Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Multiple Mechanisms
Default title
14 April 2000
Share
Commission on Human Rights
56th session
14 April 2000
Afternoon
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon concluded its debate on indigenous issues and started its consideration of the report of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
Non-governmental organizations addressing indigenous issues highlighted alleged violations of human rights of indigenous groups in Australia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Burma, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Indonesia, Chile, Rwanda, Nigeria, India, the United States, Brazil and Pakistan.
Speakers expressed concern about the lack of progress in the Working Groups on a permanent forum for indigenous peoples in the United Nations system and on a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Several delegates stressed the need for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on indigenous issues. The encroachment on indigenous lands by development projects were denounced as were reported attacks by police and army forces on indigenous peoples. Impunity for various violations was decried.
The Commission was addressed by the Chairman of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Ribot Hatano, who said that concerning reforms proposed by the Bureau of the Commission, the Subcommission was not strongly opposed to most recommendations, but held rather strong views against the following proposals: that its membership be reduced; that the election of members by the Commission be replaced by nominations by the Chairperson of the Commission; that the length of the Subcommission's annual session be reduced; and that the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery be replaced by a new Special Rapporteur.
The following non-governmental organizations spoke under the item on indigenous issues: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the International Human Rights Law Group, International Educational Development, the Association for Defence and Promotion of Human Rights, the Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace, Aliran, the International Peace Bureau, the American Association of Jurists, the Latin American Human Rights Association, the Movement Against Racism and For Friendship Among Peoples, the Saami Council, the International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs, the International Council of South America, the International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Association Kunas Unidos Por Napguana, the Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, the Netherlands Organization for International Development Cooperation, the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, Interfaith International, the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, and France Libertes.
Pakistan, China, the International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, and the International Indian Treaty Council spoke on the agenda item on the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
Colombia exercised its right of reply.
The Commission concluded its afternoon meeting at 6 p.m. and immediately started its evening meeting which will end at 9 p.m. During that meeting, the Commission is expected to start its consideration of its agenda item on the promotion and protection of human rights, including the status of the international covenants on human rights, human rights defenders, information and education, and science and environment.
Statements
SHANE HOFFMAN, of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, in a joint statement with the National Indigenous Working Group on Native Title and the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, said the right to self-determination was the fundamental underlying principle of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and was fundamental to the enjoyment of all other human rights by indigenous peoples. In Australia, indigenous people faced lower life expectancy along with a much higher incidence of ill-health and higher levels of unemployment than the general population. There was continuing resistance in Australia to recognizing indigenous peoples as distinct people and the original owners of the land and resources.
Australian Governments had successfully reduced the opportunities of indigenous people to exercise even those limited rights which were protected by law. The amendments to the Native Title Act in 1998 had incurred strong criticism from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In the face of this criticism, the Government had called into question the integrity of the Committee and therefore the application of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. At the same time, two provincial government jurisdictions under Australia's federal system were facing international condemnation for their mandatory sentencing regimes that removed judicial discretion and targeted indigenous people.
LOTTIE CUNNINGHAM, of the International Human Rights Law Group, highlighted the difficulties of the indigenous groups of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua with regard to natural resources. Even though the Nicaraguan Constitution was one of the most progressive in the region, there was little progress for the indigenous peoples of Nicaragua. They wanted a certain degree of autonomy, and aspired to take their own decisions with regard to natural resources and community land. Their aspirations had been hampered for various reasons. One major problem was the lack of a demarkation law which would give title to the laws adopted in this field. The Government of Nicaragua used the current economic crisis to justify the construction by private investors of mega-projects on these lands and exploitation of natural resources. The advance of the agricultural frontier also caused problems in Nicaragua and the rest of the region. The Commission should recommend to the Working Group on the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples to complete its consideration of the document which should give sufficient protection to indigenous traditional lands. The Commission should use its powers to ensure the adequate protection of the rights of indigenous communities vis-a-vis transformation, sale and exploitation of the land.
ADAM BRANCH, of the International Educational Development, said the organization had been involved in promoting a peaceful resolution to the civil war in Chiapas and was committed to seeing the end of the grave human rights violations perpetrated by the Mexican security forces against the indigenous people. That struggle for autonomy and justice, led by the Zapazista Army of National Liberation, took place in hundreds of communities comprising a large section of eastern Chiapas. While concentrating their attention on those communities, the Zapatista peacefully supported indigenous autonomy throughout Mexico. In contrast, the response of the Mexican Government had been military terror and political deception. The proposed technical assistance programme between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Mexico was encouraging. However, it should become effective to avoid being yet one more hollow phrase in the Government's empty rhetoric of peace.
J. A. GIMBERNAT, of the Federation de Asociaciones de Defensa y Protection de los Derechos Humanos, said that the expectations raised following the 1995 adoption of the law for dialogue and peaceful solution in Chiapas were rapidly becoming frustrated as the situation deteriorated and the Government used violence in addressing the Chiapas problem. When High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson had suggested that the Government reduce the military presence in Chiapas to alleviate tensions there, she was met with a negative answer.
The paramilitary groups operated with impunity in the face of inaction by the executive and judicial powers. The report of the Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary and arbitrary executions contained information establishing the involvement of the authorities and paramilitary groups in killings in Acteal and shortcomings in the investigative procedures. As a result, indigenous people had seen their land encroached on, and their houses and natural resources destroyed. They were denied freedom of movement in their own territory, and were the victims of arbitrary detentions, torture and ill-treatment.
