Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
Default title
17 April 2000
Share
Commission on Human Rights
56th session
17 April 2000
Morning
Condemns Violations of Human Rights in Occupied Arab Territories, Terrorism, Agrees to Appoint Special Rapporteurs on Right to Food, Right to Housing
The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted eight resolutions and one decision which condemned issues ranging from the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories to terrorism and hunger.
In a resolution adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour, 1 against and 19 abstentions on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the Commission condemned the continued violations of human right in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.
A resolution on human rights in the Syrian Golan, which was adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour, to 1 against and 19 abstentions, the Commission called upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character of the Golan Heights and to stop its repressive measures against Syrian citizens.
Similarly, the Commission expressed concern at the continued Israeli settlement activities by adopting a resolution on Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, which was approved by a roll-call vote of 50 in favour, to 1 against and 1 abstention. It strongly condemned all acts of terrorism and called upon all parties not to allow any acts of terrorism to affect the ongoing peace process negatively.
The Commission also adopted a resolution on the right to food reaffirming that hunger constituted an outrage and a violation of human dignity and requiring the adoption of urgent measures at the national, regional and international levels for its elimination. The resolution was adopted by a roll-call vote of 49 in favour, to 1 against and 2 abstaining. The Commission decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur for three years whose mandate focused on the right to food.
In a resolution on the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights, the Commission reaffirmed that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want could be achieved only if conditions were created whereby everyone might enjoy his or her economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his or her civil and political rights. The resolution, which was adopted without a vote, decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur for three years whose mandate focused on aspects related to the right to adequate housing.
Another resolution which was adopted by the Commission concerned human rights and unilateral measures. In its resolution on human rights and extreme poverty, the Commission decided to renew, for a period of two years, the mandate of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty to evaluate the relation between the promotion and protection of human rights and the eradication of extreme poverty. There was also a resolution on women’s equal ownership, access to, and control over land, and equal rights to own property and housing. A decision was taken which approved a recommendation by the Subcommission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to ask two of its members to carry out a study on globalization and its impact on the enjoyment of human rights.
Following its action on the resolutions and the decision, the Commission continued its debate on the promotion and protection of human rights with special focus on the status of the international covenants on human rights, human rights defenders, information and education, and science and environment.
The representatives of the following countries made statements on the promotion and protection of human rights: Botswana, Germany, Norway, Senegal and El Salvador.
The Commission resumes its plenary at 3 p.m. to continue its debate on the promotion and protection of human rights and to take further action on draft resolutions. It is scheduled to hold an extended meeting until 9 p.m.
Action on Resolutions and Decision
The Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour, to 1 against and 19 abstentions a resolution on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine (E/CN.4/2000/L.7) which condemned the continued violations of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, in particular the continuation of acts of wounding and killing perpetrated by Israeli soldiers and settlers against Palestinians, in addition to the detention of thousands of Palestinians without trial, and the continuation of the confiscation of Palestinian lands; the extension and the establishment of Israeli settlements thereon, the confiscation of Palestinian property and expropriation of their land, the demolition of Palestinian homes and the uprooting of fruit trees; and called upon Israel to cease immediately those acts, which constituted a major obstacle in the way of the peace process.
It further condemned the use of torture against Palestinians during interrogation, as this constituted a grave breach of the principles of international humanitarian law and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and called upon the Government of Israel to put an end immediately to the use of such practices; to cease immediately its policy of enforcing collective punishment, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territory, measures which constituted flagrant violations of international law and international humanitarian law, endangered the lives of Palestinians and also constituted a major obstacle in the way of peace; to desist from all forms of violations of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and other occupied Arab territories; and to withdraw from the territories it occupied since 1967.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: the United States.
Abstentions: Argentina, Canada, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and Spain.
DAVID PELEG (Israel) said that draft resolution L7 was of a political nature, was introduced for political purposes and was aimed at achieving political aims. The draft resolution had nothing to do with the issues which the Commission discussed. The resolution, like other resolutions on Israel, wanted to predetermine the issues currently being discussed between Israel and the Palestinians. The parties were intensively discussing issues relating to the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza with a view to reaching a framework agreement by May and a full agreement by September. Any effort to predetermine these issues might damage the peace process. If those who had introduced the draft resolution had an interest in promoting human rights, they would have agreed to change the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in order for it to have a time limit and to include areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority.
Currently, 99 per cent of Palestinians lived in territory under Palestinian control and only 1 per cent lived under Israeli control. What justification was there for the resolution to refer only to 1 per cent of Palestinians, the Israeli representative asked, adding that human rights monitoring groups had documented many violations in the areas under Palestinian control. Members of the Commission were urged not to support the draft resolution. The Commission had to be appreciative of the fact that some things had changed in the Middle East in the past years. The Commission should therefore give expression to the changes achieved on the ground.
NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine) said it was necessary to respond to some of the points made by the delegation of Israel. All representatives were aware that all the paragraphs in the draft resolution pertained to Israeli human right violations and international law and were not politically motivated. The draft resolution reflected violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Accusing the Commission of being politically motivated was an allegation. The current negotiations referred to were political negotiations and did not concern the violations of human rights. Concerning the Special Rapporteur, the Commission had taken its decision that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur could continue until the end of the occupation. That Israeli claim that 99 per cent of Palestinians lived under the Palestinian authorities was a clear distortion of the truth.
NANCY RUBIN (the United States) said that his country did not back resolutions L/7, L/8 and L/9 since they did not support the peace process or human rights. The people of the Middle East had been working hard to achieve peace in the region and were now closer to this goal. The resolutions, however, did not reflect the progress made. Further, the parties had agreed that direct negotiations were the only way to achieve peace. The Commission should not try to inject itself into the peace process and adopt one-sided resolutions.
ALVARO MENDONCA MOURA (Portugal) said on behalf of the European Union and associated States that the EU could not support the draft resolution. There had been positive improvements in the region. Inspite of the progress and although the parties had committed themselves to adhere to international law in Madrid, severe human rights violations continued in the occupied territories. More action had to be taken by the Israeli Government to adhere to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to which Israel was party.
The Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour, to 1 against and 19 abstentions a resolution on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan (E/CN.4/2000/L.8) which called upon Israel, the occupying power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, particularly resolution 497 (1981), in which the Council inter alia, had decided that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void and without international legal effect, and demanded that Israel should rescind forthwith its decision; also called upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, and emphasized that the displaced persons of the population of the occupied Syrian Golan should be allowed to return to their homes and to recover their properties.
