Default title

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
23 April 2001
Afternoon






Extends Mandates of Special Rapporteurs on
Religious Intolerance, Summary Executions



The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted 10 resolutions concerning civil and political rights on issues ranging from human rights and terrorism, hostage-taking, independence and impartiality of the judiciary, the right to restitution for victims of grave violations of human rights, arbitrary detention, continuing dialogue on measures to promote and consolidate democracy, elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, and the incompatibility between democracy and racism, to a draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture, and summary or arbitrary executions.

In a resolution on human rights and terrorism, adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 for, to 14 against and 6 abstentions, the Commission reiterated its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed. The Commission endorsed the request of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights that its Special Rapporteur on the topic be given all the assistance necessary to hold consultations with competent services and bodies of the United Nations to complement her essential research.

Concerning hostage-taking, the Commission adopted by consensus a resolution in which it reaffirmed that hostage-taking, including through hijacking, wherever and by whomever committed, was an illegal act and unjustifiable, including as a means to promote and protect human rights. The Commission condemned all acts of hostage-taking and demanded that all hostages be released immediately, without preconditions. It called upon States to take all necessary measures to prevent, combat and punish acts of hostage-taking, including by strengthening international cooperation in this field.


With regards to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and the independence of lawyers, the Commission encouraged Governments that faced difficulties in guaranteeing the independence of judges and lawyers or were determined to implement these principles further to consult and to consider the services of the Special Rapporteur, for instance by inviting him to their country.

On the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights, adopted by consensus, the Commission decided to request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to hold a consultative meeting in Geneva for all interested Governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, using available resources, with a view to finalizing the “Basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law”.

The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution on the question of arbitrary detention in which it requested Governments concerned to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty and to inform the Working Group on arbitrary detentions of the steps taken. The Commission took note with satisfaction that the Working Group had been informed of the release of some of the individuals whose situations had been brought to its attention. It deplored the many cases which had not yet been resolved.

Concerning continuing dialogue on measures to promote and consolidate democracy, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 44 for, to none against and with 9 abstentions, a resolution in which it invited Member States to continue to foster and participate in a systematic dialogue on the building up of democratic societies and the factors of success and failure in the democratization process. The Commission reaffirmed that democracy, development and respect for human rights were interdependent and mutually reinforcing.

In a resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, adopted by consensus, the Commission urged States to ensure that their Constitutional and legislative systems provided adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief to all and urged them to take all necessary action to combat hatred, intolerance, or acts of violence or intimidation or coercion on such grounds. The Commission decided to extend for three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the question of the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance under the new title of Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

With regards to the incompatibility between democracy and racism, the Commission adopted by consensus a resolution in which it remained convinced that political platforms and organizations based on racism, xenophobia or doctrines of racial superiority and related discrimination must be condemned as incompatible with democracy and transparent and accountable governance.

In a resolution on a draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture, adopted by consensus, the Commission requested the open-ended Working Group on the draft, in order to continue its work, to meet prior to the fifty-eighth session of the Commission, for a period of two weeks, with a view to completing expeditiously a final and substantive text.


And in a resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, adopted by consensus, the Commission strongly condemned all such acts and demanded that all Governments ensure that such practices were brought to an end and that they take effective action to combat and eliminate them in all their forms. The Commission called upon Governments to investigate promptly and thoroughly cases of killings committed in the name of passion or in the name of honour, all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, killings of persons for reasons related to their peaceful activities as human rights defenders or as journalists, and racially motivated killings, as well as other cases of violations of the right to life. The Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for three years.

The Commission was scheduled to meet in an extended evening meeting from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. to continue to take action on draft resolutions.


Action on resolutions concerning civil and political rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.34) on human rights and terrorism, adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 for, to 14 against and 6 abstentions, the Commission reiterated its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed; condemned the violations of the right to live free from fear and of the right to life, liberty and security; expressed solidarity with the victims of terrorism; urged States to fulfil their obligations to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism and called upon States to strengthen legislation to that end; urged the international community to enhance its cooperation in the fight against terrorism; called upon States to enhance their cooperation with a view to bringing terrorists to justice; called upon States to take appropriate measures to ensure that an asylum-seeker had not participated in terrorist acts, including assassinations; requested the Secretary-General to continue to collect information on the fight against terrorism; and endorsed the request of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights that its Special Rapporteur on the topic be given all the assistance necessary to hold consultations with competent services and bodies of the United Nations to complement her essential research.

The result of the roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour (33): Algeria, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Swaziland, Thailand, Uruguay, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against (14): Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (6): Argentina, Japan, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Syrian Arab Republic and Venezuela.