JUNE PHAR CHAKMA, of the Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace, said that the Government of Bangladesh used the peace process as a cover for more human rights abuses, as evident in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Agreement of December 1997. More than three years had passed and the issues were still unresolved. The Bills passed in Government were contrary to the Peace Accord, army camps were yet to be withdrawn and many Jumma refugees were still living in makeshift camps as the settlers and the security forces still occupied their lands. There had been reports of continual human rights abuses against the indigenous Jumma people. The refusal to establish accountability for human rights abuses had been the main factor for such human rights abuses. The Special Rapporteur had urged the Bangladesh Government to fulfil its obligations under international law to clarify the circumstances of each alleged violation, but the Government of Bangladesh had failed to take any action. The UNESCO Peace Award to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh had become a source of shame. The international community should put pressure on the Government of Bangladesh for proper implementation of the Peace Accord. This was in the interest of the authorities unless they wanted to exterminate the Jummas.
CYNTHIA GABRIEL, of the Aliran Kesedaran Negara: National Consciousness Movement, said that indigenous peoples in Malaysia continued to be the victims of so-called development. That ranged from encroachment into native customary rights land to wholesale displacement of nearly 10,000 indigenous peoples. Police frequently abused their powers in taking side with the developers, loggers and government agencies. The police had become infamous for either not following-up or ignoring completely reports lodged by communities against land encroachment. That had often led to serious problems. The displacement of 10,000 people from 15 tribes, caused by the Bakun mega-dam project, was the largest relocation of indigenous peoples in the history of Malaysia. In addition, indigenous activists from the state of Sarawak had had their passports revoked and had been banned from travelling abroad to advocate for their land rights.
LITON BOM, of the International Peace Bureau, said that the military regime in Burma had systematically banned the rights of indigenous peoples such as freedom of worship. Religious minorities of Christians and Muslims were persecuted by the military regime of Burma which was pursuing a policy of mono-religion, language and race. The Chin Christians were compelled by the Burmese Army to construct Buddhist Pagodas without payment. While the regime used its power to compel Christians to construct pagodas, the construction of Churches and Christian religious institutions were banned without any reason. The Chin Christians were also physically persecuted by the regime and subjected to arbitrary arrests. The Commission was urged to intervene in the violations of these indigenous peoples' human rights by adopting a resolution on human rights in Burma.
JAIRO SANCHEI, of the American Association of Jurists, denounced the discrimination going on in Peru against the Quechua, Aymara, Aguaruna, and Ashaninka peoples. These peoples rights were recognized in the Constitution and they represented 40 per cent of the population. The poverty percentage in Peru for indigenous peoples was 69 per cent. It was urgent to juridically recognize the rights of the indigenous peoples and for the Government of Peru to recognize ILO Convention 169.
The situation in Ecuador was also a source for concern, particularly after the recent uprising. The indigenous people were poverty-stricken. The unemployment rates were rising and some people depended on international food aid for survival. The indigenous people could not bear the burden of the financial crisis brought about by the dollarization and neo-liberalist policies. At the moment those who had tried to stand up and change the conditions in the January-uprising were seriously repressed. The organization had proposed to the Government an amnesty law which would include the civilians and military persons in prison for participating in the uprising. The international community had to ensure the rectification of the political policies as they would otherwise produce unforeseeable problems in the community.
EMPERATRIZ CAHVACHE, of the Associacion Latino americana para los derechos humanos, complained that a process of destruction of indigenous peoples in Colombia was taking a serious trend to which the attention of the Commission was drawn. The actions of all parties to the conflict had grabbed the indigenous people in the middle of their destructive war. The indigenous people had been victims of the war in which they were not taking part. In addition, the indigenous people were used as human shields and they were removed from their ancestral lands. They had also lost their traditional heritage because of the continued war among the different factions and the Government. They were also deprived of community chiefs because of the crimes committed by the warring actors in eliminating them. The right to the freedom of movement had been limited. An appeal was addressed to all parties in the conflict not to involve the indigenous peoples in their war.
VERONIQUE GIRARDIN, of the Mouvement Contre le Racisme et Pour l'amitie entre les peuples, said that the extermination of indigenous communities in Colombia continued unabated as a result of actions by the guerrillas, paramilitary groups, soldiers, drug traffickers, erroneous economic policies and the absence of national economic and social policies. There were 82 indigenous peoples in Colombia who had survived more than 500 years of extermination policies and who continued to be subjected to cruel violence. Their survival was also threatened by infrastructure projects and the exploitation of natural resources like oil. Gradually indigenous peoples were being pushed into desolate areas.
Added to this were widespread diseases which wreaked havoc in their communities, as well as lack of respect and no hope for improvement. Several indigenous leaders had lost their lives because of the armed conflict which had raged in Colombia for 40 years. Investigations into the killings of indigenous people had often been suspended or were not initiated at all. Other violations committed against indigenous people were torture, detentions, threats, displacements, forced disappearances and massacres. Regrettably, the Colombian legal and political machinery was insufficient to protect indigenous peoples. The International Decade of the World's Indigenous People should devote more attention to the violence which threatened the survival of the indigenous peoples.
JOHN B. HENRIKSEN, of the Saami Council, said the draft declaration process had the highest priority. The many, and in some cases increasing violations of indigenous peoples' rights made the adoption of the UN declaration on indigenous rights an urgent matter. It was worrying that after five years of work, the Working Group had only managed to adopt 2 out of 45 articles. Governments should make a serious attempt to finalize the elaborations on the draft declaration so it could be adopted as soon as possible.
The establishment of a Permanent Forum would contribute to the main goal for the Decade which was to strengthen cooperation to solve problems faced by indigenous peoples in various fields. The preference would be to see the indigenous members serving as peoples' representatives. A matter of concern to the Council was that the draft resolution did not contain any proposal pertaining to the secretarial implications. A separated secretariat should be created for the Forum as the proposed mandate went beyond human rights. The proposal of appointing a Special Rapporteur on indigenous issues was strongly supported.