The Commission further called upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan and to desist from its repressive measures against them. It determined that all legislation and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, that purported to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, were null and void, and constituted flagrant violations of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and had no legal effect. It decided to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-seventh session, as a matter of high priority, the item entitled "Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including, Palestine".
The result of the vote was a follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: the United States.
Abstentions: Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom.
DAVID PELEG (Israel) said that resolutions L/8 and L/9 dealt with the subjects of the Golan and settlements which were currently under discussion between Israel and Syria, and Israel and the Palestinians. It was hoped that negotiations with Syria would resume soon so that outstanding issues could be discussed at an accelerated pace. The issue of settlements was also being
discussed with the Palestinians. The said resolutions aimed at predetermining the results of the negotiations which were currently at a crucial stage. The Commission was urged to support the peace process and direct negotiations by not voting in favour of the resolutions.
NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine) said the delegation of Israel had made unjust referrals to Palestine. The negotiations did not mean that the Palestinians would agree on the issue of settlements as they violated human rights laws and were considered a war crime. In the negotiations between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority, Palestine would demand the disintegration of all settlements since the 1967 war.
ALVARO MENDONCA MOURA (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and the countries associated with it, regretted that it was not able to support draft resolution L.8 on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan. The EU considered that the language in the present text went further than that contained in other UN resolutions on the Syrian Golan. The EU would have liked it if Syria had taken the initiative to make changes to the text of the resolution to bring it more into line with the General Assembly resolutions and, at the same time, to put a stronger focus on the human rights question in order for the EU to be able to consider supporting the resolution.
The Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 50 in favour, to 1 against and 1 abstaining a resolution on Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories (E/CN.4/2000/L.9) which welcomed the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum of 4 September 1999, while noting with concern the delays in its implementation, and called for the full implementation of the Memorandum, as well as of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 and other related agreements.
It expressed grave concern at the continuing Israeli settlement activities, in spite of the Government's moratorium on new construction permits, including the expansion of the settlements, the installation of settlers in the occupied territories, the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses; also the confiscation of property, the expulsion of local residents and the construction of bypass roads, which changed the physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, since all those actions were illegal, constituted violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and were a major obstacle to peace.
The Commission also expressed grave concern at and strongly condemned all acts of terrorism, whilst calling upon all parties not to allow any acts of terrorism to affect the ongoing peace process negatively. It urged the Government of Israel to comply fully with the previous Commission resolutions on the subject, most recently resolution 1999/7 of 23 April 1999; to match its stated commitment to the peace process with concrete actions to fulfil its obligations and cease completely its policy of expanding the settlements and related activities in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem; and to forgo and prevent any more installation of settlers in the occupied territories. It decided to continue its consideration of that question at its next session.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: the United States.
Abstentions: Romania.
The Commission adopted without a vote a resolution on the question of the realization in all countries of the economic and social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and study of special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve these human rights (E/CN4./2000/L.17) which welcomed ongoing efforts by the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly towards a coordinated follow-up to relevant United Nations world conferences and summits. It reaffirmed that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want could be achieved only if conditions were created whereby everyone might enjoy his or her economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his or her civil and political rights.
It also reaffirmed that all persons in all countries were entitled to the realization of their economic, social and cultural rights, which were indispensable to their dignity and the free development of their personality; the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and that promoting and protecting one category of rights should therefore never exempt or excuse States from the promotion and protection of other rights; and called upon all States to give full effect to economic, social and cultural rights and to guarantee that they would be exercised without discrimination.
Further, the Commission decided, among other things, to encourage the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to continue its efforts towards the promotion and protection of human rights at the national and international levels and the full realization of specific rights; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to invite all States to submit their comments on the options relating to the proposal for a draft optional protocol to the International Covenant. It called upon all States to give full effect to the right to education and to guarantee that it would be exercised without discrimination of any kind.
The Commission decided to appoint, for a period of three years, a Special Rapporteur whose mandate would focus on aspects related to the right to adequate housing. The Special Rapporteur would be requested, in fulfilling his or her mandate, to, among others, report on the status of the progressive realization of and developments relevant to housing rights around the world; to promote assistance to Governments in their efforts to progressively secure housing rights; and to develop a regular dialogue and discuss possible areas of collaboration with Governments, relevant United Nations bodies, specialized agencies, international organizations in the field of housing rights, inter alia the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT), non-governmental organizations and international financial institutions and to make recommendations on the realization of housing rights.
SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) expressed gratitude to the delegation of Germany and recognized the principal role played by the sponsor of the draft resolution. India reaffirmed its support for the need to promote economic, social and cultural rights and the need to address the disequilibrium between the former rights and civil and political rights. International action was as important as national action. India would go along with the draft resolution in the hope that increased attention was focused on international cooperation in the years to come.
In a resolution on the right to food (E/CN.4/2000/L.19), adopted by a roll-call vote of 49 in favour, to 1 against and 2 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that hunger constituted an outrage and a violation of human dignity and, therefore, required the adoption of urgent measures at the national, regional and international levels for its elimination; also reaffirmed the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger so as to be able to fully develop and maintain their physical and mental capacities. It considered intolerable that 825 million people, most of them women and children, throughout the world, and particularly in developing countries, did not have enough food to meet their basic nutritional needs, which infringed on their fundamental human rights and at the same could generate additional pressures upon the environment which was already ecologically fragile.
The Commission stressed the need to make efforts to mobilize and optimize the allocation and utilization of technical and financial resources from all sources, including external debt relief for developing countries, to reinforce national actions to implement sustainable food security policies; encouraged all States to take all necessary steps to promote the conditions for everyone to be free from hunger and as soon as possible to enjoy the right to food; recommended that the High Commissioner for Human Rights organize a third expert consultation on the right to food, following those held in 1997 and 1998, this time with a focus on implementation mechanisms at country level, and inviting experts to bring experiences from all regions; and decided, in order to respond fully to the necessity for an integrated and coordinated approach in the promotion of the right to food, to appoint, for a period of three years, a special rapporteur, whose mandate would focus on the right to food.
The result of the vote was as follow:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: the United States.
Abstentions: Czech Republic, and Latvia
MICHEAL McCAMMAN (the United States) said the right to food was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments. The US was the world's largest provider of food aid. Agricultural trade liberalization was critical in ensuring food security. However, the best way of ensuring food security was to increase food production.
