displaced had dramatically increased. Today, the Office of the High Commissioner was providing protection and assistance not only to 17 million refugees and returnees, but also to some 5 million internally displaced people.
It was a matter of great concern that hundreds of thousands of people at risk, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Burundi, from Angola to Sierra Leone, as well as in Chechnya, in the Russian Federation -- many of them internally displaced -- could not be reached by international humanitarian agencies. Even where access was available, it was often very dangerous, and humanitarian personnel from different agencies and many non-governmental organizations had been killed or attacked, harassed or threatened.
C. VON HEIDENSTAM, Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on children in armed conflict, reported on the elaboration of a draft protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on involvement of children in armed conflict. The working group started off with a fair distribution of differing country positions. It was a great challenge, but once momentum was won, no one hesitated in the end to make his or her country's contribution to obtaining an honourable compromise text. The general perception of the draft optional protocol was that no person below the age of 18 should ever be used in war.
The optional protocol was the result of fruitful cooperation between the participants, with all keeping in mind the best interests of the child. The next step was to have the text of the optional protocol adopted by the Commission and sent on to ECOSOC and the General Assembly for adoption. A resolution was being prepared and the Chairman-Rapporteur warmly recommended that the Commission unite in adopting it in due time. It would be a useful human-rights instrument for combating the use of children as soldiers.
HIDEAKI KOBAYASHI (Japan) said many children in the world still found themselves in intolerable situations, despite the efforts of the international community and the gratifying progress it had made, including the almost universal ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The sale of children, sexual exploitation of children and the use of children as soldiers were particulary cruel violations of the rights of children, as they caused serious damage not only physically but psychologically.
The international community had shown its determination to tackle these problems through its work on new Optional Protocols to the Convention. The international community was urged to respond directly to the dismal situation of children in armed conflicts and to support the victims during and after these conflicts. Education was the most efficient way to make children able to defend themselves from abuse such as sexual exploitation, use as soldiers or use as child labour. There was a need for greater cooperation, as only with the full support of the international community could improvements be brought about.
VLADIMIR KALAMANOV (Russia) said the conclusions and observations presented by High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson regarding her visit to the Northern Caucasus had referred to her mandate and had cited many provisions of undoubted significance. But for reasons unknown, no mention was made of such inalienable provisions as General Assembly resolution 48/141 including the principle of respect for territorial integrity, national jurisdiction, as well as impartiality and objectivity in fulfilling her mandate.
The responsibility of federal States was to promote human rights and ensure law and order throughout their territories. The Chechen Republic had long been a centre of slave trade, extrajudicial executions, torture and forced displacement. And the perpetrators of these crimes had expanded their activities to neighbouring republics. Russia had to take resolute action.
The expression of international concern that the High Commissioner mentioned in her statement only began after the launch of the anti-terrorist campaign but not in 1995-1996, when a mass eviction of about 500,000 people from Chechnya took place, mutilation was introduced as a form of punishment, the slave trade flourished, and torture and degrading treatment became an everyday event in the Republic.
The first-hand accounts, which according to the High Commissioner represented the most important part of her visit to Chechnya, could be dismissed as testimonies of "professional witnesses" whose sole objective was to provoke hysteria around the issue of Chechnya. Russia had taken into consideration to the maximum possible extent all the wishes of the High Commissioner on her programme of stay in Russia so as to show her the truly difficult situation in the region. Russia was requested however to organize visits to some non-existent "filtration camps".
The Commission and the High Commissioner were urged not to come up with hasty conclusions and not to believe in rumours and disinformation. The Russian side would continue to firmly pursue its policy of eradication of international terrorism, achievement of a lasting political settlement of the situation in the Chechen Republic, restoration of constitutional legality, law and order, human rights, and rehabilitation of social and economic life in the Republic.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the EU was concerned at reported gross human-rights violations in Chechnya, such as mass killings, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, violence against women, torture, arbitrary detention and pillaging. Even though criminal prosecutions had been initiated, a response on a different level was required. The EU called upon the Russian Federation to urgently establish, according to recognized international standards, a national, broad-based and independent commission of enquiry to promptly investigate alleged violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law committed in the Republic of Chechnya in order to establish the truth and identify those responsible, with a view to bringing them to justice and preventing impunity.