A Representative of the Russian Federation said that his country totally supported the draft resolution submitted by Algeria. The Russian Federation believed that the Commission should send a clear signal condemning those who committed terrorist acts anywhere in the world. Terrorism constituted a grave violation of human rights which could not be justified under any circumstances. Consequently, The Russian Federation had decided to co-sponsor the draft resolution on human rights and terrorism.

A Representative of the United States said recent events had showed that terrorism posed a clear and present danger to the international community. The attack on the USS Cole and other incidents were only the latest examples that terrorists did not have any respect for human life. However, the United States would vote against this draft resolution because the sponsors included in the text language that granted terrorists legitimacy. Terrorists were not State actors -- they were criminals. This issue was best addressed in other fora, for example, the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly.

A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union and the countries associated with it, said that the EU reaffirmed its unequivocal condemnation of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whoever committed and whatever the considerations that may be invoked to justify the act. The European Union believed that efforts to combat terrorist acts should at all times be compatible with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. As a matter of principle, the European Union could not subscribe to the assertion that terrorist acts as such constituted human rights violations. Therefore, a clear distinction must be made between acts which were attributable to States, and criminal acts which were not, so as to avoid conferring on terrorists any status under international law. The EU also remained of the opinion that the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly was the forum best suited for a thorough examination of the question of terrorism. Therefore, the EU could not support that such an issue remained once more on the agenda of the Commission.

A Representative of Argentina said his country condemned terrorism in all its forms. International legislation was needed to combat terrorism. National measures would be further enhanced with international measures. Argentina had strived to ensure that the United Nations General Assembly adopt a resolution to combat international terrorism. The declaration that Argentina had put forward contained the strongest language condemning terrorism. The country did not believe terrorists could violate human rights -- only a country could violate human rights. Terrorist acts were criminal acts, and should be prosecuted by criminal law. The delegation would abstain.

A Representative of Norway said his country condemned all acts of terrorism and remained deeply committed to international efforts to combat terrorism. Norway was compelled however to vote against the draft resolution. Norway believed that the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly was the forum best suited for a thorough examination of the question of terrorism. In addition, Norway could not accept the assertion in the draft resolution that terrorist groups committed violations of human rights. In Norway's view, terrorists committed crimes for which they had to be brought to justice. Even though acts of terrorism could have serious effects on the enjoyment of human rights, human rights obligations rested solely with Governments.

A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said his country condemned all acts and practices of terrorists. They were acts that violated the sovereignty of States. The delegation would abstain on the draft resolution. The draft resolution did not contain any mention of the United Nations resolution of 1991 that stated there was a need for the definition of international terrorism that had to be generally accepted by all Member States. The delegation said there was also a need to differentiate between terrorism and the struggle of people who were striving for independence.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.35) on hostage-taking, adopted by consensus, the Commission reaffirmed that hostage-taking, including through hijacking, wherever and by whomever committed, was an illegal act and unjustifiable, including as a means to promote and protect human rights; condemned all acts of hostage-taking; demanded that all hostages be released immediately, without preconditions, and expressed its solidarity with victims; and called upon States to take all necessary measures to prevent, combat and punish acts of hostage-taking, including by strengthening international cooperation in this field.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.38) on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and the independence of lawyers, adopted by consensus, the Commission noted with appreciation the determination of the Special Rapporteur on the topic to achieve as wide dissemination as possible of information about existing standards; invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to provide technical assistance to train judges and lawyers and to associate with the Special Rapporteur in the elaboration of a manual on such training in the field of human rights; urged all Governments to transmit to the Special Rapporteur all information requested; and encouraged Governments that faced difficulties in guaranteeing the independence of judges and lawyers or were determined to implement these principles further to consult and to consider the services of the Special Rapporteur, for instance by inviting him to their country.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.40) on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights, adopted by consensus, the Commission decided to request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to hold a consultative meeting in Geneva for all interested Governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, using available resources, with a view to finalizing the “Basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law”.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.44) on the question of arbitrary detention, adopted by consensus, the Commission requested Governments concerned to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty and to inform the Working Group on arbitrary detentions of the steps taken; encouraged Governments concerned to implement the recommendations of the Working Group concerning persons mentioned in its report who had been detained for a number of years; to take measures to ensure that legislation in these fields was in conformity with international standards; not to extend states of emergency beyond what was strictly required by the situation; to invite the Working Group to their countries so that it could carry out its mandate more effectively; requested Governments concerned to give the necessary attention to the “urgent appeals” addressed to them by the Working Group on a strictly humanitarian basis and without prejudging its final conclusions; and took note with satisfaction that the Working Group had been informed of the release of some of the individuals whose situations had been brought to its attention. It deplored the many cases which had not yet been resolved.

