Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Special Procedures
Default title
25 October 2000
Share
Fifty-fifth General Assembly
Third Committee
35th Meeting (PM)
25 October 2000
The world community should display more understanding towards countries with problems that could only be helped by international cooperation, the Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Haiti said in commenting on Haiti’s solo response to his report. The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) heard that appeal this afternoon, as it continued considering human rights issues, including alternative approaches, human rights situations, the Vienna Declaration and the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Noting that no other delegation had commented on the report, the Independent Expert, Adama Dieng, said the silence confirmed that Haiti stood alone in its struggle to secure its rights to democracy, dignity and development. Aside from the Five Friends -- Chile, Argentina, France, Canada, Venezuela and the United States -- all working in the background, few countries had come forward on Haiti’s behalf. He urged the High Commissioner for Human Rights to attend meetings in the Haitian Parliament to promote ratification of core human rights instruments.
Responding to the report on the situation of human rights in her country, the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo recalled the High Commissioner’s comment yesterday to the effect that some countries were not being accorded much attention. Answering criticisms of his report from several representatives, the Special Rapporteur cited budget and distribution limitations. “I had to report on nine wars in 16 pages, and limit my presentation today to 10 minutes”, he said about a mission that had been reduced to 12 days. In that time, he had visited seven prisons but had seen only one prisoner. Ten-kilometre security zones under local authority had also restricted his crossing of frontiers.
The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq introduced his report by saying that just today he had conducted important meetings with Iraq’s representatives and those of the Office of the Iraq Programme. He said dialogue and cooperation were the way to promote human rights; only if they failed should exposure be used as deterrence. It was absolutely vital for him to visit the country before reaching conclusions about alleged abuses. Pending a reply to his request, he was holding meetings in Geneva, Kuwait and London with Iraqi men and women who were victims or had witnessed human rights violations.
Responding to the report on his country, Iraq’s representative stressed the importance of the Special Rapporteur’s integrity. He said a previous rapporteur had been biased and had used his mandate to call for foreign intervention to change the country. Those actions had blatantly contravened the spirit of the mandate of all special rapporteurs, namely, non-selectivity and objectivity. Iraq now pledged its cooperation with what it hoped were sincere and honest attempts to deal with the human rights situation in Iraq.
Resuming the morning’s question and answer session on the human rights situation in the Sudan, the Special Rapporteur for human rights in that country, Leonardo Franco, welcomed the Sudan’s morning announcement about lifting the state of emergency and requesting electoral monitors. He said he regretted the charges of bias in his report, but he sought and received the most credible information possible from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others.
Also taking part in the question and answer segments with the rapporteurs and experts were the representatives of Libya, Egypt, Cuba, China, Rwanda, France (on behalf of the European Union), Burundi, Namibia and the Sudan.
The Committee will meet again at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, 26 October, to continue its consideration of questions related to human rights issues, including alternative approaches, human rights situations and the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Committee Work Programme
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this afternoon to continue considering human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Committee would also consider human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives; implementation and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993); and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (For background, see Press Release GA/SHC/3603 of 24 October.)
In addition to the other reports, the Committee has before it that of the Human Rights Committee (document A/55/40/Vols.I and II). The report outlines the proceedings of the Committee’s sixty-seventh (18 October-5 November, Geneva), sixty-eighth (13-31 March, New York) and sixty-ninth session (10-28 July, Geneva). It states that, as of the closing day of the last session, 145 States were parties to the International Covenant on Civilization and Political Rights, while 95 were parties to the first Optional Protocol concerning individual communications. Both have been in force since 1976.
The report describes activities of special rapporteurs and working groups, as well as other activities of the United Nations system in the field of human rights, such as the Committees on the various Conventions. It describes derogations to article 4 regarding public emergency measures by States and new developments with regard to the Committee’s working methods. Also described are cooperative actions with other United Nations bodies, plus the status of reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant, beginning with a graphic presentation of overdue reports.
The bulk of the report concerns communications. Volume I outlines the Committee’s consideration of State reports submitted by Norway, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Portugal (Macao), Cameroon, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Congo, United Kingdom, Mongolia, Guyana, Kyrgysztan, Ireland, Kuwait and Australia. It also outlines consideration of communications under the optional protocol, as well as follow-up activities to that protocol. Annexes list the States parties to the Protocol, comments adopted under article 40 referring to freedom of movement and equality of men and women, as well as other listings, including decisions of the Human Rights Committee.
Volume II contains an outline of communications and of decisions by the Human Rights Committee declaring communications inadmissible.
Resumption of Questions and Answers with Special Rapporteur On Human Rights Situation in Sudan, LEONARDO FRANCO
Before addressing the agenda for the meeting, the Committee first resumed its question-and-answer with Mr. Franco, suspended at the close of this morning’s meeting.
The representative of Libya pointed out improvements in the Sudan’s human rights situation, including the country’s hosting of refugees from neighbouring countries and the setting up of a human rights commission. Egypt’s representative, in turn, said his country had launched a joint effort with the Sudan to bring about a cessation of the 18-year fighting in the southern part of the country. Cuba’s representative asked: What about the positive aspects of the Sudan’s cooperation? Who are the sources for the Special Rapporteur’s information on the Sudan? What was the basis for thinking the Sudan had turned cooperative? the representative of China asked. And what about oil, since economics was a good safeguard for human rights in many countries while poverty was an impediment?