In a resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (E/CN.4/2000/L.21), adopted by a roll-call vote of 36 in favour, to 9 against and 7 abstentions, the Commission urged all States to refrain from adopting or implementing unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those of a coercive nature with extraterritorial effects, which could create obstacles to trade relations among States, thus impeding the full realization of the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, in particular the right of individuals and peoples to develop. It invited all States to consider adopting administrative or legislative measures, as appropriate, when necessary, to counteract the extraterritorial application or effects of unilateral coercive measures.
It rejected the application of such measures as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, particularly against developing countries, because of their negative effects on the realization of all human rights of vast sectors of their population; reaffirmed the right of all peoples to self-determination, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development; underlined that unilateral coercive measures were one of the major obstacles to the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development and called upon all States to avoid such unilateral measures; and decided to give due consideration to the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures in its task concerning the implementation of the right to development.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Liberia, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: Canada, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Abstentions: Czech Republic, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Republic of Korea and Spain.
In a resolution on human rights and extreme poverty (E/CN.4/2000/L.22), adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed, among other things, that extreme poverty and exclusion from society constituted a violation of human dignity and that urgent national and international action was therefore required to eliminate them; that the right to life included within it existence in human dignity with the minimum necessities of life; that it was essential for States to foster participation by the poorest people in the decision-making process in the societies in which they lived, in the realization of human rights and in efforts to combat extreme poverty; and that the existence of widespread absolute poverty inhibited the full and effective enjoyment of human rights and rendered democracy and popular participation fragile.
The Commission recalled that the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development and the Programme of Action of the World Summit on Social Development provided substantive frameworks for eradicating poverty, by setting specific targets, drawing up plans and implementing programmes; and that, to ensure the protection of the rights of all individuals, non-discrimination towards the poorest and the full exercise of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, a better understanding was needed of what was endured by people living in poverty and that thought should be given to the subject, drawing on the experience and ideas of the poorest themselves and of those committed to working alongside them.
Further, the Commission expressed its appreciation that an integrated approach was being followed by the United Nations system in addressing the question of extreme poverty; that the international financial institutions had developed new policies strengthening the human and social dimension of their action; and for the initiatives taken in many countries by national education authorities to raise awareness among all children and young people of the existence of extreme poverty and the urgent need for united action to enable the poorest people to regain their rights. It called upon the General Assembly, specialized agencies, United Nations bodies and intergovernmental organizations to take into account the contradiction between the existence of situations of extreme poverty and exclusion from society, which should be overcome, and the duty to guarantee full enjoyment of human rights.
The Commission decided to renew, for a period of two years, the mandate of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty to evaluate the relation between the promotion and protection of human rights and the eradication of extreme poverty, including through the identification of national and international practices; and to consider strategies to overcome extreme poverty and the social impact of those strategies. It requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize a seminar to consider the need to develop a draft declaration on extreme poverty, if appropriate, to identify its specific points. The Commission recommended a draft decision for adoption by the Economic and Social Council on the issue.
NANCY RUBIN (the United States) said his country joined the consensus on human rights and extreme poverty which had a terrible effect on individual and national growth. Human development was therefore a priority. The work of the Independent Expert was constructive, however the United States expressed reservations on the proposals of holding a seminar on drafting a declaration on poverty as this would duplicate the work of the Copenhagen Summit. The UN and the Commission should not create a new mechanism but should implement the already existing ones. The promotion of human rights was an essential element in any strategy to eradicate extreme poverty and effort should reinforce and should not supplant respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
In a resolution on women's equal ownership of, access to and control over land and the equal rights to own property and to adequate housing (E/CN.4/2000/L.24), adopted without a vote, the Commission affirmed that discrimination in law against women with respect to acquiring and securing land, property and housing, as well as financing for land, property and housing constituted a violation of women's human rights which protected them against discrimination. It reaffirmed women's rights to an adequate standard of living, including adequate housing, as enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; also reaffirmed the obligation of States to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise.
The Commission urged Governments to comply fully with their international and regional obligations and commitments concerning land tenure and the equal rights of women to own property and to an adequate standard of living, including adequate housing; encouraged Governments to support the transformation of customs and traditions that discriminated against women and denied women security of tenure and equal ownership of, access to and control over land and equal rights to own property and to adequate housing and to ensure the right of women to equal treatment in land and agrarian reform.
In a decision (2), the Commission approved, without a vote, a recommendation of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights that Subcommission members J. Oloka-Onyango and Deepika Udagama be appointed Special Rapporteurs to undertake a study on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, and recommended a draft decision to the Economic and Social Council to that effect.
The promotion and protection of human rights with special focus on the status of the international covenants on human rights, human rights defenders, information and education, and science and environment
Under this agenda item, the Commission has before it a report by the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2000/90) on impunity. The report summarizes information by States, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations on any legislative, administrative or other steps they had taken to combat impunity for human rights violations in their territory. Information was received from the Governments of Cuba, Cyprus, Germany, New Zealand, Peru and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Information was also received from the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and the International Federation of Surgical Colleges.
There is a report by the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2000/91) on impunity for perpetrators of violations of economic, social and cultural rights. The report contains related information and comments from Governments and non-governmental organizations. The report concludes that the Member States as well as NGOs, for the most part, identify the same strategy to combat impunity. By way of prevention at the national level, there is a need to include legislative, administrative and legal measures which States should adopt for the realization of the economic, social and cultural rights of individuals and peoples. At the international level, international organizations and States are given a principal role. Where prevention is concerned, the proposals made include: the adoption of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights under which violations could be reported, the adoption of a declaration against violations of economic, social and cultural rights, and the reform of financial institutions, notably the IMF and the World Bank.
There is a report (E/CN.4/2000/93) by the Secretary-General on the implementation of the Plan of Action of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, 1995-2004, which consists of components for the strengthening of international and regional programmes and capacities for human rights, the strengthening of national and local programmes and
capacities for human rights education, coordinated development of materials for human rights education and the global dissemination of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The report also includes an annex on the Seoul Declaration and the conclusions and recommendations of the Subregional Training Workshop on Human Rights Education in North-East Asia.
There is a report (E/CN.4/2000/95) by the Secretary-General on the implementation of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The report consists of the main elements of the Declaration, the views of the Governments, specialized agencies and inter-Governmental and non-Governmental organizations on the implementation of the Declaration, and the appropriate ways for the effective promotion and implementation of the Declaration. The appropriate ways for implementation include, inter alia, that the Declaration be popularized and widely distributed, that monitoring of the implementation of the Declaration should be incorporated in an existing United Nations mandate or mandates, and that each State must ensure effective promotion and implementation of the Declaration.