RATNAHER BHENGAR, of the International Workgroup on Indigenous Affairs, recalled that indigenous people had been coming to the United Nations for almost three decades precisely because their rights had been grossly violated and their best recourse was to find a space in the international arena to make their situations know. Now, it was more or less known that there were such beings called "indigenous peoples' whose rights should be respected equally as all the other human beings. Their main objective in coming to the UN was to tell their stories of how their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights had been and were still being violated. Those stories were the basis for the drafting of minimum standards which would ensure the protection and promotion of their rights, which was now captured in the famous UN draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.
NOLASCO MAMANI, of Consejo Indio de Sud America, said that some States detracted from the importance of a permanent forum for indigenous people in the United Nations system and ignored that their delegates had endorsed the creation of the Forum, recognizing that indigenous peoples had no international recognition. It was this recognition that had underpinned the need to create a Forum. However, representatives of indigenous peoples should sit in the Forum and not experts. Otherwise, the Forum would have no value. Further, the only name for such a forum was the Permanent Forum for Indigenous People. This was because only the term people would prevent the Forum from acquiring an integrationist and discriminatory dimension and negating the existence of indigenous people as social entities with distinct identity.
WILTON LITTLECHILD, of the International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, was concerned about the lack of substantial progress by the Inter-sessional Working Group and its inability to pass articles of the UN draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples by consensus. Another matter of concern was the lack of consideration of the very lengthy and long awaited study by a Special Rapporteur which was approved last year. The organization was at a loss as to why this was not on the agenda and would question its status now since there was no reference to it in any of the documentation. It was disappointing that the mandate of the Permanent Forum had been greatly reduced. The Permanent Forum was an important initiative, however it was important not to restrict it or to limit it at the outset, thus preventing it from being an effective body. Nevertheless, the organization would support the proposal in the draft resolution by Denmark. It was encouraging that the mandate of the Permanent Forum would include treaty rights. Of particular importance was the inclusion of treaties, lands and resources in the mandate.
ALVES RODRIGUEZ, of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), said he represented the organizations of the indigenous peoples of the Brazilian Amazon and wished to draw the attention of the Commission to the situation faced by his peoples. The rights to self-determination and territory had been denied by the Government in place and the efforts of the peoples to promote their rights were ignored. With regard to the document E/CN.4/2000/86, it contained some points to which the indigenous peoples did not give their consent. The Commission was urged to recommend to the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly to adopt the UN declaration on the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. It was also urged to encourage States to enact national legislation relating to the protection of indigenous peoples and to implement them effectively. The speaker then gave an account of violations of human rights of indigenous peoples in Brazil.
MARCIAL ARIAS GARCIA, of the Asociation Kunas Unidos por Napguana, said that every minute, 10 of his indigenous people died because of marginalization, poverty, sickness and adverse policies. Indigenous people were the most vulnerable sector, the marginalized among the marginalized, the poorest of the poor. In Colombia indigenous people were adversely affected by policies pursued by a few individuals in the interest of enterprises.
The international community was urged to show solidarity with the just struggle of the indigenous people in Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Rwanda, Nigeria, Malaysia, India and the United States. In these countries many indigenous communities were disappearing. Hence the need to appoint a Special Rapporteur for indigenous people as the discussion on the establishment of a Permanent Forum continued. Five years after the start of the Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples, it was necessary to strengthen international cooperation in the areas of human rights, culture, environment, development, and education. The international community had not attained other objectives such as approving a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples and establishing a Permanent Forum for indigenous people. Further, national commissions established to promote the rights of indigenous peoples were not operating.
LAZARO PARY, of the Indian Movement Tupaj Amaro, speaking in a joint statement with North-South XXI and the Union of Arab Jurists, said that after five years of debate, the draft declaration had been stalemated by State objections both from the North and the South. The long years of deliberations showed that there was no political will to resolve the problems that prevented the indigenous people from living a dignified life. The States did not want to listen to the indigenous peoples or assist them in obtaining their right to self-determination, property and land, and juridical, cultural and religious protection. Self-determination was the cornerstone on which all the other declarations depended, it was not to the monopoly or the exclusivity of States. There was a systematic failure by States to listen, as the indigenous lands often contained wealth, oil, gold, uranium etc. At the threshold of the 21st century it would be a crime to continue the postponement of the Declaration.
With regard to the Permanent Forum, the constructive proposals of the indigenous people had not been taken into consideration. Without this, the mandate would be brought down to one sentence. An advisory, deliberative body, with a broad mandate to adopt decisions. State interference in the elections of indigenous representatives was strongly discouraged.
NUR AMALIA, of the Netherlands Organization for International Development Cooperation, said the indigenous communities in Indonesia were the groups that had been the most harmed by the development policies in the country during the last three decades. Even though the indigenous communities were the largest element in the structure of the Indonesian nation-state, in the formation of policies, the existence of the indigenous communities had not been accommodated. That unfair treatment could be clearly seen in the categorization and definition of indigenous communities as isolated or primitive communities. The State had ignored and neglected the birth rights, the right to the indigenous lands, and the right to maintain their value systems and customs.
RONALD BARNES, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said there were many areas of the world where indigenous peoples continued to suffer unequal treatment in their social, cultural, economic, educational and political advancement. There were Governments which unilaterally created measures to deprive indigenous peoples of their land and territories and their important relationship to it. The right of indigenous people to self-determination should therefore include all levels of development to suit the desire and need of indigenous peoples. It seemed the reservations made by some Governments on the Draft Declaration only served to reduce its scope and application. The need to provide a Special Rapporteur for indigenous peoples was highlighted, as was the need to create a permanent forum for indigenous people. The Special Rapporteur would create greater depth and understanding between indigenous peoples and governments and the permanent forum would enhance the ability of indigenous people to eradicate the continuing discrimination against them.