MR. FRANCO, Special Rapporteur for human rights in the Sudan, said he would highlight the Sudan’s announcement of the morning that it would lift the state of emergency and had requested electoral monitors. He said he regretted the charges of bias in his report, but he sought and received the most credible information possible from non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and others. In any event, it was always good to investigate alleged violations.
Further, he said attacks on civilian populations should always be avoided. Clear rules for distinguishing between military and civilian targets had been set out by the international community. With regard to incidents involving university students, the question came down to how university students could organize in a country undergoing a transformation to democracy. With regard to oil, he did not believe any State should be deprived of exploiting its resources -- but there was a problem when those resources were used to violate human rights. A special committee should be set up to investigate kidnappings. In summary, he said the important point was to find solutions to problems, and his feeling was that more could be done. And, as far as he knew, the Sudan had not yet applied to remove the derogation under article 4 of the International Covenant on Civilization and Political Rights, regarding actions in time of public emergency.
Introductory Statement, Independent Expert On Situation of Human Rights in Haiti
ADAMA DIENG, Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Haiti, introduced his report, stressing that his mission had occurred during a time of heightened tension between the Government and the international community as a result of events surrounding the recent elections. Those tensions would still be in evidence as the country, once again, held elections in November. Those elections would also be held against the backdrop of a deteriorating human rights situation. That state of affairs had led him to focus his current report on the effects of far-reaching political change within the country. It was essential, he said, for Haiti’s political leaders to make a genuine commitment to strengthen the culture of democracy and reject violence. The Government must become actively involved in the promotion and protection of human rights. It must also ensure the increased participation of civil actors in political affairs. To that end, he had recommended that a conference be held encouraging political leaders and civil society to cooperate in working to solve the country’s current problems and the challenges ahead. Thus far, he had been encouraged by the responses he had received.
While searching for ways to assist the people of Haiti to overcome the severe difficulties they faced as a result of economic and political transition, the international community should not lose sight of the fact that the country was both complex and “complexed”. The main problem, he said, was in some ways less related to human rights than to the need to strengthen capacity-building. That was but another reason to highlight the vital need to integrate the principle of democracy at all levels. He said that, in recognition of the dominant role of the judicial system in strengthening human rights, it was urgent to take immediate steps to implement a plan of action relating to the judicial system. Many Haitian citizens criticized the justice system as slow, costly or exclusionary. They saw courts as ruling in favour of rich against poor, city against country and men against women. That evinced corruption or, at the very least, arbitrariness, he said. It was essential to restore the credibility of the system.
Finally, he said that he resented the idea that money had been wasted in the cause of Haiti. Some progress had been made, and basic texts for independent justice were now under consideration. The Government had taken a particular interest in addressing the serious problems of drug trafficking and money laundering. The Government had also deployed efforts to ensure that a large segment of the youth population enjoyed the right to education. He called for further support from the donor community, not only to fulfil financial obligations but to show a strong commitment to the country’s attempts to establish a basis on which reform could be founded. In that regard, he noted that human rights were also economic and social rights. He urged all those who would like to see Haiti emerge victorious from the cycle of poverty, hunger and despair to focus more on matters related to social justice and strengthening democracy. He noted with hope that, in 2004, when Haiti celebrated its important heritage as the first black independent republic, the country could show the world that its years of struggle and sacrifice in the pursuit of freedom and democracy were not in vain.
Questions and Answers
Responding to the Independent Expert’s statement, the representative of Haiti said that taking stock of the situation in her country over the last decade, one would conclude that there had been progress in the human rights situation. She then turned to some specifics of the Independent Expert’s report. She noted that a section of the report dealt with elements of Haiti’s constitution, particularly its provisions on freedom of expression. It was important to note that liberty was not licence, she said. On the question of corruption and politicization of the country’s police force, she said that officers were aware that they were subject to discipline. Fighting impunity was an utmost priority for Haiti, she continued. Of the current conditions in the country, only one thing could be done: to lay the foundations of democracy which would lead the way to the eradication of poverty.
She added that it would not shock anyone in the room to raise the question of development during the current debate. The right to development was just as much a basic right as social and political rights. In order for Haiti to emerge from the vicious circle of poverty and achieve sustainable development, an equitable distribution of the benefits and costs of globalization was required. In other words, democratization of society must be preceded by a democratization of globalization.
Noting that only the delegation of Haiti had commented on his report, the Independent Expert said that perhaps the silence in the room confirmed what he had recently come to believe was true: that Haiti stood alone in its struggle to secure its rights to democracy, dignity and development. Aside from the Five Friends of Haiti –- Chile, Argentina, France, Canada, Venezuela and the United States –- working in the background, it was disheartening that so few members of the international community had come forward on Haiti’s behalf. It was time for the world community to display more understanding, he said. Perhaps Haiti did have its share of problems, but broad international cooperation could only help. He urged the High Commissioner to attend meetings in the Haitian Parliament to promote the ratification of core human rights instruments.