There is a report (E/CN.4/2000/94) by the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to Commission resolution 1999/65 on the promotion and protection of human rights, focusing on the fundamental standards of humanity. The report contains information on the desirability of identifying fundamental standards of humanity, the purposes of fundamental standards of humanity, the sources and methods for identifying fundamental standards of humanity and recommendations for further development. The recommendations include, inter alia, proposals by Sweden, Poland, and Switzerland, as well as the International Institute for Humanitarian Law, Help Age International, the International Office for Catholic Education, the Association for World Education and the International Movement of Apostolate in the Independent Social Milieus.
There is a report by the Secretary-General (4/2000/89) on the status of the international covenants on human rights. The report notes that as of 1 January 2000, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been ratified or acceded to by 142 States; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by 145 States; the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by 95 States; and the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by 41 States. The report contains the list of States parties to the Covenants and the Optional Protocols, the dates of their ratification, accession or successions as well as the dates of entry into force of those instruments for each State.
Continuation of debate on the promotion and protection of human rights
LEGWAILA LEGWAILA (Botswana) said the death penalty in Botswana was reserved for the most serious crimes as follows: causing the death of another person with malice afterthought, that was, the intention to cause the death of a person or to cause grievous harm. The death penalty was also imposed for acts of treason, on any one who prepared or endeavoured to overthrow by unlawful means the Government. In both cases, the court would not impose the death penalty where there were extenuating circumstances. Under the law, the death penalty could not be passed on the following persons: those under the age of 18 years or who were under that age when they committed the offence; a pregnant woman; and persons who were insane.
Whereas the decision on whether or not the death penalty was to be imposed in any particular case was left to the courts of law that operated independently of the Government or executive, the final decision whether or not the death penalty should be carried out remained in the hands of the executive. But before the accused person could look to the executive for clemency, he or she had an automatic right to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Botswana had retained the death penalty because it believed that those who intentionally took away innocent lives, not because their own life was in any danger or under any threat but because they were driven by greed and they killed in cold blood for their own benefit, had no right to live in a caring society. Botswana firmly believed that it had put in place procedures or checks and balances that ensured that the death penalty was only imposed and carried out in those cases where it was well deserved.
CHRISTIAN MUCH (Germany) said the German Parliament had increasingly paid attention to human rights questions. There was a separate parliamentary committee which considered human rights in the international community and also in the German domestic context. German human rights policy was particularly relevant to the agenda item on abolishment of capital punishment and the protection of human rights defenders. The death penalty was abolished in 1949 in the basic law and the Constitution was clear in article 102 which stated that 'Capital punishment is abolished'. Not only the German parliament but the whole Government considered the death penalty to be repelling and inhuman. The death penalty violated the most basic right, the right to life. All human beings were entitled to the right to life, regardless of the crimes they had committed. The execution of a death penalty was irreparable. Only the abolition of capital punishment would ensure that States fully respected the right to life.
The second issue of concern was the protection of human rights defenders, and Germany aligned itself to the statement made by Portugal in the name of the European Union. Human rights defenders continued to suffer from the violation of civil and political rights, but they were increasingly also suffering from economic, social and cultural discrimination which often constituted a powerful substitute with equally far reaching consequences. The mechanisms of the Commission were neither geographically not thematically covering all human rights issues at stake. If the Commission did not have the appropriate mechanisms for implementation, the Declaration would indeed be a toothless tiger. The German delegation suggested that the Declaration be made the basis for the mandate of the mechanisms so all issues were put on the table.
BJORN SKOGMO (Norway) said that the Human Rights Defenders Declaration was a landmark achievement and one of the most valuable contributions to the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The next step should be to ensure the full and effective implementation of the Declaration through a more focused, dedicated follow-up within the framework of the Commission. Norway therefore proposed a Special Representative be appointed on human rights defenders.
A separate mandate was the best response to the challenges faced by human rights defenders for the following reasons: the existing thematic mandates of the Commission did not cover all issues relating to the free and effective functioning of human rights defenders; existing country mechanisms only covered a few countries; existing mechanisms were not able to provide a comprehensive review of the situation for human rights defenders. Appointing a Special Representative would also give a clear indication of the importance of this issue while the mandate would continue to remain under the control of the Commission.
MOMAR GUEYE (Senegal) said his delegation had much respect for the remarkable action undertaken by human rights defenders. As one human rights activist underlined, in all States of the world, dictatorial regimes, economic interests, collective hatred nourished by unhealed memory and impunity, continued to violate the human dignity. To be effective, the work of the human rights defenders should take into consideration the geophysical, cultural, ethnic or religious situations. They should also constantly keep in mind the realization of the universal objectives of human rights required for life conditions without hunger, misery or exclusion. The efforts of the human rights defenders should continue to focus on the categories of the most weak and the most vulnerable, including children, women, the dispossessed, minorities, and migrants.
In order to guarantee the role of human rights defenders in very a effective manner, at the same time of their protection in a global environment, it seemed useful to strengthen the capacity of the Commission to reconcile the imperatives which respected the sovereignty of States and the prevalence of international obligations. Senegal was profoundly sensitive to the difficulties encountered by human rights defenders in their fight and the authorities supported their efforts.
CARLOS GARCIA GONZALEZ (El Salvador) supported the statement given by Panama, but wished to expand on the developments in El Salvador in the context of the International Year for Culture and Peace. In the 1980s, El Salvador had been involved in a cruel civil war which had led to casualties, the disintegration of the infrastructure and the increase of human rights violations. El Salvador was now involved in the process of transition featuring the historical goal of the full democraticization of the country. The political, cultural and economic institutions of participation required restructuring in the process towards an integrated society. El Salvador had worked in close cooperation with UNESCO on establishing a culture of peace. The consolidation of the programme was linked to the vision of El Salvador on its future. El Salvador also wanted to be clean and green and an open country without frontiers. This required the sound backing of NGOs and government bodies. There was a new Covenant consisting of various strategic actions on delinquency, sustainable human development, the right of minors, the disabled and women.
The year 2000 was a year for culture and peace. The Government of El Salvador had drawn up and implemented national action plans for peace and had created institutions responsible for this action plan. Amongst these institutions were bodies on education, public security, national defense, environment and natural resources, municipalities, women, disabled and minors. There was also participation by NGOs in the National Action Plan on education, violence and democratic participation.