MUNAWAR HALEPOTA, of Interfaith International, said some indigenous groups were threatened with exclusion from the Working Group under the pretext that indigenous people did not exist in Africa and Asia. Sindh was a land of peace and harmony and covered an area of about 58,000 square miles. It was rich with agriculture and natural resources including oil, gas, coal, diamonds, gold and uranium. The region was inhabited by approximately 45 million indigenous Sindhis, descendants of the original inhabitants, Dravidians. One of the world’s oldest surviving civilizations was under the threat of extinction from terrorism, cultural dilution, persecution by the establishment, increasing fundamentalism, lack of constitutional protection, deliberate transfer of population and illegal immigration and the imposition of martial laws which had resulted in the blatant violation of human rights by Pakistan. In view of the continuing violation of human rights in Sindh, an impartial United Nations fact-finding mission was essential and would be welcomed by the indigenous people of Sindh. The international community was needed to support the peaceful struggle against neo-colonialism and occupation.
SUHAS CHAKMA, of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, asked if the Swiss Government was ready to provide a building to accommodate the permanent forum on the rights of indigenous peoples together with its suggestion to choose Geneva as a centre. He welcomed the concrete recommendations of the second ad hoc Working Group on the permanent forum for indigenous peoples. The active participation of the indigenous representatives remained an example of how civil society could enrich the UN standard setting process. Their participation was also indicative of the continuing serious human rights abuses against indigenous peoples across the world. Both States and the United Nations had effectively failed to address such violations.
HJALMAR DAHL, of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, said that no substantial achievements had been made thus far with regard to the future adoption of the Draft Resolution on the rights of indigenous peoples. Only 2 of 45 articles had been adopted since the establishment of the UN Working Group on indigenous populations 16 years ago. If the goals to strengthen international cooperation for the solution of problems faced by indigenous peoples were to become a reality within the International Decade for Indigenous Peoples, realistic steps had to be made by the Governments to show positive signals. Another important issue with Governments was the establishment of a Permanent Forum for indigenous peoples in the UN system. In this regard, it was essential that the body have its own secretariat. The forum would give indigenous peoples new possibilities to be an integral part of the international community as equal partners with the Governments, with the right to set the agenda on issues affecting them, instead of being told how their future agenda should be.
MELANIE LEVERGER, of France Libertes, said the Mapuche people of Chile were being deprived of their human rights, particularly the Lafkenches of the province of Arauco. National logging companies with international financing had almost completely destroyed their communities' ecosystems. Also, commercial fishing enterprises were plundering traditional coastal fishing grounds. Chile was failing to protect relevant indigenous lands, and cases of torture had been noted against Mapuche, along with various forms of repression by the Chilean police and by agents of the powerful economic interests who were capitalizing on the riches of the indigenous peoples' environment.
Chile must enter into negotiations with all Mapuche, including the main Mapuche leaders, who had been excluded from negotiations so far. Construction of the Ralco hydro power station on indigenous lands also must be halted. The Commission should send an investigatory team to see what was happening and urge the Chilean Government to return the land in question to the Mapuche people.
Right of Reply
CAMILO REYES (Colombia), speaking in right of reply, said that the Government rejected statements made by several NGOs. The Government had started a consultation process with indigenous peoples, in pursuance of the law and Constitution and several instruments. The representative referred delegates to some documents which explained in detail the measures taken by the Government with regard to two indigenous communities in the country.
Consideration of the Report of the Subcommission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
RIBOT HATANO, Chairperson of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, introducing the Subcommission's report, said the newly renamed Subcommission had concentrated during its 1999 session on punctuality, impartiality and effectiveness. As requested by the Commission, the Subcommission had established a sessional Working Group on methods of work which had finalized a paper compiling rules of procedure. It was sincerely hoped that the paper, passed on to the Commission for its information, would be endorsed by the Commission and that the Commission would kindly request the Economic and Social Council to have the guidelines printed and widely distributed in the form of an independent booklet by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. A final report on treaties and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous populations had been submitted, while studies were ongoing on five topics. The Subcommission was requesting the Commission to approve studies on three new subjects to be carried out by Subcommission members, on the rights of non-citizens; globalization and its impact on human rights; and reservations to human-rights treaties.
As for reforms proposed by the Bureau of the Commission, the Subcommission was not strongly opposed to most recommendations, but held rather strong views against the following proposals: that its membership be reduced; that the election of members by the Commission be replaced by nominations by the Chairperson of the Commission; that the length of the Subcommission's annual session be reduced; and that the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery be replaced by a new Special Rapporteur.
Although it had been contended that the cost of the Subcommission was greater than that of the Commission, a subsequent check of the figures showed that not to be the case, Mr. Hatano said. In fact, the cost of a Subcommission session was about one-third that of a Commission session. The precise figures were given in paragraph 3 of his report.
SYRUS QAZI (Pakistan) said that the Subcommission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights had been devoting considerable effort and time on deliberating its own role and methods of work over the past year. These deliberations had resulted in rationalization of its agenda. The Subcommission had also been quite efficient in its use of time. It had been able to balance the conflicting needs of time and speakers wishing to take the floor, particularly the NGOs. The result was that the Subcommission remained one of the most well-attended meetings of the UN system in terms of participation of NGOs and human rights defenders. In this age of globalization the validity and relevance of almost every thing was judged by its added value. The Subcommission passed this criterion with flying colours.