A Representative of Algeria said that his country fully shared the view provided by France with regard to the draft resolution on arbitrary detention. However, Algeria could not approve some of the terms and exceptions contained in the text.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.46) on continuing dialogue on measures to promote and consolidate democracy, adopted by a roll-call vote of 44 for, to none against and with 9 abstentions, the Commission invited Member States to continue to foster and participate in a systematic dialogue on the building up of democratic societies and the factors of success and failure in the democratization process; welcomed steps taken in a number of countries to promote and consolidate the foundations of still-fragile democratic institutions and the restoration of democracy in a number of nations since the fifty-sixth session of the Commission; reaffirmed that democracy, development and respect for human rights were interdependent and mutually reinforcing; reaffirmed that free and fair elections were essential; encouraged the development of broad-based democracy expertise from all regions of the world; called for information sharing and exchange of lessons learned and best practices; and called upon the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize an expert seminar to examine the interdependence between democracy and human rights, to be funded by voluntary contributions.

The result of the roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour (44): Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay, United States, Venezuela and Zambia.

Against (0): None

Abstentions (9): China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic and Viet Nam.

There was a separate vote to remove preambular paragraph 5 of L.46 which failed by a roll-call vote of 37 for, to 8 against and 8 abstentions. The result of the roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour (37): Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay, United States and Venezuela.

Against (8): Algeria, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malaysia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Abstentions (8): Indonesia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland and Syrian Arab Republic.


A Representative of Algeria said it was easy to state the delegation's view on this text concerning preambular paragraph 5. If the co-sponsors took a step and got rid of this paragraph, that would be a show of good will.

A Representative of Malaysia said that his delegation was concerned about the attempt to incorporate a reference to the ministerial conference hosted by Poland in June 2000 into the draft resolution currently under consideration. This conference was held outside the ambit of the United Nations, its process lacked transparency and it was organized to serve the interests of a particular State. While Malaysia was invited to this conference, it believed that reference to this conference was inappropriate when not all Member States of the United Nations were invited to attend. In fact, some countries' request for participation was rejected outright.

A Representative of Algeria said his delegation could not support the reference in the text to a meeting of a group of countries. Algeria supported the rest of the text and saw the purpose for it. The paragraph in question, however, was a partisan paragraph and left out other countries.

A Representative of China agreed with the statements made by Algeria and Malaysia concerning preambular paragraph 5. Therefore, China would vote against this paragraph.

A Representative of Algeria said the minority should yield to the majority. So his delegation would vote in favour of the draft resolution, while maintaining its reservation to preambular paragraph 5.

A Representative of Cuba said that the draft resolution before the Commission referred to several events which took place outside the UN system for reasons of hegemonistic interests of superpowers which imposed their judgements on which countries were democracies and which were not. The assertion that the lack of democracy was one of the main causes for many conflicts could be used as a pretext to intervene in developing countries. Cuba also believed that the United Nations had no right to judge the electoral processes or political systems of Member States. For these and other reasons, Cuba could not join the consensus on this draft resolution.

A Representative of China said democracy was a political system, and there was no uniform model of it in the world. Countries should be able to decide their own social, political and cultural path depending on its conditions. Certain countries copied the models of other countries and failed to bring benefits to their people. China would abstain on the draft resolution.

A Representative of Libya said that her delegation would abstain in the vote on L.46. Paragraph 5 should not be included in the draft resolution. The concept of good governance had not been agreed upon in the United Nations. Better practice for consolidating democracy was another subject that had not been agreed on. There was also the question of who would fund special programmes. For this and other reasons, Libya would vote against the draft resolution.

A Representative of Pakistan said the Government and people of Pakistan were committed to democracy. The country believed that democracy had diverse origins and forms, all of which were legitimate so long as they represented the free wishes of the people. Pakistan stressed that democracy could not co-exist with foreign occupation and with the suppression of the rights of others to self-determination. Any nation which wished to advertise itself as a democracy could not at the same time continue the suppression and foreign occupation of another people. It had been
hoped that this vital principle could have been reflected in the draft resolution. The delegation believed that the conference referred to in paragraph 5 was partial and exclusive. But given to its commitment to democracy, the delegation would vote in favour of the draft resolution.