Russian authorities were further called upon to abide by their international commitments and to put an end to the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of military force, including attacks against civilians. The need for effective co-operation with the mechanisms of the Commission was crucial and Russian authorities were urged to accept without delay the requests already made related to those mechanisms, and to accept further requests in this field.
MIROSLAV SOMOL (Czech Republic) said the Czech Government fully appreciated the steps already taken by the Russian Federation, especially the appointment of a Special Representative of the President for Human Rights, and looked forward to the effective functioning of this office. The Czech Republic shared the view that the most effective way to assist both sides of the crisis was coordinated action carried out within the United Nations, the Council of Europe or the OSCE. A critical tone was required in a situations such as Chechnya. The Russian Federation was urged to avoid misunderstanding this critical tone as interference in its affairs, and instead to recognize it as an effort by the international community to encourage Russia to seek solutions to end the suffering of all people of the North Caucasus region.
The Czech Republic supported the High Commissioner's call for a full investigation of all human-rights violations and the setting up of an ad hoc independent commission of inquiry. Both international and national organizations should participate in resolving the humanitarian crisis in Chechnya and neighbouring republics. The international community and the UN system, including the Human Rights Commission, had a role to play in the process of seeking a political solution to the Chechen tragedy.
NANCY RUBIN (the United States) said the US was concerned about the many credible reports of human-rights and humanitarian-law violations in Chechnya by both Russia and Chechen forces. While the United States recognized Russia's right to defend its territorial integrity and protect its population against terrorism and attacks from insurgent groups, its methods could not be condoned. The violent secessionism and extremism of Chechen rebels, coupled with provocations in Dagestan and elsewhere, were legitimate security concerns. The United States had never disputed Russia's right, or indeed its responsibility, to fight terrorism on its soil.
But none of that could begin to justify the Russian Government's use of massive force against civilians inside Chechnya. That brutal war had damaged both Russia's democratic transformation and its reputation in the eyes of The world. Russia had began to take some steps in an attempt to address the Commission's concerns about its commitment to observing international human-rights standards in Chechnya. However, the United States shared the concerns expressed by the High Commissioner in her report, when she questioned whether the Russian Government's response to date matched the scale of the allegations of human-rights violations.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said that both the Russian authorities and the international community had important responsibilities to respond to accounts of violations of human rights and humanitarian law as reported by the High Commissioner in her testimony on her visit to Chechnya. The Russian authorities had the responsibility, under international law, to take decisive measures to halt all future violations of human rights and to fight impunity for past violations, including the unsolved December 1996 murder of Canadian nurse Nancy Malloy and her five ICRC colleagues. Canada therefore welcomed the appointment of a Russian special representatives for human rights in Chechnya, and hoped for an open and inclusive investigation of all allegations from all sides. This was necessary for any attempt to build long-term peace, stability and reconciliation in this troubled region.
Responding to urgent situations was an important part of the High Commissioner's mandate and she had discharged that responsibility by undertaking her visit and placing before the Commission a report identifying options for further action, including the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry with international participation. It was now incumbent on the Commission to respond in a credible and effective manner.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the OIC countries were concerned over the humanitarian catastrophe and the fate and welfare of the people of Chechnya.
The OIC sought a solution in Chechnya which, while underlining the principle of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, also envisaged the adoption of several concrete steps including termination of military operations to begin the political process; release of prisoners and hostages; safe return of refugees and displaced persons; declaration and implementation of a general amnesty, commencement of dialogue with responsible Chechen representatives; agreement on separation of powers between local and federal authorities in keeping with the 1996 Accord; freedom of religion; and reconstruction of Chechnya by all possible means.