It was recommended that the Subcommission continue to examine its role; that a criterion be adopted for the expansion of its agenda, that the Commission adopt stringent criteria for the commissioning of studies; and that a rigorous filtration process be adopted in the case of the elaboration of new instruments
REN YISHENG (China) said one year ago today, a certain bloc of countries had bypassed the United Nations and carried out military attacks against the territory of a sovereign State, under the pretext of humanitarian intervention. The attacks ran directly counter to a valuable resolution passed by the Subcommission at its 1999 session, which appealed to all countries to step up efforts to achieve cooperation for peaceful solutions to humanitarian problems, and to comply strictly with the UN principles and norms, including the principle of noninterference in State sovereignty under any pretext, and in particular not by using humanitarianism as an excuse. The Subcommission also had adopted resolutions on the promotion and dialogue on human-rights issues and on the right to development.
These resolutions showed a positive approach towards moving human rights forward and highlighted the strengths of the Subcommission. It should continue to carry out thematic studies but, in China's view, should not involve itself in individual country situations; it should remain at its current size of 26 members; and if the length of its session was reduced, it should not be to the detriment of the consideration of economic, social, cultural and development rights, nor of rights relating to special groups, such as women, children, minorities and indigenous people.
WILTON LITTLECHILD, of the International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, said the Working Group on indigenous populations must continue with its specific mandate. The Working Group should not be a trade-off with either the UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous People nor a Special Rapporteur on Indigenous' Peoples issues. The Permanent Forum was essential to deal with a broad range of urgent matters that implied life or death situations for indigenous peoples. Indigenous people should also reserve the right to continue seeking improvement on the proposed UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples.
With regard to the Working Group, it was said that five days of meetings was simply no longer sufficient to address the various concerns of indigenous peoples. Three minute interventions were simply too short given the distance that indigenous people had to travel in the hopes of getting their concerns addressed. An eight to ten-day annual meeting was called for. Concern was also expressed about discussions of a rule to enforce consensus at the UN Permanent Forum since such procedure would simply grant power of veto to any of its members. Further, the Forum must take into account not only equal representation but a basis of membership that respected the cultural and geographical diversity of indigenous peoples.
ALBERTO SALDAMANDO, of the International Indian Treaty Council, said the study on treaties and other agreements between indigenous peoples and States should be given the widest possible publicity, and the recommendation that a seminar be organized to study possible follow-up to the study was a good one; such a seminar would be of great value as it might lead to an equitable resolution to long-standing but unresolved issues such as non-compliance with treaties entered into in good faith.
The Working Group on indigenous populations absolutely should not be eliminated. Its continued existence should be rationally based on its contribution to human rights and fundamental freedoms, on its own merits. The Commission in fact should authorize the Working Group to meet for 10 days, as it could not accomplish its work in the current five days.
CORRIGENDUM
In the press release HR/CN/00/41 of 12 April, the right of reply of Nepal on page 15 should read as follows:
The representative of Nepal, speaking in right of reply, placed on record his country’s sincere appreciation to the distinguished Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography for her commendable work. However, Nepal was taken by surprise to see its name being mentioned in her report as being one of those countries where most of the domestic servants were subjected to severe sexual harassment in their employers’ residence. This kind of allegation expressed in a generalised form, without citing any concrete instances, did not reflect the real state of affairs prevailing in the country. If the Special Rapporteur could cite specific cases, the Government would be more than willing to bring the perpetrators to justice. Nepal was one of the first countries to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child and it had in place legislative mechanisms to care for the well being of children. Trafficking in human beings, in whatsoever form, was categorically prohibited and perpetrators of such crimes were liable to a heavy penalty of up to 20 years in prison. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal was doing its best , within the limited resources of the country, to protect the rights of the child. If there had been some isolated cases of the crimes mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, she should provide more concrete instances so that firm action could be taken against such menaces.
* *** *
56th session
14 April 2000
Afternoon
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon concluded its debate on indigenous issues and started its consideration of the report of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
Non-governmental organizations addressing indigenous issues highlighted alleged violations of human rights of indigenous groups in Australia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Burma, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Indonesia, Chile, Rwanda, Nigeria, India, the United States, Brazil and Pakistan.
Speakers expressed concern about the lack of progress in the Working Groups on a permanent forum for indigenous peoples in the United Nations system and on a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Several delegates stressed the need for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on indigenous issues. The encroachment on indigenous lands by development projects were denounced as were reported attacks by police and army forces on indigenous peoples. Impunity for various violations was decried.
The Commission was addressed by the Chairman of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Ribot Hatano, who said that concerning reforms proposed by the Bureau of the Commission, the Subcommission was not strongly opposed to most recommendations, but held rather strong views against the following proposals: that its membership be reduced; that the election of members by the Commission be replaced by nominations by the Chairperson of the Commission; that the length of the Subcommission's annual session be reduced; and that the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery be replaced by a new Special Rapporteur.
The following non-governmental organizations spoke under the item on indigenous issues: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the International Human Rights Law Group, International Educational Development, the Association for Defence and Promotion of Human Rights, the Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace, Aliran, the International Peace Bureau, the American Association of Jurists, the Latin American Human Rights Association, the Movement Against Racism and For Friendship Among Peoples, the Saami Council, the International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs, the International Council of South America, the International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Association Kunas Unidos Por Napguana, the Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, the Netherlands Organization for International Development Cooperation, the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, Interfaith International, the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, and France Libertes.
Pakistan, China, the International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, and the International Indian Treaty Council spoke on the agenda item on the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
Colombia exercised its right of reply.
The Commission concluded its afternoon meeting at 6 p.m. and immediately started its evening meeting which will end at 9 p.m. During that meeting, the Commission is expected to start its consideration of its agenda item on the promotion and protection of human rights, including the status of the international covenants on human rights, human rights defenders, information and education, and science and environment.