Introductory Statement, Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Situation, Democratic Republic of the Congo
ROBERTO GARRETON, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said he would read out selected portions of his report (document GA/SHC/3603 of 24 October) to highlight a number of concerns. It seemed a call for war had gone out, and many Congolese had a deep distrust of the United Nations. About 50,000 Congolese were in direct danger from the war and from the economic and social conditions in the country. An international inquiry should be conducted into violations of human rights. Neither the Government nor the rebels seemed at all interested in a cessation of hostilities.
Personal freedom was constantly violated, he continued. The amnesty granted by the Government was very unevenly applied. Freedom of speech was non-existent, and the right to a fair trial was not respected. Further, victims of violations had no recourse through appeals. Opposition members were not free to move about, and church leaders of all faiths were being arrested. The special circumstances of war could be advanced in extenuation – if there were any progress made to end the war. The people were exhausted by a conflict that was not the country’s own. He recommended that the Government work with the facilitator, that a moratorium be called for the death penalty, that connections with the Interahamwe be broken off, and that the primacy of international, over national, law should be recognized. He called on the Government to refrain from all reprisals and to restore mechanisms that had been destroyed. He also called for adequate financial resources to be made available for human rights programmes.
Comments on Special Rapporteur’s Remarks
In responding to the report on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the representative of that country pointed out that the Special Rapporteur had traveled around her country freely and without obstruction. He had also described the war accurately by saying it was not of the country’s own making. His claim of human rights violations must be taken in the context of any country, however hard it strove for the ideal, that was subject to violations of its people’s rights.
Unfortunately, she continued, the report had fallen victim to falsehoods and inaccuracy, for example, in omitting to state that the Democratic Republic was a party to the protocol to the Geneva Convention. Further, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, had only yesterday told the Committee, “some countries, such as Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, are not receiving adequate attention”.
The representatives of Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi took issue with sections of the report that referred to them, all three saying the report contained inaccuracies. Uganda’s representative said his Government would take remedial steps if wrongdoing could be proven against it. Further, Uganda had no reason to exploit the Democratic Republic’s resources. Its presence in that country, for security reasons, had been confirmed by the Security Council. It was time to stop blaming and seek solutions in the provisions of the Lusaka Agreements.
Rwanda’s representative noted that the report was brief, and was based on a single visit to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It made allegations against his country that were not tenable. “Is this a human rights report or political propaganda?” he asked.
Burundi’s representative said his country had no political or territorial designs on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It had neither attacked the Democratic Republic, nor posed a human rights threat to it. Rather, the Democratic Republic had joined forces with the Kinshasa authorities and made incursions into Burundi with the Interahamwe. Burundi wanted peace, and wanted the Democratic Republic to work for peace through the Lusaka Agreements. Namibia’s representative asked for clarification on the report’s call for an arms embargo against all those involved in the Democratic Republic’s conflict.
The representative of France, on behalf of the European Union, recalled that the High Commissioner for Human Rights had mentioned certain commitments that the Government had made during her recent visit to the Democratic Republic. What had happened to those commitments? she asked.
MR. GARRETON, the Special Rapporteur, noted the abundant criticism leveled against the report -- some of it deserved because of rules imposed by distribution limitations. For example, his report had to fit within 16 pages to keep translation costs down. “I had to report on nine wars in 16 pages, with 10 minutes allocated to me in this room”, he said, adding that he had transmitted the draft on 20 September and that the turnaround was better than last year, when the report had been distributed after the presentation. Similarly, the mission had been reduced to 12 days due to budget constraints, and he himself had received no payment for the work.
Be that as it may, he continued, he had visited seven prisons and had been able to see only one prisoner. In Kinshasa, he had encountered security problems when seeking to cross the frontiers with 10-kilometre security zones all around. Also, in those areas, the authority was not the Government of President Laurent Kabilah but whatever local governments applied.
With regard to the allegation that no human rights violations were being committed, he cited the case reported during yesterday’s debate by the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo about 15 women who had been buried alive. And certainly pillaging of natural resources had been noted. Why else had the Security Council investigated the outflow of resources from the Democratic Republic of the Congo? In response to the requested clarification about the recommended arms embargo, he said it was his opinion that there should be an arms embargo in an area so bristling with tension and weaponry.
In final comments, the representative of Rwanda asked how his country could be in touch, as had been alleged, with the Interahamwe when the international community was unable to contact them. The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said it was good that others had become annoyed by the situation in his country. The three countries that had spoken were those involved in his country. Lusaka was the road to peace, but that road should not be traveled with those wanting to kill the people and bleed the resources of the Democratic Republic. What civilized country had the right to invade a neighbour and bleed its people?
The representative of the Sudan then categorically denied the report’s allegations against his country, saying no Security Council report had mentioned Sudanese involvement in the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda was simply trying to involve the Sudan and should provide proof of its claims.
If there was any proof of claims, the representative of Uganda replied, it would come from the Special Rapporteur’s office and not from Uganda.