BJORN SKOGMO (Norway) stressed that as was the case in far too many violent conflicts, there were crimes and atrocities committed by the Russian and Chechen sides in the fighting. Norway was concerned by the violence and lack of respect for fundamental standards of humanity. While the international community had no sympathy for terrorists, and did not condone armed secession, one should focus on the human-rights aspects of the situation. The reports of violations were many, and they were too serious, too many and too well-documented not to be given due consideration. The impression Norway got from the High Commissioner's report, as well as from the response of the Russian Government, was that due consideration was not yet being given to the subject.
A more in-depth investigation of the alleged human-rights violations was required, and an impartial investigation was needed, with no impunity. The proposal for the establishment of an independent national commission of inquiry was supported by Norway. Such a commission should have unrestricted access in order to carry out its investigations. It was up to the Russian authorities to create the commission and to conduct an inquiry, and the Government should give due consideration to the many allegations and reports stemming from the situation in and around Chechnya.
ROMANS BAUMANIS (Latvia) said the human-right violations taking place in Chechnya could not be accepted. Latvia did not question the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation nor the obligation of the Russian authorities to fight terrorism. However, the indiscriminate manner in which the Russian authorities were conducting this campaign was intolerable. A minority in the region was responsible for the terrorist acts and the whole civilian population could not be made to pay for their crimes. The Latvian delegation questioned what the refugees could return home to as their were no homes, schools or hospitals left, only ruins.
Four proposals could lead to a long-lasting peace: assurance from Russian authorities that federal troops would observe human rights; establishment of a national commission of inquiry that was a cross-sectional nature; cooperation with the special mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights; and cooperation between the national commission of inquiry and the Commission itself. It was up to Russia to restore law in Chechnya with the help of the international community through a process of transparency and good will.
SAVITRI KUNADI (India) said developments in the Northern Caucasus region of the Russian Federation were a manifestation of the problem of international terrorism. It was for the Government of the Russian Federation to determine the steps it should take to protect its Constitutional order and territorial integrity. Note was taken of the statement by the delegation of the Russian Federation that Russia had not hidden the truth concerning Chechnya, was not limiting access to Chechnya, was taking active steps to resolve socio-economic problems there, had initiated a national process to look into human-rights issues and had remained open to dialogue on the subject.
It was to be hoped that the Commission would encourage these positive trends and would not take any action that could further complicate an already difficult and complex situation. The international community should direct its efforts towards ensuring that terrorism and extremism did not destabilize legitimately established Governments and States.
LI BAODONG (China) said the Chinese Government appreciated the open and transparent position adopted by the Government of the Russian Federation on the issue of Chechnya. It was a positive gesture on the part of Russian authorities to agree to a visit by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Second, China was opposed to any kind of terrorism, religious extremism and ethnic separatism and understood and supported the Government of the Russian Federation for its effort to safeguard national unity, territorial integrity and social stability, and hence supported it for taking necessary actions in Chechnya to this end.
Finally, the Chinese Government was of the view that the issue of Chechnya belonged to the internal affairs of the Russian Federation and that Russian authorities were capable of resolving related problems in an appropriate way.
FRANCOIS NORDMAN (Switzerland) said there was satisfaction that a constructive dialogue was under way between Russian authorities and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The declaration of the Russian delegation concerning the will of the Government to cooperate with the High Commissioner was gratifying, as were the positive measures taken by the Russian authorities recently concerning the humanitarian situation in Chechnya. The opening of an office of the representative of the President in Chechnya was an indication the good will and the participation of experts from the Council of Europe in that office was welcomed.
In spite of these efforts, Switzerland considered that the situation in Chechnya still remained of great concern. The Government was alarmed by reports of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law which might have been committed by the Russian armed forces. The same concern was expressed at allegations of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by the Chechen rebels.