Statements
SHANE HOFFMAN, of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, in a joint statement with the National Indigenous Working Group on Native Title and the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, said the right to self-determination was the fundamental underlying principle of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and was fundamental to the enjoyment of all other human rights by indigenous peoples. In Australia, indigenous people faced lower life expectancy along with a much higher incidence of ill-health and higher levels of unemployment than the general population. There was continuing resistance in Australia to recognizing indigenous peoples as distinct people and the original owners of the land and resources.
Australian Governments had successfully reduced the opportunities of indigenous people to exercise even those limited rights which were protected by law. The amendments to the Native Title Act in 1998 had incurred strong criticism from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In the face of this criticism, the Government had called into question the integrity of the Committee and therefore the application of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. At the same time, two provincial government jurisdictions under Australia's federal system were facing international condemnation for their mandatory sentencing regimes that removed judicial discretion and targeted indigenous people.
LOTTIE CUNNINGHAM, of the International Human Rights Law Group, highlighted the difficulties of the indigenous groups of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua with regard to natural resources. Even though the Nicaraguan Constitution was one of the most progressive in the region, there was little progress for the indigenous peoples of Nicaragua. They wanted a certain degree of autonomy, and aspired to take their own decisions with regard to natural resources and community land. Their aspirations had been hampered for various reasons. One major problem was the lack of a demarkation law which would give title to the laws adopted in this field. The Government of Nicaragua used the current economic crisis to justify the construction by private investors of mega-projects on these lands and exploitation of natural resources. The advance of the agricultural frontier also caused problems in Nicaragua and the rest of the region. The Commission should recommend to the Working Group on the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples to complete its consideration of the document which should give sufficient protection to indigenous traditional lands. The Commission should use its powers to ensure the adequate protection of the rights of indigenous communities vis-a-vis transformation, sale and exploitation of the land.
ADAM BRANCH, of the International Educational Development, said the organization had been involved in promoting a peaceful resolution to the civil war in Chiapas and was committed to seeing the end of the grave human rights violations perpetrated by the Mexican security forces against the indigenous people. That struggle for autonomy and justice, led by the Zapazista Army of National Liberation, took place in hundreds of communities comprising a large section of eastern Chiapas. While concentrating their attention on those communities, the Zapatista peacefully supported indigenous autonomy throughout Mexico. In contrast, the response of the Mexican Government had been military terror and political deception. The proposed technical assistance programme between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Mexico was encouraging. However, it should become effective to avoid being yet one more hollow phrase in the Government's empty rhetoric of peace.
J. A. GIMBERNAT, of the Federation de Asociaciones de Defensa y Protection de los Derechos Humanos, said that the expectations raised following the 1995 adoption of the law for dialogue and peaceful solution in Chiapas were rapidly becoming frustrated as the situation deteriorated and the Government used violence in addressing the Chiapas problem. When High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson had suggested that the Government reduce the military presence in Chiapas to alleviate tensions there, she was met with a negative answer.
The paramilitary groups operated with impunity in the face of inaction by the executive and judicial powers. The report of the Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary and arbitrary executions contained information establishing the involvement of the authorities and paramilitary groups in killings in Acteal and shortcomings in the investigative procedures. As a result, indigenous people had seen their land encroached on, and their houses and natural resources destroyed. They were denied freedom of movement in their own territory, and were the victims of arbitrary detentions, torture and ill-treatment.
JUNE PHAR CHAKMA, of the Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace, said that the Government of Bangladesh used the peace process as a cover for more human rights abuses, as evident in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Agreement of December 1997. More than three years had passed and the issues were still unresolved. The Bills passed in Government were contrary to the Peace Accord, army camps were yet to be withdrawn and many Jumma refugees were still living in makeshift camps as the settlers and the security forces still occupied their lands. There had been reports of continual human rights abuses against the indigenous Jumma people. The refusal to establish accountability for human rights abuses had been the main factor for such human rights abuses. The Special Rapporteur had urged the Bangladesh Government to fulfil its obligations under international law to clarify the circumstances of each alleged violation, but the Government of Bangladesh had failed to take any action. The UNESCO Peace Award to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh had become a source of shame. The international community should put pressure on the Government of Bangladesh for proper implementation of the Peace Accord. This was in the interest of the authorities unless they wanted to exterminate the Jummas.
CYNTHIA GABRIEL, of the Aliran Kesedaran Negara: National Consciousness Movement, said that indigenous peoples in Malaysia continued to be the victims of so-called development. That ranged from encroachment into native customary rights land to wholesale displacement of nearly 10,000 indigenous peoples. Police frequently abused their powers in taking side with the developers, loggers and government agencies. The police had become infamous for either not following-up or ignoring completely reports lodged by communities against land encroachment. That had often led to serious problems. The displacement of 10,000 people from 15 tribes, caused by the Bakun mega-dam project, was the largest relocation of indigenous peoples in the history of Malaysia. In addition, indigenous activists from the state of Sarawak had had their passports revoked and had been banned from travelling abroad to advocate for their land rights.
LITON BOM, of the International Peace Bureau, said that the military regime in Burma had systematically banned the rights of indigenous peoples such as freedom of worship. Religious minorities of Christians and Muslims were persecuted by the military regime of Burma which was pursuing a policy of mono-religion, language and race. The Chin Christians were compelled by the Burmese Army to construct Buddhist Pagodas without payment. While the regime used its power to compel Christians to construct pagodas, the construction of Churches and Christian religious institutions were banned without any reason. The Chin Christians were also physically persecuted by the regime and subjected to arbitrary arrests. The Commission was urged to intervene in the violations of these indigenous peoples' human rights by adopting a resolution on human rights in Burma.
JAIRO SANCHEI, of the American Association of Jurists, denounced the discrimination going on in Peru against the Quechua, Aymara, Aguaruna, and Ashaninka peoples. These peoples rights were recognized in the Constitution and they represented 40 per cent of the population. The poverty percentage in Peru for indigenous peoples was 69 per cent. It was urgent to juridically recognize the rights of the indigenous peoples and for the Government of Peru to recognize ILO Convention 169.