Introductory Statement, Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Situation in Iraq
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq, introduced his report by noting that the information therein was now three months old. He would try to supplement and update that information in his presentation. He was particularly pleased to note that just today he had conducted important meetings with the delegation of Ira, as well as with representatives of the Office of the Iraq Programme. At the outset, he said it had always been his credo that all actions of the international community in the field of human rights should aim at promoting respect for the fundamental human rights and basic freedoms of the human person. That aim should be pursued through dialogue and cooperation. If those techniques failed, then exposure could be used as a form of deterrence.
Before turning to highlight some specifics from his report, the Special Rapporteur noted that, in order for him to successfully discharge his mandate, it was absolutely vital that he be allowed to visit the country. He considered that the highest priority of his mission -- not only to verify allegations of human rights violations before reaching conclusions, but to engage the Government in a dialogue at the appropriate level and, through practical suggestions, try to achieve progress. Pending a reply to his request to go to Iraq, however, he had held a series of formal and informal working meetings in Geneva with representatives of the Iraqi Government. He had also travelled to Kuwait and London, where he had the opportunity to interview Iraqi men and women who were victims of or witnesses to human rights violations. Further, he continued receiving information from governmental sources and NGOs, as well as written communications by individuals.
He went on to outline the humanitarian situation in Iraq. According to information he had received, executions were still taking place in Abu Gharib prison. He had also received information that men, women and minors were still being arrested and detained on suspicion of political or religious activities, simply because of their ties to the opposition. It also appeared that torture and other ill-treatment of women continued unabated. Means of torture allegedly included electric shock, beating and rape.
He said that he was also concerned about the vexed question of missing persons, particularly Kuwaitis. During his visit to Kuwait he had the chance to examine the situation closely and had concluded that enough material existed to justify an investigation which could lead to information regarding the fate of those persons. One obstacle that he had encountered in the verification of those, and other allegations of human rights violations in Iraq, had been the refusal of witnesses or victims to have their names and other details referred to the Government for fear of retaliation Finally, on the issue of relevant Security Council resolutions and the “oil-for-food” programme, he urged the Iraqi Government to strengthen its cooperation and to allow the experts appointed by the Secretary-General to enter that country, so that a comprehensive study of the humanitarian situation could be prepared.
Questions and Answers
Responding to the report of the Special Rapporteur, the representative of Iraq reiterated his delegation’s desire to cooperate with the Rapporteur in order to ensure the protection and promotion of human rights in Iraq. He said that Iraq had made every effort to comply with its international obligations, despite the embargo that had been in place since 1990. Moreover, that compliance had come in the face of a “large-scale political campaign” led by the previous special rapporteur, in full agreement with Iraq’s enemies. That previous rapporteur had always adopted a biased approach and used his mandate to call for foreign intervention to change the country. Those actions had blatantly contravened the spirit of the mandate of all special rapporteurs, namely non-selectivity and objectivity. The Government had, nevertheless, welcomed the appointment of Mr. Mavrommatis and pledged its cooperation with what it hoped were sincere and honest attempts to deal with the human rights situation in Iraq.
Noting the misleading and generalized accusations in the report, the representative drew the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the necessity of verifying allegations before including them in his reports as findings of fact. That was especially true when the sources were antagonistic governments, or acknowledged opposition leaders, who might in fact have been trying to destabilize the country. What was really regrettable was that he had reached the conclusion that Iraq was in violation of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That was categorically not true. He hoped that the Special Rapporteur would verify his findings before reaching false conclusions. As to the situation of missing Kuwaitis, he pointed out that cooperation on that issue was in Iraq’s best interest, as outside forces were using it to promote the continuation of the embargo. In fact, the Special Rapporteur could rely on Iraq’s cooperation in that regard with the International Committee of Red Cross.
Finally, he said that he hoped that during the next reporting period, the Special Rapporteur would give priority to studying the impact of the unjust embargo of the United States and United Kingdom. That embargo was a flagrant violation of human rights, as it had taken the form of punishment and vengeance. It had also taken a toll that was in contradiction of the United Nations Charter and international human rights instruments. It was aimed at destroying Iraq’s achievements thus far, and had led to the death of over 1.5 million citizens in what amounted to large-scale genocide. The representative also hoped that the Special Rapporteur would investigate the situation of missing Iraqis. As for urging Iraq to accept and comply with Council resolution 1284, he pointed out that it was a political resolution and did not meet the country’s legitimate demand to lift the embargo. The resolution was only a political trick. He reiterated the desire of his Government to cooperate with the work of the Special Rapporteur.
Responding to the representative of Iraq, the Special Rapporteur said that while he had secured a certain degree of cooperation from the Government, he still considered it an absolute necessity to be able to visit the country. On the situation of missing persons, he said the more he heard on both sides of that issue the more he was convinced that a swift resolution could be achieved. On the question of the article 6 of the Covenant, he said his report had highlighted this right to life concern, if only because of the sheer number of crimes in Iraq which carried the death penalty as punishment. There was also a concern over the lack of fair trials and the right to appeal. One of the main reasons he wanted to visit the country was to review that particular policy. He reiterated his hope that the promise of cooperation would lead to acceptance of his request to visit the country.