A Representative of India said her country supported efforts to strengthen democracy and wished to underscore the importance of dialogue to promote it. For this and other reasons, India had voted in favour of the draft resolution.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.49) on elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, adopted by consensus, the Commission condemned all such forms of intolerance and discrimination; urged States to ensure that their Constitutional and legislative systems provided adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief to all; to ensure in particular that no one within their jurisdiction was deprived of the right to life or the right to liberty and security of person because of religion or belief, or was subjected to torture or to arbitrary arrest or detention on that account; urged States to take all necessary action to combat hatred, intolerance, or acts of violence or intimidation or coercion on such grounds, and to devote particular attention to practices which violated the human rights of women and discriminated against women; to exert utmost efforts to ensure that religious places, sites, and shrines were fully respected and to take additional measures when they were vulnerable to desecration or destruction; to ensure that all public officials did not discriminate on grounds of religion or belief; encouraged the continued efforts of the Special Rapporteur to examine incidents and Governmental actions in all parts of the world that were incompatible with the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance or Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief; suggested that the Special Rapporteur's recommendations on religious intolerance which had a bearing on the World Conference against Racism be considered during the preparatory process for the Conference; called upon all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur; and decided to extend for three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the question of the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance under the new title of Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.51) on the incompatibility between democracy and racism, adopted by consensus, the Commission remained convinced that political platforms and organizations based on racism, xenophobia or doctrines of racial superiority and related discrimination must be condemned as incompatible with democracy and transparent and accountable governance; condemned legislation and practices based on racism and intolerance; reaffirmed that such discrimination condoned by Government policies violated human rights and could endanger friendly relations among peoples, international peace and security, and the harmony of persons living side by side without the same State; and invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit an analytical report on the main trends and Governmental policies regarding this subject.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.52) on a draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture, adopted by consensus, the Commission requested the open-ended Working Group on the draft, in order to continue its work, to meet prior to the fifty-eighth session of the Commission, for a period of two weeks, with a view to completing expeditiously a final and substantive text; requested the Secretary-General to transmit the group’s report to all relevant bodies and invite them to submit their comments to the Working Group; requested the Secretary-General to invite Governments, the specialized agencies, and relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as the Chairperson of the Committee against Torture and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, to participate if needed in the activities of the Working Group; and encouraged the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group to conduct informal inter-sessional consultations with all interested parties to facilitate the completion of a consolidated text.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.55) on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, adopted by consensus, the Commission strongly condemned all such acts; demanded that all Governments ensure that such practices were brought to an end and that they take effective action to combat and eliminate them in all their forms; called upon all States to consider ratifying or acceding to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; reiterated the obligation of all Governments to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of such acts; called upon Governments to investigate promptly and thoroughly cases of killings committed in the name of passion or in the name of honour, all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, killings of persons for reasons related to their peaceful activities as human rights defenders or as journalists, and racially motivated killings, as well as other cases of violation of the right to life; called upon Governments of all States where the death penalty had not been abolished to observe international standards for its application; and urged Governments to undertake all necessary measures to prevent loss of life, in particular that of children, during public demonstrations, internal and communal violence, civil unrest and public emergency or armed conflicts; encouraged programmes designed to train and educate military forces, law enforcement officers and Government officials, as well as members of United Nations peacekeeping or observer missions, on human rights and humanitarian issues connected with their work.

The Commission also appealed to Governments to ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty were treated with human dignity; expressed appreciation to those Governments which had invited the relevant Special Rapporteur to visit their countries and asked them to consider carefully his recommendations, and requested other Governments, including those mentioned in the report of the Special Rapporteur, to cooperate in a similar way; requested the Special Rapporteur, in carrying out her mandate, among other things, to pay special attention to such executions where the victims were individuals carrying out peaceful activities in defence of human rights; and to draw attention of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to such situations that were of particularly serious concern or where early action might prevent further deterioration; expressed concern that a number of Governments mentioned in the report of the Special Rapporteur had not replied to specific allegations and reports of such executions transmitted to them by the Special Rapporteur; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for three years.

A Representative of the Russian Federation said Finland, which had introduced the draft resolution, was willing to take into account the views of those States that were not co-sponsors. Every mandate of a Special Rapporteur should include dialogue with States, and every Special Rapporteur should be concerned with verifying information received. These would help the special mechanisms become institutions.

A Representative of Latvia said that his country supported draft resolution L. 55 and the amendment proposed by Finland. Unfortunately extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions continued to take place in different parts of the world. In far too many cases, the perpetrators of these crimes enjoyed impunity. Therefore, as in previous years, Latvia joined the consensus on this draft resolution.



* *** *