ROGER FARRELL (New Zealand) said the New Zealand Government was deeply concerned by reports of human-rights abuses and by the humanitarian cost associated with the conflict in Chechnya. New Zealand recognized the Government of the Russian Federation's legitimate concerns about terrorist activities within its territory. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation's response to these concerns had been disproportionate. It was clear from the High Commissioner's report that the human-rights and humanitarian situation in the region required urgent action. The Russian Federation was urged to move with haste to respect and uphold the human rights of all those affected by the conflict, bearing in mind its international obligations. The High Commissioner's call on the Russian Federation to establish a credible independent commission of inquiry into reports of human-rights abuses was fully supported.
Reports of human-rights abuses committed by Chechen fighters were also a cause of concern. Nevertheless, the responsibility for addressing human-rights violations must rest primarily with the Russian authorities. The situation of internally displaced persons was of continuing concern and the Government of the Russian Federation was urged to do all within its power to ease the plight of those forced from their homes and also to grant access to international relief agencies to administer humanitarian assistance.
CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) said the scale and seriousness of these allegations made an expression of concern by the main human-rights body of this organization indispensable. Those who denied the veracity of these allegations should also have an interest in having them examined in a independent and therefore credible manner. The period between the two wars in Chechnya had been absent of political dialogue and of significant reconstruction and economic development. The outbreak of a second war was thus all but predictable. Terrorism could not be used as a wholesale label to justify the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force against an entire civilian population.
Yet another brutal full-scale armed conflict in Chechnya could only be prevented if a long-term political solution to the conflict and its underlying causes was found and carried out in good faith by the parties. The Commission was best equipped to deal with the alleged violations of international humanitarian and human-rights law. It should thus assert its leading role in the area of human rights and make a clear pronouncement on the human-rights situation in Chechnya.
PITSO MONTWEDI (South Africa) said South Africa was gravely concerned by the continuing violence in Chechnya, especially by reports, not least by the High Commissioner, about the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of military force against civilians. The scale of the humanitarian impact of the conflict was well-documented. The widespread loss of civilian life and the material destruction caused was deplorable. Both sides to the conflict should observe and honour international human-rights and humanitarian law. South Africa appreciated the High Commissioner's comprehensive, balanced and objective report, the contents of which had been noted.
South Africa unconditionally condemned acts of terrorism. The parties to the conflict had not exhausted all possibilities for peaceful resolution of the conflict before its escalation to the levels witnessed to date, just as both sides seemed not to have made a credible attempt to minimize civilian casualties.
AUDRIUS NAVIKAS (Lithuania) said Lithuania shared the concern expressed by the international community about the disproportionate use of armed force and the difficult situation of civilians in this region of Russia. Lithuania also supported efforts to persuade the Russian Government to create the possibility for providing humanitarian assistance to displaced persons and to solve existing problems in the region through political dialogue.
It was hoped that the Russian Federation would continue cooperation with international organizations and would establish, according to international standards, a national broad-based and independent commission of inquiry into serious allegations of human-rights violations in Chechnya.
M. YUSHKEVICH (Belarus) said terrorism was a tumor, and if it was not prevented or attacked it would spread across borders, undermining social systems and undermining the right to life. It had been recognized in the Vienna Declaration that the methods and practices of terrorism could only be prevented through measures taken by States. Russia was acting according to this prinicple.
The Russian Federation had to fight a threat to its territorial integrity, terrorism and organized crime simultaneously, and no State would be able to fight this battle in a perfect way where no one was hurt.
ALEXEY KOROTAEV, of International League for Human Rights, said it was important that there be an international commission of inquiry into allegations of war crimes and other atrocities in the North Caucasus. However, the League supported the efforts of the High Commissioner to foster an independent national commission of inquiry because historically, and in the present day, there had never been a case where an international commission of inquiry had been permitted to work meaningfully and for any length of time on Russian territory.
A national commission should contain persons of eminence and credibility in Russia, as well as independent Russian legal specialists who could provide assurances, both to the Russian public and the international community, that their inquiry was impartial and unbiased. The commission should be constituted separately from existing official and quasi-official bodies of the State and the armed forces.