* *** *
Third Committee
35th Meeting (PM)
25 October 2000
The world community should display more understanding towards countries with problems that could only be helped by international cooperation, the Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Haiti said in commenting on Haiti’s solo response to his report. The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) heard that appeal this afternoon, as it continued considering human rights issues, including alternative approaches, human rights situations, the Vienna Declaration and the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Noting that no other delegation had commented on the report, the Independent Expert, Adama Dieng, said the silence confirmed that Haiti stood alone in its struggle to secure its rights to democracy, dignity and development. Aside from the Five Friends -- Chile, Argentina, France, Canada, Venezuela and the United States -- all working in the background, few countries had come forward on Haiti’s behalf. He urged the High Commissioner for Human Rights to attend meetings in the Haitian Parliament to promote ratification of core human rights instruments.
Responding to the report on the situation of human rights in her country, the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo recalled the High Commissioner’s comment yesterday to the effect that some countries were not being accorded much attention. Answering criticisms of his report from several representatives, the Special Rapporteur cited budget and distribution limitations. “I had to report on nine wars in 16 pages, and limit my presentation today to 10 minutes”, he said about a mission that had been reduced to 12 days. In that time, he had visited seven prisons but had seen only one prisoner. Ten-kilometre security zones under local authority had also restricted his crossing of frontiers.
The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq introduced his report by saying that just today he had conducted important meetings with Iraq’s representatives and those of the Office of the Iraq Programme. He said dialogue and cooperation were the way to promote human rights; only if they failed should exposure be used as deterrence. It was absolutely vital for him to visit the country before reaching conclusions about alleged abuses. Pending a reply to his request, he was holding meetings in Geneva, Kuwait and London with Iraqi men and women who were victims or had witnessed human rights violations.
Responding to the report on his country, Iraq’s representative stressed the importance of the Special Rapporteur’s integrity. He said a previous rapporteur had been biased and had used his mandate to call for foreign intervention to change the country. Those actions had blatantly contravened the spirit of the mandate of all special rapporteurs, namely, non-selectivity and objectivity. Iraq now pledged its cooperation with what it hoped were sincere and honest attempts to deal with the human rights situation in Iraq.
Resuming the morning’s question and answer session on the human rights situation in the Sudan, the Special Rapporteur for human rights in that country, Leonardo Franco, welcomed the Sudan’s morning announcement about lifting the state of emergency and requesting electoral monitors. He said he regretted the charges of bias in his report, but he sought and received the most credible information possible from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others.
Also taking part in the question and answer segments with the rapporteurs and experts were the representatives of Libya, Egypt, Cuba, China, Rwanda, France (on behalf of the European Union), Burundi, Namibia and the Sudan.
The Committee will meet again at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, 26 October, to continue its consideration of questions related to human rights issues, including alternative approaches, human rights situations and the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Committee Work Programme
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this afternoon to continue considering human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Committee would also consider human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives; implementation and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993); and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (For background, see Press Release GA/SHC/3603 of 24 October.)
In addition to the other reports, the Committee has before it that of the Human Rights Committee (document A/55/40/Vols.I and II). The report outlines the proceedings of the Committee’s sixty-seventh (18 October-5 November, Geneva), sixty-eighth (13-31 March, New York) and sixty-ninth session (10-28 July, Geneva). It states that, as of the closing day of the last session, 145 States were parties to the International Covenant on Civilization and Political Rights, while 95 were parties to the first Optional Protocol concerning individual communications. Both have been in force since 1976.
The report describes activities of special rapporteurs and working groups, as well as other activities of the United Nations system in the field of human rights, such as the Committees on the various Conventions. It describes derogations to article 4 regarding public emergency measures by States and new developments with regard to the Committee’s working methods. Also described are cooperative actions with other United Nations bodies, plus the status of reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant, beginning with a graphic presentation of overdue reports.
The bulk of the report concerns communications. Volume I outlines the Committee’s consideration of State reports submitted by Norway, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Portugal (Macao), Cameroon, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Congo, United Kingdom, Mongolia, Guyana, Kyrgysztan, Ireland, Kuwait and Australia. It also outlines consideration of communications under the optional protocol, as well as follow-up activities to that protocol. Annexes list the States parties to the Protocol, comments adopted under article 40 referring to freedom of movement and equality of men and women, as well as other listings, including decisions of the Human Rights Committee.
Volume II contains an outline of communications and of decisions by the Human Rights Committee declaring communications inadmissible.
Resumption of Questions and Answers with Special Rapporteur On Human Rights Situation in Sudan, LEONARDO FRANCO
Before addressing the agenda for the meeting, the Committee first resumed its question-and-answer with Mr. Franco, suspended at the close of this morning’s meeting.
The representative of Libya pointed out improvements in the Sudan’s human rights situation, including the country’s hosting of refugees from neighbouring countries and the setting up of a human rights commission. Egypt’s representative, in turn, said his country had launched a joint effort with the Sudan to bring about a cessation of the 18-year fighting in the southern part of the country. Cuba’s representative asked: What about the positive aspects of the Sudan’s cooperation? Who are the sources for the Special Rapporteur’s information on the Sudan? What was the basis for thinking the Sudan had turned cooperative? the representative of China asked. And what about oil, since economics was a good safeguard for human rights in many countries while poverty was an impediment?