* *** *
56th session
17 April 2000
Morning
Condemns Violations of Human Rights in Occupied Arab Territories, Terrorism, Agrees to Appoint Special Rapporteurs on Right to Food, Right to Housing
The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted eight resolutions and one decision which condemned issues ranging from the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories to terrorism and hunger.
In a resolution adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour, 1 against and 19 abstentions on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the Commission condemned the continued violations of human right in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.
A resolution on human rights in the Syrian Golan, which was adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour, to 1 against and 19 abstentions, the Commission called upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character of the Golan Heights and to stop its repressive measures against Syrian citizens.
Similarly, the Commission expressed concern at the continued Israeli settlement activities by adopting a resolution on Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, which was approved by a roll-call vote of 50 in favour, to 1 against and 1 abstention. It strongly condemned all acts of terrorism and called upon all parties not to allow any acts of terrorism to affect the ongoing peace process negatively.
The Commission also adopted a resolution on the right to food reaffirming that hunger constituted an outrage and a violation of human dignity and requiring the adoption of urgent measures at the national, regional and international levels for its elimination. The resolution was adopted by a roll-call vote of 49 in favour, to 1 against and 2 abstaining. The Commission decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur for three years whose mandate focused on the right to food.
In a resolution on the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights, the Commission reaffirmed that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want could be achieved only if conditions were created whereby everyone might enjoy his or her economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his or her civil and political rights. The resolution, which was adopted without a vote, decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur for three years whose mandate focused on aspects related to the right to adequate housing.
Another resolution which was adopted by the Commission concerned human rights and unilateral measures. In its resolution on human rights and extreme poverty, the Commission decided to renew, for a period of two years, the mandate of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty to evaluate the relation between the promotion and protection of human rights and the eradication of extreme poverty. There was also a resolution on women’s equal ownership, access to, and control over land, and equal rights to own property and housing. A decision was taken which approved a recommendation by the Subcommission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to ask two of its members to carry out a study on globalization and its impact on the enjoyment of human rights.
Following its action on the resolutions and the decision, the Commission continued its debate on the promotion and protection of human rights with special focus on the status of the international covenants on human rights, human rights defenders, information and education, and science and environment.
The representatives of the following countries made statements on the promotion and protection of human rights: Botswana, Germany, Norway, Senegal and El Salvador.
The Commission resumes its plenary at 3 p.m. to continue its debate on the promotion and protection of human rights and to take further action on draft resolutions. It is scheduled to hold an extended meeting until 9 p.m.
Action on Resolutions and Decision
The Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour, to 1 against and 19 abstentions a resolution on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine (E/CN.4/2000/L.7) which condemned the continued violations of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, in particular the continuation of acts of wounding and killing perpetrated by Israeli soldiers and settlers against Palestinians, in addition to the detention of thousands of Palestinians without trial, and the continuation of the confiscation of Palestinian lands; the extension and the establishment of Israeli settlements thereon, the confiscation of Palestinian property and expropriation of their land, the demolition of Palestinian homes and the uprooting of fruit trees; and called upon Israel to cease immediately those acts, which constituted a major obstacle in the way of the peace process.
It further condemned the use of torture against Palestinians during interrogation, as this constituted a grave breach of the principles of international humanitarian law and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and called upon the Government of Israel to put an end immediately to the use of such practices; to cease immediately its policy of enforcing collective punishment, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territory, measures which constituted flagrant violations of international law and international humanitarian law, endangered the lives of Palestinians and also constituted a major obstacle in the way of peace; to desist from all forms of violations of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and other occupied Arab territories; and to withdraw from the territories it occupied since 1967.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: the United States.
Abstentions: Argentina, Canada, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and Spain.
DAVID PELEG (Israel) said that draft resolution L7 was of a political nature, was introduced for political purposes and was aimed at achieving political aims. The draft resolution had nothing to do with the issues which the Commission discussed. The resolution, like other resolutions on Israel, wanted to predetermine the issues currently being discussed between Israel and the Palestinians. The parties were intensively discussing issues relating to the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza with a view to reaching a framework agreement by May and a full agreement by September. Any effort to predetermine these issues might damage the peace process. If those who had introduced the draft resolution had an interest in promoting human rights, they would have agreed to change the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in order for it to have a time limit and to include areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority.
Currently, 99 per cent of Palestinians lived in territory under Palestinian control and only 1 per cent lived under Israeli control. What justification was there for the resolution to refer only to 1 per cent of Palestinians, the Israeli representative asked, adding that human rights monitoring groups had documented many violations in the areas under Palestinian control. Members of the Commission were urged not to support the draft resolution. The Commission had to be appreciative of the fact that some things had changed in the Middle East in the past years. The Commission should therefore give expression to the changes achieved on the ground.
NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine) said it was necessary to respond to some of the points made by the delegation of Israel. All representatives were aware that all the paragraphs in the draft resolution pertained to Israeli human right violations and international law and were not politically motivated. The draft resolution reflected violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Accusing the Commission of being politically motivated was an allegation. The current negotiations referred to were political negotiations and did not concern the violations of human rights. Concerning the Special Rapporteur, the Commission had taken its decision that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur could continue until the end of the occupation. That Israeli claim that 99 per cent of Palestinians lived under the Palestinian authorities was a clear distortion of the truth.
NANCY RUBIN (the United States) said that his country did not back resolutions L/7, L/8 and L/9 since they did not support the peace process or human rights. The people of the Middle East had been working hard to achieve peace in the region and were now closer to this goal. The resolutions, however, did not reflect the progress made. Further, the parties had agreed that direct negotiations were the only way to achieve peace. The Commission should not try to inject itself into the peace process and adopt one-sided resolutions.
ALVARO MENDONCA MOURA (Portugal) said on behalf of the European Union and associated States that the EU could not support the draft resolution. There had been positive improvements in the region. Inspite of the progress and although the parties had committed themselves to adhere to international law in Madrid, severe human rights violations continued in the occupied territories. More action had to be taken by the Israeli Government to adhere to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to which Israel was party.
The Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour, to 1 against and 19 abstentions a resolution on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan (E/CN.4/2000/L.8) which called upon Israel, the occupying power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, particularly resolution 497 (1981), in which the Council inter alia, had decided that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void and without international legal effect, and demanded that Israel should rescind forthwith its decision; also called upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, and emphasized that the displaced persons of the population of the occupied Syrian Golan should be allowed to return to their homes and to recover their properties.