The situation in Ecuador was also a source for concern, particularly after the recent uprising. The indigenous people were poverty-stricken. The unemployment rates were rising and some people depended on international food aid for survival. The indigenous people could not bear the burden of the financial crisis brought about by the dollarization and neo-liberalist policies. At the moment those who had tried to stand up and change the conditions in the January-uprising were seriously repressed. The organization had proposed to the Government an amnesty law which would include the civilians and military persons in prison for participating in the uprising. The international community had to ensure the rectification of the political policies as they would otherwise produce unforeseeable problems in the community.
EMPERATRIZ CAHVACHE, of the Associacion Latino americana para los derechos humanos, complained that a process of destruction of indigenous peoples in Colombia was taking a serious trend to which the attention of the Commission was drawn. The actions of all parties to the conflict had grabbed the indigenous people in the middle of their destructive war. The indigenous people had been victims of the war in which they were not taking part. In addition, the indigenous people were used as human shields and they were removed from their ancestral lands. They had also lost their traditional heritage because of the continued war among the different factions and the Government. They were also deprived of community chiefs because of the crimes committed by the warring actors in eliminating them. The right to the freedom of movement had been limited. An appeal was addressed to all parties in the conflict not to involve the indigenous peoples in their war.
VERONIQUE GIRARDIN, of the Mouvement Contre le Racisme et Pour l'amitie entre les peuples, said that the extermination of indigenous communities in Colombia continued unabated as a result of actions by the guerrillas, paramilitary groups, soldiers, drug traffickers, erroneous economic policies and the absence of national economic and social policies. There were 82 indigenous peoples in Colombia who had survived more than 500 years of extermination policies and who continued to be subjected to cruel violence. Their survival was also threatened by infrastructure projects and the exploitation of natural resources like oil. Gradually indigenous peoples were being pushed into desolate areas.
Added to this were widespread diseases which wreaked havoc in their communities, as well as lack of respect and no hope for improvement. Several indigenous leaders had lost their lives because of the armed conflict which had raged in Colombia for 40 years. Investigations into the killings of indigenous people had often been suspended or were not initiated at all. Other violations committed against indigenous people were torture, detentions, threats, displacements, forced disappearances and massacres. Regrettably, the Colombian legal and political machinery was insufficient to protect indigenous peoples. The International Decade of the World's Indigenous People should devote more attention to the violence which threatened the survival of the indigenous peoples.
JOHN B. HENRIKSEN, of the Saami Council, said the draft declaration process had the highest priority. The many, and in some cases increasing violations of indigenous peoples' rights made the adoption of the UN declaration on indigenous rights an urgent matter. It was worrying that after five years of work, the Working Group had only managed to adopt 2 out of 45 articles. Governments should make a serious attempt to finalize the elaborations on the draft declaration so it could be adopted as soon as possible.
The establishment of a Permanent Forum would contribute to the main goal for the Decade which was to strengthen cooperation to solve problems faced by indigenous peoples in various fields. The preference would be to see the indigenous members serving as peoples' representatives. A matter of concern to the Council was that the draft resolution did not contain any proposal pertaining to the secretarial implications. A separated secretariat should be created for the Forum as the proposed mandate went beyond human rights. The proposal of appointing a Special Rapporteur on indigenous issues was strongly supported.
RATNAHER BHENGAR, of the International Workgroup on Indigenous Affairs, recalled that indigenous people had been coming to the United Nations for almost three decades precisely because their rights had been grossly violated and their best recourse was to find a space in the international arena to make their situations know. Now, it was more or less known that there were such beings called "indigenous peoples' whose rights should be respected equally as all the other human beings. Their main objective in coming to the UN was to tell their stories of how their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights had been and were still being violated. Those stories were the basis for the drafting of minimum standards which would ensure the protection and promotion of their rights, which was now captured in the famous UN draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.
NOLASCO MAMANI, of Consejo Indio de Sud America, said that some States detracted from the importance of a permanent forum for indigenous people in the United Nations system and ignored that their delegates had endorsed the creation of the Forum, recognizing that indigenous peoples had no international recognition. It was this recognition that had underpinned the need to create a Forum. However, representatives of indigenous peoples should sit in the Forum and not experts. Otherwise, the Forum would have no value. Further, the only name for such a forum was the Permanent Forum for Indigenous People. This was because only the term people would prevent the Forum from acquiring an integrationist and discriminatory dimension and negating the existence of indigenous people as social entities with distinct identity.
WILTON LITTLECHILD, of the International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, was concerned about the lack of substantial progress by the Inter-sessional Working Group and its inability to pass articles of the UN draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples by consensus. Another matter of concern was the lack of consideration of the very lengthy and long awaited study by a Special Rapporteur which was approved last year. The organization was at a loss as to why this was not on the agenda and would question its status now since there was no reference to it in any of the documentation. It was disappointing that the mandate of the Permanent Forum had been greatly reduced. The Permanent Forum was an important initiative, however it was important not to restrict it or to limit it at the outset, thus preventing it from being an effective body. Nevertheless, the organization would support the proposal in the draft resolution by Denmark. It was encouraging that the mandate of the Permanent Forum would include treaty rights. Of particular importance was the inclusion of treaties, lands and resources in the mandate.