MR. FRANCO, Special Rapporteur for human rights in the Sudan, said he would highlight the Sudan’s announcement of the morning that it would lift the state of emergency and had requested electoral monitors. He said he regretted the charges of bias in his report, but he sought and received the most credible information possible from non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and others. In any event, it was always good to investigate alleged violations.
Further, he said attacks on civilian populations should always be avoided. Clear rules for distinguishing between military and civilian targets had been set out by the international community. With regard to incidents involving university students, the question came down to how university students could organize in a country undergoing a transformation to democracy. With regard to oil, he did not believe any State should be deprived of exploiting its resources -- but there was a problem when those resources were used to violate human rights. A special committee should be set up to investigate kidnappings. In summary, he said the important point was to find solutions to problems, and his feeling was that more could be done. And, as far as he knew, the Sudan had not yet applied to remove the derogation under article 4 of the International Covenant on Civilization and Political Rights, regarding actions in time of public emergency.
Introductory Statement, Independent Expert On Situation of Human Rights in Haiti
ADAMA DIENG, Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Haiti, introduced his report, stressing that his mission had occurred during a time of heightened tension between the Government and the international community as a result of events surrounding the recent elections. Those tensions would still be in evidence as the country, once again, held elections in November. Those elections would also be held against the backdrop of a deteriorating human rights situation. That state of affairs had led him to focus his current report on the effects of far-reaching political change within the country. It was essential, he said, for Haiti’s political leaders to make a genuine commitment to strengthen the culture of democracy and reject violence. The Government must become actively involved in the promotion and protection of human rights. It must also ensure the increased participation of civil actors in political affairs. To that end, he had recommended that a conference be held encouraging political leaders and civil society to cooperate in working to solve the country’s current problems and the challenges ahead. Thus far, he had been encouraged by the responses he had received.
While searching for ways to assist the people of Haiti to overcome the severe difficulties they faced as a result of economic and political transition, the international community should not lose sight of the fact that the country was both complex and “complexed”. The main problem, he said, was in some ways less related to human rights than to the need to strengthen capacity-building. That was but another reason to highlight the vital need to integrate the principle of democracy at all levels. He said that, in recognition of the dominant role of the judicial system in strengthening human rights, it was urgent to take immediate steps to implement a plan of action relating to the judicial system. Many Haitian citizens criticized the justice system as slow, costly or exclusionary. They saw courts as ruling in favour of rich against poor, city against country and men against women. That evinced corruption or, at the very least, arbitrariness, he said. It was essential to restore the credibility of the system.
Finally, he said that he resented the idea that money had been wasted in the cause of Haiti. Some progress had been made, and basic texts for independent justice were now under consideration. The Government had taken a particular interest in addressing the serious problems of drug trafficking and money laundering. The Government had also deployed efforts to ensure that a large segment of the youth population enjoyed the right to education. He called for further support from the donor community, not only to fulfil financial obligations but to show a strong commitment to the country’s attempts to establish a basis on which reform could be founded. In that regard, he noted that human rights were also economic and social rights. He urged all those who would like to see Haiti emerge victorious from the cycle of poverty, hunger and despair to focus more on matters related to social justice and strengthening democracy. He noted with hope that, in 2004, when Haiti celebrated its important heritage as the first black independent republic, the country could show the world that its years of struggle and sacrifice in the pursuit of freedom and democracy were not in vain.
Questions and Answers
Responding to the Independent Expert’s statement, the representative of Haiti said that taking stock of the situation in her country over the last decade, one would conclude that there had been progress in the human rights situation. She then turned to some specifics of the Independent Expert’s report. She noted that a section of the report dealt with elements of Haiti’s constitution, particularly its provisions on freedom of expression. It was important to note that liberty was not licence, she said. On the question of corruption and politicization of the country’s police force, she said that officers were aware that they were subject to discipline. Fighting impunity was an utmost priority for Haiti, she continued. Of the current conditions in the country, only one thing could be done: to lay the foundations of democracy which would lead the way to the eradication of poverty.
She added that it would not shock anyone in the room to raise the question of development during the current debate. The right to development was just as much a basic right as social and political rights. In order for Haiti to emerge from the vicious circle of poverty and achieve sustainable development, an equitable distribution of the benefits and costs of globalization was required. In other words, democratization of society must be preceded by a democratization of globalization.
Noting that only the delegation of Haiti had commented on his report, the Independent Expert said that perhaps the silence in the room confirmed what he had recently come to believe was true: that Haiti stood alone in its struggle to secure its rights to democracy, dignity and development. Aside from the Five Friends of Haiti –- Chile, Argentina, France, Canada, Venezuela and the United States –- working in the background, it was disheartening that so few members of the international community had come forward on Haiti’s behalf. It was time for the world community to display more understanding, he said. Perhaps Haiti did have its share of problems, but broad international cooperation could only help. He urged the High Commissioner to attend meetings in the Haitian Parliament to promote the ratification of core human rights instruments.