The Commission further called upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan and to desist from its repressive measures against them. It determined that all legislation and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, that purported to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, were null and void, and constituted flagrant violations of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and had no legal effect. It decided to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-seventh session, as a matter of high priority, the item entitled "Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including, Palestine".
The result of the vote was a follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: the United States.
Abstentions: Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom.
DAVID PELEG (Israel) said that resolutions L/8 and L/9 dealt with the subjects of the Golan and settlements which were currently under discussion between Israel and Syria, and Israel and the Palestinians. It was hoped that negotiations with Syria would resume soon so that outstanding issues could be discussed at an accelerated pace. The issue of settlements was also being
discussed with the Palestinians. The said resolutions aimed at predetermining the results of the negotiations which were currently at a crucial stage. The Commission was urged to support the peace process and direct negotiations by not voting in favour of the resolutions.
NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine) said the delegation of Israel had made unjust referrals to Palestine. The negotiations did not mean that the Palestinians would agree on the issue of settlements as they violated human rights laws and were considered a war crime. In the negotiations between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority, Palestine would demand the disintegration of all settlements since the 1967 war.
ALVARO MENDONCA MOURA (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and the countries associated with it, regretted that it was not able to support draft resolution L.8 on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan. The EU considered that the language in the present text went further than that contained in other UN resolutions on the Syrian Golan. The EU would have liked it if Syria had taken the initiative to make changes to the text of the resolution to bring it more into line with the General Assembly resolutions and, at the same time, to put a stronger focus on the human rights question in order for the EU to be able to consider supporting the resolution.
The Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 50 in favour, to 1 against and 1 abstaining a resolution on Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories (E/CN.4/2000/L.9) which welcomed the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum of 4 September 1999, while noting with concern the delays in its implementation, and called for the full implementation of the Memorandum, as well as of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995 and other related agreements.
It expressed grave concern at the continuing Israeli settlement activities, in spite of the Government's moratorium on new construction permits, including the expansion of the settlements, the installation of settlers in the occupied territories, the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses; also the confiscation of property, the expulsion of local residents and the construction of bypass roads, which changed the physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, since all those actions were illegal, constituted violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and were a major obstacle to peace.
The Commission also expressed grave concern at and strongly condemned all acts of terrorism, whilst calling upon all parties not to allow any acts of terrorism to affect the ongoing peace process negatively. It urged the Government of Israel to comply fully with the previous Commission resolutions on the subject, most recently resolution 1999/7 of 23 April 1999; to match its stated commitment to the peace process with concrete actions to fulfil its obligations and cease completely its policy of expanding the settlements and related activities in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem; and to forgo and prevent any more installation of settlers in the occupied territories. It decided to continue its consideration of that question at its next session.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: the United States.
Abstentions: Romania.
The Commission adopted without a vote a resolution on the question of the realization in all countries of the economic and social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and study of special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve these human rights (E/CN4./2000/L.17) which welcomed ongoing efforts by the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly towards a coordinated follow-up to relevant United Nations world conferences and summits. It reaffirmed that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want could be achieved only if conditions were created whereby everyone might enjoy his or her economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his or her civil and political rights.
It also reaffirmed that all persons in all countries were entitled to the realization of their economic, social and cultural rights, which were indispensable to their dignity and the free development of their personality; the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and that promoting and protecting one category of rights should therefore never exempt or excuse States from the promotion and protection of other rights; and called upon all States to give full effect to economic, social and cultural rights and to guarantee that they would be exercised without discrimination.
Further, the Commission decided, among other things, to encourage the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to continue its efforts towards the promotion and protection of human rights at the national and international levels and the full realization of specific rights; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to invite all States to submit their comments on the options relating to the proposal for a draft optional protocol to the International Covenant. It called upon all States to give full effect to the right to education and to guarantee that it would be exercised without discrimination of any kind.
The Commission decided to appoint, for a period of three years, a Special Rapporteur whose mandate would focus on aspects related to the right to adequate housing. The Special Rapporteur would be requested, in fulfilling his or her mandate, to, among others, report on the status of the progressive realization of and developments relevant to housing rights around the world; to promote assistance to Governments in their efforts to progressively secure housing rights; and to develop a regular dialogue and discuss possible areas of collaboration with Governments, relevant United Nations bodies, specialized agencies, international organizations in the field of housing rights, inter alia the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT), non-governmental organizations and international financial institutions and to make recommendations on the realization of housing rights.
SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) expressed gratitude to the delegation of Germany and recognized the principal role played by the sponsor of the draft resolution. India reaffirmed its support for the need to promote economic, social and cultural rights and the need to address the disequilibrium between the former rights and civil and political rights. International action was as important as national action. India would go along with the draft resolution in the hope that increased attention was focused on international cooperation in the years to come.
In a resolution on the right to food (E/CN.4/2000/L.19), adopted by a roll-call vote of 49 in favour, to 1 against and 2 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that hunger constituted an outrage and a violation of human dignity and, therefore, required the adoption of urgent measures at the national, regional and international levels for its elimination; also reaffirmed the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger so as to be able to fully develop and maintain their physical and mental capacities. It considered intolerable that 825 million people, most of them women and children, throughout the world, and particularly in developing countries, did not have enough food to meet their basic nutritional needs, which infringed on their fundamental human rights and at the same could generate additional pressures upon the environment which was already ecologically fragile.
The Commission stressed the need to make efforts to mobilize and optimize the allocation and utilization of technical and financial resources from all sources, including external debt relief for developing countries, to reinforce national actions to implement sustainable food security policies; encouraged all States to take all necessary steps to promote the conditions for everyone to be free from hunger and as soon as possible to enjoy the right to food; recommended that the High Commissioner for Human Rights organize a third expert consultation on the right to food, following those held in 1997 and 1998, this time with a focus on implementation mechanisms at country level, and inviting experts to bring experiences from all regions; and decided, in order to respond fully to the necessity for an integrated and coordinated approach in the promotion of the right to food, to appoint, for a period of three years, a special rapporteur, whose mandate would focus on the right to food.
The result of the vote was as follow:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: the United States.
Abstentions: Czech Republic, and Latvia
MICHEAL McCAMMAN (the United States) said the right to food was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments. The US was the world's largest provider of food aid. Agricultural trade liberalization was critical in ensuring food security. However, the best way of ensuring food security was to increase food production.