JUNSEI TERASAWA, of International Peace Bureau, said the international community's utter indifference to the fate of the Chechen people had allowed Russia to unleash the most brutal military campaign against a civilian population ever seen in the Caucasus region. Despite the gruesome war crimes committed by the Russian federal forces, the West continued to give political and financial support to Russia. The tragedy which had befallen the whole of the Chechen population should not be blamed only on Russia but on the entire international community, including the Commission.
In her report the High Commissioner quoted Russian justifications for the military operation. However, she omitted the Chechen position, which affirmed that Chechens had taken every legal step to exercise their constitutional right to self-determination and secession from the USSR during the breakup of the Soviet Union. The aim of the current Russian military campaign was to silence the legitimate Chechen claim for freedom by brutally punishing the whole nation. The war crimes and gross human-rights violations committed during the military campaign constituted acts of genocide against the Chechen nation.
MAQBOOL AHMAD, of World Muslim Congress, said human-rights violations amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity had undeniably been committed on a large scale, with brutality, relish and impunity, by the Russian army. These violations were so flagrant that any protests to the contrary would simply not be believable. The evidence was overwhelming. More than 200,000 men, women and children, forcibly displaced, escaping army assault, forced to find refuge in neighbouring countries, had found nothing but rubble when they returned home. The "filtration camps" were concentration camps where guards routinely beat and systematically tortured and humiliated the captives.
The Russian Government must honour the truce and agreement arrived at after the first Chechnyan war.
PATRICK BAUDOUIN, of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, said the Federation had already presented its report on the situation in Chechnya in order to establish the legal responsibilities for the bombardment of the population. Indiscriminate and massive bombardment, summary executions, torture, ill-treatment and arbitrary detention, among others offenses, had been reported. Civilians had been the first target of the military operation carried out by the Russian and Chechen forces. During the occupation of villages, a cleansing operation had taken place at the frontiers which involved grave violations of the human rights and international humanitarian law.
The whole of the violations surveyed in the report constituted crimes of war and crimes against humanity due to their massive and systematic character, according to the definition of international instruments.
YUONNE TERLINGER, of Amnesty International, in a joint statement with Human Rights Watch, said both organizations had provided the international community with mounting evidence of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed by Russian forces in Chechnya. The reaffirmation by the High Commissioner that "primary responsibility for addressing human rights violations... rests with the Russian authorities" was welcomed. However, a national commission of inquiry into these allegations was not the effective response that victims of human-rights violations deserved and the rule of law required for the following reasons:
The response from the Russian authorities so far to credible allegations of human rights violations did not constitute a serious attempt to deal with the grave situation in the Chechen Republic. The Government refused to permit the High Commissioner access to detention places where torture and ill-treatment had reportedly taken place. This revealed the emptiness of the Government's rhetoric of transparency and political will to allow effective investigations into its human-rights record. The lack of real commitment by the Russian authorities to satisfactorily investigate human-rights abuses and prosecute those guilty was borne out by the pattern of inadequate investigations into allegations of human-rights violations and the culture of impunity that prevailed during the first Chechen conflict in 1994-1996. The Commission could not escape its responsibility to insist on credible and commensurate responses to the massive human-rights abuses which had been committed in Chechnya, and a UN-based commission of inquiry was a prerequisite.
AKHYAD IDIGOV, of Transnational Radical Party, said Russia, a worthy successor to the Soviet Union, continued the bloody epic it had begun in Afghanistan, passing through Lithuania, Ngorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Fergana, Georgia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Abkhazia, Ingushetia and Chechnya. That list would continue if no action was taken at the international level. Russian action taken against the Chechen people could only be described as genocide. The Chechens' right to self-determination was an important element of any attempt to establish stability and peace in the Caucasus. This key question could not be avoided.
The Russian Government had done all it could to cultivate fear among peoples living within its borders to win the 2000 presidential elections and to block the economic interests of western countries attempting to bypass Moscow. Negociations on Chechnya could only be effective if carried out with the authorities legally elected in 1997 under the leadership of President Aslan Maskhadov.