Introductory Statement, Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Situation, Democratic Republic of the Congo
ROBERTO GARRETON, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said he would read out selected portions of his report (document GA/SHC/3603 of 24 October) to highlight a number of concerns. It seemed a call for war had gone out, and many Congolese had a deep distrust of the United Nations. About 50,000 Congolese were in direct danger from the war and from the economic and social conditions in the country. An international inquiry should be conducted into violations of human rights. Neither the Government nor the rebels seemed at all interested in a cessation of hostilities.
Personal freedom was constantly violated, he continued. The amnesty granted by the Government was very unevenly applied. Freedom of speech was non-existent, and the right to a fair trial was not respected. Further, victims of violations had no recourse through appeals. Opposition members were not free to move about, and church leaders of all faiths were being arrested. The special circumstances of war could be advanced in extenuation – if there were any progress made to end the war. The people were exhausted by a conflict that was not the country’s own. He recommended that the Government work with the facilitator, that a moratorium be called for the death penalty, that connections with the Interahamwe be broken off, and that the primacy of international, over national, law should be recognized. He called on the Government to refrain from all reprisals and to restore mechanisms that had been destroyed. He also called for adequate financial resources to be made available for human rights programmes.
Comments on Special Rapporteur’s Remarks
In responding to the report on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the representative of that country pointed out that the Special Rapporteur had traveled around her country freely and without obstruction. He had also described the war accurately by saying it was not of the country’s own making. His claim of human rights violations must be taken in the context of any country, however hard it strove for the ideal, that was subject to violations of its people’s rights.
Unfortunately, she continued, the report had fallen victim to falsehoods and inaccuracy, for example, in omitting to state that the Democratic Republic was a party to the protocol to the Geneva Convention. Further, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, had only yesterday told the Committee, “some countries, such as Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, are not receiving adequate attention”.
The representatives of Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi took issue with sections of the report that referred to them, all three saying the report contained inaccuracies. Uganda’s representative said his Government would take remedial steps if wrongdoing could be proven against it. Further, Uganda had no reason to exploit the Democratic Republic’s resources. Its presence in that country, for security reasons, had been confirmed by the Security Council. It was time to stop blaming and seek solutions in the provisions of the Lusaka Agreements.
Rwanda’s representative noted that the report was brief, and was based on a single visit to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It made allegations against his country that were not tenable. “Is this a human rights report or political propaganda?” he asked.
Burundi’s representative said his country had no political or territorial designs on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It had neither attacked the Democratic Republic, nor posed a human rights threat to it. Rather, the Democratic Republic had joined forces with the Kinshasa authorities and made incursions into Burundi with the Interahamwe. Burundi wanted peace, and wanted the Democratic Republic to work for peace through the Lusaka Agreements. Namibia’s representative asked for clarification on the report’s call for an arms embargo against all those involved in the Democratic Republic’s conflict.
The representative of France, on behalf of the European Union, recalled that the High Commissioner for Human Rights had mentioned certain commitments that the Government had made during her recent visit to the Democratic Republic. What had happened to those commitments? she asked.
MR. GARRETON, the Special Rapporteur, noted the abundant criticism leveled against the report -- some of it deserved because of rules imposed by distribution limitations. For example, his report had to fit within 16 pages to keep translation costs down. “I had to report on nine wars in 16 pages, with 10 minutes allocated to me in this room”, he said, adding that he had transmitted the draft on 20 September and that the turnaround was better than last year, when the report had been distributed after the presentation. Similarly, the mission had been reduced to 12 days due to budget constraints, and he himself had received no payment for the work.
Be that as it may, he continued, he had visited seven prisons and had been able to see only one prisoner. In Kinshasa, he had encountered security problems when seeking to cross the frontiers with 10-kilometre security zones all around. Also, in those areas, the authority was not the Government of President Laurent Kabilah but whatever local governments applied.
With regard to the allegation that no human rights violations were being committed, he cited the case reported during yesterday’s debate by the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo about 15 women who had been buried alive. And certainly pillaging of natural resources had been noted. Why else had the Security Council investigated the outflow of resources from the Democratic Republic of the Congo? In response to the requested clarification about the recommended arms embargo, he said it was his opinion that there should be an arms embargo in an area so bristling with tension and weaponry.
In final comments, the representative of Rwanda asked how his country could be in touch, as had been alleged, with the Interahamwe when the international community was unable to contact them. The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said it was good that others had become annoyed by the situation in his country. The three countries that had spoken were those involved in his country. Lusaka was the road to peace, but that road should not be traveled with those wanting to kill the people and bleed the resources of the Democratic Republic. What civilized country had the right to invade a neighbour and bleed its people?
The representative of the Sudan then categorically denied the report’s allegations against his country, saying no Security Council report had mentioned Sudanese involvement in the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda was simply trying to involve the Sudan and should provide proof of its claims.
If there was any proof of claims, the representative of Uganda replied, it would come from the Special Rapporteur’s office and not from Uganda.