In a resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (E/CN.4/2000/L.21), adopted by a roll-call vote of 36 in favour, to 9 against and 7 abstentions, the Commission urged all States to refrain from adopting or implementing unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those of a coercive nature with extraterritorial effects, which could create obstacles to trade relations among States, thus impeding the full realization of the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, in particular the right of individuals and peoples to develop. It invited all States to consider adopting administrative or legislative measures, as appropriate, when necessary, to counteract the extraterritorial application or effects of unilateral coercive measures.
It rejected the application of such measures as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, particularly against developing countries, because of their negative effects on the realization of all human rights of vast sectors of their population; reaffirmed the right of all peoples to self-determination, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development; underlined that unilateral coercive measures were one of the major obstacles to the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development and called upon all States to avoid such unilateral measures; and decided to give due consideration to the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures in its task concerning the implementation of the right to development.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Liberia, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: Canada, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Abstentions: Czech Republic, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Republic of Korea and Spain.
In a resolution on human rights and extreme poverty (E/CN.4/2000/L.22), adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed, among other things, that extreme poverty and exclusion from society constituted a violation of human dignity and that urgent national and international action was therefore required to eliminate them; that the right to life included within it existence in human dignity with the minimum necessities of life; that it was essential for States to foster participation by the poorest people in the decision-making process in the societies in which they lived, in the realization of human rights and in efforts to combat extreme poverty; and that the existence of widespread absolute poverty inhibited the full and effective enjoyment of human rights and rendered democracy and popular participation fragile.
The Commission recalled that the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development and the Programme of Action of the World Summit on Social Development provided substantive frameworks for eradicating poverty, by setting specific targets, drawing up plans and implementing programmes; and that, to ensure the protection of the rights of all individuals, non-discrimination towards the poorest and the full exercise of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, a better understanding was needed of what was endured by people living in poverty and that thought should be given to the subject, drawing on the experience and ideas of the poorest themselves and of those committed to working alongside them.
Further, the Commission expressed its appreciation that an integrated approach was being followed by the United Nations system in addressing the question of extreme poverty; that the international financial institutions had developed new policies strengthening the human and social dimension of their action; and for the initiatives taken in many countries by national education authorities to raise awareness among all children and young people of the existence of extreme poverty and the urgent need for united action to enable the poorest people to regain their rights. It called upon the General Assembly, specialized agencies, United Nations bodies and intergovernmental organizations to take into account the contradiction between the existence of situations of extreme poverty and exclusion from society, which should be overcome, and the duty to guarantee full enjoyment of human rights.
The Commission decided to renew, for a period of two years, the mandate of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty to evaluate the relation between the promotion and protection of human rights and the eradication of extreme poverty, including through the identification of national and international practices; and to consider strategies to overcome extreme poverty and the social impact of those strategies. It requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize a seminar to consider the need to develop a draft declaration on extreme poverty, if appropriate, to identify its specific points. The Commission recommended a draft decision for adoption by the Economic and Social Council on the issue.
NANCY RUBIN (the United States) said his country joined the consensus on human rights and extreme poverty which had a terrible effect on individual and national growth. Human development was therefore a priority. The work of the Independent Expert was constructive, however the United States expressed reservations on the proposals of holding a seminar on drafting a declaration on poverty as this would duplicate the work of the Copenhagen Summit. The UN and the Commission should not create a new mechanism but should implement the already existing ones. The promotion of human rights was an essential element in any strategy to eradicate extreme poverty and effort should reinforce and should not supplant respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
In a resolution on women's equal ownership of, access to and control over land and the equal rights to own property and to adequate housing (E/CN.4/2000/L.24), adopted without a vote, the Commission affirmed that discrimination in law against women with respect to acquiring and securing land, property and housing, as well as financing for land, property and housing constituted a violation of women's human rights which protected them against discrimination. It reaffirmed women's rights to an adequate standard of living, including adequate housing, as enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; also reaffirmed the obligation of States to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise.
The Commission urged Governments to comply fully with their international and regional obligations and commitments concerning land tenure and the equal rights of women to own property and to an adequate standard of living, including adequate housing; encouraged Governments to support the transformation of customs and traditions that discriminated against women and denied women security of tenure and equal ownership of, access to and control over land and equal rights to own property and to adequate housing and to ensure the right of women to equal treatment in land and agrarian reform.
In a decision (2), the Commission approved, without a vote, a recommendation of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights that Subcommission members J. Oloka-Onyango and Deepika Udagama be appointed Special Rapporteurs to undertake a study on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, and recommended a draft decision to the Economic and Social Council to that effect.
The promotion and protection of human rights with special focus on the status of the international covenants on human rights, human rights defenders, information and education, and science and environment
Under this agenda item, the Commission has before it a report by the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2000/90) on impunity. The report summarizes information by States, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations on any legislative, administrative or other steps they had taken to combat impunity for human rights violations in their territory. Information was received from the Governments of Cuba, Cyprus, Germany, New Zealand, Peru and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Information was also received from the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and the International Federation of Surgical Colleges.
There is a report by the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2000/91) on impunity for perpetrators of violations of economic, social and cultural rights. The report contains related information and comments from Governments and non-governmental organizations. The report concludes that the Member States as well as NGOs, for the most part, identify the same strategy to combat impunity. By way of prevention at the national level, there is a need to include legislative, administrative and legal measures which States should adopt for the realization of the economic, social and cultural rights of individuals and peoples. At the international level, international organizations and States are given a principal role. Where prevention is concerned, the proposals made include: the adoption of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights under which violations could be reported, the adoption of a declaration against violations of economic, social and cultural rights, and the reform of financial institutions, notably the IMF and the World Bank.
There is a report (E/CN.4/2000/93) by the Secretary-General on the implementation of the Plan of Action of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, 1995-2004, which consists of components for the strengthening of international and regional programmes and capacities for human rights, the strengthening of national and local programmes and
capacities for human rights education, coordinated development of materials for human rights education and the global dissemination of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The report also includes an annex on the Seoul Declaration and the conclusions and recommendations of the Subregional Training Workshop on Human Rights Education in North-East Asia.
There is a report (E/CN.4/2000/95) by the Secretary-General on the implementation of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The report consists of the main elements of the Declaration, the views of the Governments, specialized agencies and inter-Governmental and non-Governmental organizations on the implementation of the Declaration, and the appropriate ways for the effective promotion and implementation of the Declaration. The appropriate ways for implementation include, inter alia, that the Declaration be popularized and widely distributed, that monitoring of the implementation of the Declaration should be incorporated in an existing United Nations mandate or mandates, and that each State must ensure effective promotion and implementation of the Declaration.