LAZARO PARRY, of Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", said the tragedy in Chechnya was of great concern. The war in that region was being carried out under the strategy of the oligarchy, which was represented by the corrupted class of the media. These new Machiavellian magnates, with the tacit understanding of the Kremlin, controlled 50 per cent of the Russian economy and were channeling the country's resources to their own advantage, including money provided by the International Monetary Fund.
The war unleashed by the Russian authorities against the Chechen people under the pretext of combating "terrorists, criminals and bandits", had no purpose except attempting to cleanse the region of its ethnic and Islamic minorities. The people of Chechnya claimed autonomy and independence, but the Government of Russia, in place of seeking a political solution to the conflict, was using artillery against these minorities.
GEORGE GORDON-LENNOX, of Reporters sans frontières, said the Russian offensive in Chechnya had been accompanied by grave violations of human rights, including attacks against the free press. Chechnya was one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists. A dozen of reporters had been killed between 1994 and 1996 while covering the first Chechen war. Three Chechen cameramen had been killed during bombings by the federal army in December 1999. Some 20 journalists had been kidnapped since 1997. A reporter of the Russian agency Itar Tass was believed to have been killed by his kidnappers on 20 February.
While most of the Russian media backed the Russian Government, the Russian authorities had not hesitated to stifle opposition. Since the outbreak of the conflict, Russian officials had been hostile towards journalists and reporters working in Chechnya, in particular foreign correspondents, dozens of whom had been interrogated and accused of wanting to discredit the Russian forces. Access to Chechnya remained conditional on accreditation delivered by the military forces. It was impossible to obtain such accreditation.
DAVID LITTMAN, of Association of World Citizens, said no one had devoted the time, the intellectual energy nor the funds needed when the warning signs in Chechnya were first there. The Commission was meeting in another special meeting repeating that destructive and genocidal conflicts should not have been allowed to happen, repeating that the guilty should be punished and that "next time" the Commission must act sooner.
Three elements should be highlighted for future action: the importance of the work on codification of the "fundamental standards of humanity"; the importance of the Commission hearing from representatives of groups engaged in armed conflicts; and finally the need for better articulation of efforts at conflict resolution between the UN system, regional inter-governmental bodies, national governments and NGOs. Such cooperation and coordination was difficult, given the different mandates and structures involved, but there was a need to act together creatively.
MICHEL MONOD, of War Resisters International, said the High Commissioner had described with compassion the sufferings of Chechen women trapped in a conflict which they did not want and of which they were now the innocent victims. They lived in wagons with their children and some had been submitted to incredible tortures. The fate of young Russians involuntarily trapped in the conflict was to be mentioned, too. Many had died in a war they did not want and in which they had been forced to participate.
Five years ago, during the first war in Chechnya, mothers of Russian soldiers had gone to that country to bring back their sons. The Chechen combatants had given the prisoners back to the mothers. It was not possible this time because hatred and resentments were too high. Was it acceptable that young men who had been studying together for years should be forced to kill each another?
TEIMOURAZ RAMISHVILI (the Russian Federation) said comments were still being heard about the disproportionate use of force in Chechnya. What sort of measures would be considered proportionate to eradicate not dozens or hundreds but thousands of armed groups? It was regrettable that numerous delegates had continued along lines they had adopted months ago. Other delegates had adopted a more responsible approach.
Russia, on its part, would continue to investigate allegations of violence and study all material submitted to it by NGOs and national and international organizations.
ALICIA PEREZ DUARTE (Mexico) said there was concern about the results obtained by the Working Group which had elaborated an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child with regard to sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Mexico was not fully satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations because the protocol might not be effective in protecting certain rights of the child and would not suppress some unacceptable practices.
In addition, Mexico was concerned that the constant reference to domestic legislation would contravene the principle of the primacy of international conventions over domestic legislation. It would seriously jeopardize international cooperation, which was indispensable for combating effectively violations of children's rights. Mexico, for its part, also attached great importance to the total eradication of the participation of children in armed conflicts.
* *** *