Introductory Statement, Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Situation in Iraq
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq, introduced his report by noting that the information therein was now three months old. He would try to supplement and update that information in his presentation. He was particularly pleased to note that just today he had conducted important meetings with the delegation of Ira, as well as with representatives of the Office of the Iraq Programme. At the outset, he said it had always been his credo that all actions of the international community in the field of human rights should aim at promoting respect for the fundamental human rights and basic freedoms of the human person. That aim should be pursued through dialogue and cooperation. If those techniques failed, then exposure could be used as a form of deterrence.
Before turning to highlight some specifics from his report, the Special Rapporteur noted that, in order for him to successfully discharge his mandate, it was absolutely vital that he be allowed to visit the country. He considered that the highest priority of his mission -- not only to verify allegations of human rights violations before reaching conclusions, but to engage the Government in a dialogue at the appropriate level and, through practical suggestions, try to achieve progress. Pending a reply to his request to go to Iraq, however, he had held a series of formal and informal working meetings in Geneva with representatives of the Iraqi Government. He had also travelled to Kuwait and London, where he had the opportunity to interview Iraqi men and women who were victims of or witnesses to human rights violations. Further, he continued receiving information from governmental sources and NGOs, as well as written communications by individuals.
He went on to outline the humanitarian situation in Iraq. According to information he had received, executions were still taking place in Abu Gharib prison. He had also received information that men, women and minors were still being arrested and detained on suspicion of political or religious activities, simply because of their ties to the opposition. It also appeared that torture and other ill-treatment of women continued unabated. Means of torture allegedly included electric shock, beating and rape.
He said that he was also concerned about the vexed question of missing persons, particularly Kuwaitis. During his visit to Kuwait he had the chance to examine the situation closely and had concluded that enough material existed to justify an investigation which could lead to information regarding the fate of those persons. One obstacle that he had encountered in the verification of those, and other allegations of human rights violations in Iraq, had been the refusal of witnesses or victims to have their names and other details referred to the Government for fear of retaliation Finally, on the issue of relevant Security Council resolutions and the “oil-for-food” programme, he urged the Iraqi Government to strengthen its cooperation and to allow the experts appointed by the Secretary-General to enter that country, so that a comprehensive study of the humanitarian situation could be prepared.
Questions and Answers
Responding to the report of the Special Rapporteur, the representative of Iraq reiterated his delegation’s desire to cooperate with the Rapporteur in order to ensure the protection and promotion of human rights in Iraq. He said that Iraq had made every effort to comply with its international obligations, despite the embargo that had been in place since 1990. Moreover, that compliance had come in the face of a “large-scale political campaign” led by the previous special rapporteur, in full agreement with Iraq’s enemies. That previous rapporteur had always adopted a biased approach and used his mandate to call for foreign intervention to change the country. Those actions had blatantly contravened the spirit of the mandate of all special rapporteurs, namely non-selectivity and objectivity. The Government had, nevertheless, welcomed the appointment of Mr. Mavrommatis and pledged its cooperation with what it hoped were sincere and honest attempts to deal with the human rights situation in Iraq.
Noting the misleading and generalized accusations in the report, the representative drew the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the necessity of verifying allegations before including them in his reports as findings of fact. That was especially true when the sources were antagonistic governments, or acknowledged opposition leaders, who might in fact have been trying to destabilize the country. What was really regrettable was that he had reached the conclusion that Iraq was in violation of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That was categorically not true. He hoped that the Special Rapporteur would verify his findings before reaching false conclusions. As to the situation of missing Kuwaitis, he pointed out that cooperation on that issue was in Iraq’s best interest, as outside forces were using it to promote the continuation of the embargo. In fact, the Special Rapporteur could rely on Iraq’s cooperation in that regard with the International Committee of Red Cross.
Finally, he said that he hoped that during the next reporting period, the Special Rapporteur would give priority to studying the impact of the unjust embargo of the United States and United Kingdom. That embargo was a flagrant violation of human rights, as it had taken the form of punishment and vengeance. It had also taken a toll that was in contradiction of the United Nations Charter and international human rights instruments. It was aimed at destroying Iraq’s achievements thus far, and had led to the death of over 1.5 million citizens in what amounted to large-scale genocide. The representative also hoped that the Special Rapporteur would investigate the situation of missing Iraqis. As for urging Iraq to accept and comply with Council resolution 1284, he pointed out that it was a political resolution and did not meet the country’s legitimate demand to lift the embargo. The resolution was only a political trick. He reiterated the desire of his Government to cooperate with the work of the Special Rapporteur.
Responding to the representative of Iraq, the Special Rapporteur said that while he had secured a certain degree of cooperation from the Government, he still considered it an absolute necessity to be able to visit the country. On the situation of missing persons, he said the more he heard on both sides of that issue the more he was convinced that a swift resolution could be achieved. On the question of the article 6 of the Covenant, he said his report had highlighted this right to life concern, if only because of the sheer number of crimes in Iraq which carried the death penalty as punishment. There was also a concern over the lack of fair trials and the right to appeal. One of the main reasons he wanted to visit the country was to review that particular policy. He reiterated his hope that the promise of cooperation would lead to acceptance of his request to visit the country.
* *** *