There is a report (E/CN.4/2000/94) by the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to Commission resolution 1999/65 on the promotion and protection of human rights, focusing on the fundamental standards of humanity. The report contains information on the desirability of identifying fundamental standards of humanity, the purposes of fundamental standards of humanity, the sources and methods for identifying fundamental standards of humanity and recommendations for further development. The recommendations include, inter alia, proposals by Sweden, Poland, and Switzerland, as well as the International Institute for Humanitarian Law, Help Age International, the International Office for Catholic Education, the Association for World Education and the International Movement of Apostolate in the Independent Social Milieus.
There is a report by the Secretary-General (4/2000/89) on the status of the international covenants on human rights. The report notes that as of 1 January 2000, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been ratified or acceded to by 142 States; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by 145 States; the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by 95 States; and the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by 41 States. The report contains the list of States parties to the Covenants and the Optional Protocols, the dates of their ratification, accession or successions as well as the dates of entry into force of those instruments for each State.
Continuation of debate on the promotion and protection of human rights
LEGWAILA LEGWAILA (Botswana) said the death penalty in Botswana was reserved for the most serious crimes as follows: causing the death of another person with malice afterthought, that was, the intention to cause the death of a person or to cause grievous harm. The death penalty was also imposed for acts of treason, on any one who prepared or endeavoured to overthrow by unlawful means the Government. In both cases, the court would not impose the death penalty where there were extenuating circumstances. Under the law, the death penalty could not be passed on the following persons: those under the age of 18 years or who were under that age when they committed the offence; a pregnant woman; and persons who were insane.
Whereas the decision on whether or not the death penalty was to be imposed in any particular case was left to the courts of law that operated independently of the Government or executive, the final decision whether or not the death penalty should be carried out remained in the hands of the executive. But before the accused person could look to the executive for clemency, he or she had an automatic right to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Botswana had retained the death penalty because it believed that those who intentionally took away innocent lives, not because their own life was in any danger or under any threat but because they were driven by greed and they killed in cold blood for their own benefit, had no right to live in a caring society. Botswana firmly believed that it had put in place procedures or checks and balances that ensured that the death penalty was only imposed and carried out in those cases where it was well deserved.
CHRISTIAN MUCH (Germany) said the German Parliament had increasingly paid attention to human rights questions. There was a separate parliamentary committee which considered human rights in the international community and also in the German domestic context. German human rights policy was particularly relevant to the agenda item on abolishment of capital punishment and the protection of human rights defenders. The death penalty was abolished in 1949 in the basic law and the Constitution was clear in article 102 which stated that 'Capital punishment is abolished'. Not only the German parliament but the whole Government considered the death penalty to be repelling and inhuman. The death penalty violated the most basic right, the right to life. All human beings were entitled to the right to life, regardless of the crimes they had committed. The execution of a death penalty was irreparable. Only the abolition of capital punishment would ensure that States fully respected the right to life.
The second issue of concern was the protection of human rights defenders, and Germany aligned itself to the statement made by Portugal in the name of the European Union. Human rights defenders continued to suffer from the violation of civil and political rights, but they were increasingly also suffering from economic, social and cultural discrimination which often constituted a powerful substitute with equally far reaching consequences. The mechanisms of the Commission were neither geographically not thematically covering all human rights issues at stake. If the Commission did not have the appropriate mechanisms for implementation, the Declaration would indeed be a toothless tiger. The German delegation suggested that the Declaration be made the basis for the mandate of the mechanisms so all issues were put on the table.
BJORN SKOGMO (Norway) said that the Human Rights Defenders Declaration was a landmark achievement and one of the most valuable contributions to the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The next step should be to ensure the full and effective implementation of the Declaration through a more focused, dedicated follow-up within the framework of the Commission. Norway therefore proposed a Special Representative be appointed on human rights defenders.
A separate mandate was the best response to the challenges faced by human rights defenders for the following reasons: the existing thematic mandates of the Commission did not cover all issues relating to the free and effective functioning of human rights defenders; existing country mechanisms only covered a few countries; existing mechanisms were not able to provide a comprehensive review of the situation for human rights defenders. Appointing a Special Representative would also give a clear indication of the importance of this issue while the mandate would continue to remain under the control of the Commission.
MOMAR GUEYE (Senegal) said his delegation had much respect for the remarkable action undertaken by human rights defenders. As one human rights activist underlined, in all States of the world, dictatorial regimes, economic interests, collective hatred nourished by unhealed memory and impunity, continued to violate the human dignity. To be effective, the work of the human rights defenders should take into consideration the geophysical, cultural, ethnic or religious situations. They should also constantly keep in mind the realization of the universal objectives of human rights required for life conditions without hunger, misery or exclusion. The efforts of the human rights defenders should continue to focus on the categories of the most weak and the most vulnerable, including children, women, the dispossessed, minorities, and migrants.
In order to guarantee the role of human rights defenders in very a effective manner, at the same time of their protection in a global environment, it seemed useful to strengthen the capacity of the Commission to reconcile the imperatives which respected the sovereignty of States and the prevalence of international obligations. Senegal was profoundly sensitive to the difficulties encountered by human rights defenders in their fight and the authorities supported their efforts.
CARLOS GARCIA GONZALEZ (El Salvador) supported the statement given by Panama, but wished to expand on the developments in El Salvador in the context of the International Year for Culture and Peace. In the 1980s, El Salvador had been involved in a cruel civil war which had led to casualties, the disintegration of the infrastructure and the increase of human rights violations. El Salvador was now involved in the process of transition featuring the historical goal of the full democraticization of the country. The political, cultural and economic institutions of participation required restructuring in the process towards an integrated society. El Salvador had worked in close cooperation with UNESCO on establishing a culture of peace. The consolidation of the programme was linked to the vision of El Salvador on its future. El Salvador also wanted to be clean and green and an open country without frontiers. This required the sound backing of NGOs and government bodies. There was a new Covenant consisting of various strategic actions on delinquency, sustainable human development, the right of minors, the disabled and women.
The year 2000 was a year for culture and peace. The Government of El Salvador had drawn up and implemented national action plans for peace and had created institutions responsible for this action plan. Amongst these institutions were bodies on education, public security, national defense, environment and natural resources, municipalities, women, disabled and minors. There was also participation by NGOs in the National Action Plan on education, violence and democratic participation.
* *** *