ALVES RODRIGUEZ, of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), said he represented the organizations of the indigenous peoples of the Brazilian Amazon and wished to draw the attention of the Commission to the situation faced by his peoples. The rights to self-determination and territory had been denied by the Government in place and the efforts of the peoples to promote their rights were ignored. With regard to the document E/CN.4/2000/86, it contained some points to which the indigenous peoples did not give their consent. The Commission was urged to recommend to the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly to adopt the UN declaration on the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. It was also urged to encourage States to enact national legislation relating to the protection of indigenous peoples and to implement them effectively. The speaker then gave an account of violations of human rights of indigenous peoples in Brazil.
MARCIAL ARIAS GARCIA, of the Asociation Kunas Unidos por Napguana, said that every minute, 10 of his indigenous people died because of marginalization, poverty, sickness and adverse policies. Indigenous people were the most vulnerable sector, the marginalized among the marginalized, the poorest of the poor. In Colombia indigenous people were adversely affected by policies pursued by a few individuals in the interest of enterprises.
The international community was urged to show solidarity with the just struggle of the indigenous people in Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Rwanda, Nigeria, Malaysia, India and the United States. In these countries many indigenous communities were disappearing. Hence the need to appoint a Special Rapporteur for indigenous people as the discussion on the establishment of a Permanent Forum continued. Five years after the start of the Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples, it was necessary to strengthen international cooperation in the areas of human rights, culture, environment, development, and education. The international community had not attained other objectives such as approving a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples and establishing a Permanent Forum for indigenous people. Further, national commissions established to promote the rights of indigenous peoples were not operating.
LAZARO PARY, of the Indian Movement Tupaj Amaro, speaking in a joint statement with North-South XXI and the Union of Arab Jurists, said that after five years of debate, the draft declaration had been stalemated by State objections both from the North and the South. The long years of deliberations showed that there was no political will to resolve the problems that prevented the indigenous people from living a dignified life. The States did not want to listen to the indigenous peoples or assist them in obtaining their right to self-determination, property and land, and juridical, cultural and religious protection. Self-determination was the cornerstone on which all the other declarations depended, it was not to the monopoly or the exclusivity of States. There was a systematic failure by States to listen, as the indigenous lands often contained wealth, oil, gold, uranium etc. At the threshold of the 21st century it would be a crime to continue the postponement of the Declaration.
With regard to the Permanent Forum, the constructive proposals of the indigenous people had not been taken into consideration. Without this, the mandate would be brought down to one sentence. An advisory, deliberative body, with a broad mandate to adopt decisions. State interference in the elections of indigenous representatives was strongly discouraged.
NUR AMALIA, of the Netherlands Organization for International Development Cooperation, said the indigenous communities in Indonesia were the groups that had been the most harmed by the development policies in the country during the last three decades. Even though the indigenous communities were the largest element in the structure of the Indonesian nation-state, in the formation of policies, the existence of the indigenous communities had not been accommodated. That unfair treatment could be clearly seen in the categorization and definition of indigenous communities as isolated or primitive communities. The State had ignored and neglected the birth rights, the right to the indigenous lands, and the right to maintain their value systems and customs.
RONALD BARNES, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said there were many areas of the world where indigenous peoples continued to suffer unequal treatment in their social, cultural, economic, educational and political advancement. There were Governments which unilaterally created measures to deprive indigenous peoples of their land and territories and their important relationship to it. The right of indigenous people to self-determination should therefore include all levels of development to suit the desire and need of indigenous peoples. It seemed the reservations made by some Governments on the Draft Declaration only served to reduce its scope and application. The need to provide a Special Rapporteur for indigenous peoples was highlighted, as was the need to create a permanent forum for indigenous people. The Special Rapporteur would create greater depth and understanding between indigenous peoples and governments and the permanent forum would enhance the ability of indigenous people to eradicate the continuing discrimination against them.
MUNAWAR HALEPOTA, of Interfaith International, said some indigenous groups were threatened with exclusion from the Working Group under the pretext that indigenous people did not exist in Africa and Asia. Sindh was a land of peace and harmony and covered an area of about 58,000 square miles. It was rich with agriculture and natural resources including oil, gas, coal, diamonds, gold and uranium. The region was inhabited by approximately 45 million indigenous Sindhis, descendants of the original inhabitants, Dravidians. One of the world’s oldest surviving civilizations was under the threat of extinction from terrorism, cultural dilution, persecution by the establishment, increasing fundamentalism, lack of constitutional protection, deliberate transfer of population and illegal immigration and the imposition of martial laws which had resulted in the blatant violation of human rights by Pakistan. In view of the continuing violation of human rights in Sindh, an impartial United Nations fact-finding mission was essential and would be welcomed by the indigenous people of Sindh. The international community was needed to support the peaceful struggle against neo-colonialism and occupation.
SUHAS CHAKMA, of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, asked if the Swiss Government was ready to provide a building to accommodate the permanent forum on the rights of indigenous peoples together with its suggestion to choose Geneva as a centre. He welcomed the concrete recommendations of the second ad hoc Working Group on the permanent forum for indigenous peoples. The active participation of the indigenous representatives remained an example of how civil society could enrich the UN standard setting process. Their participation was also indicative of the continuing serious human rights abuses against indigenous peoples across the world. Both States and the United Nations had effectively failed to address such violations.
HJALMAR DAHL, of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, said that no substantial achievements had been made thus far with regard to the future adoption of the Draft Resolution on the rights of indigenous peoples. Only 2 of 45 articles had been adopted since the establishment of the UN Working Group on indigenous populations 16 years ago. If the goals to strengthen international cooperation for the solution of problems faced by indigenous peoples were to become a reality within the International Decade for Indigenous Peoples, realistic steps had to be made by the Governments to show positive signals. Another important issue with Governments was the establishment of a Permanent Forum for indigenous peoples in the UN system. In this regard, it was essential that the body have its own secretariat. The forum would give indigenous peoples new possibilities to be an integral part of the international community as equal partners with the Governments, with the right to set the agenda on issues affecting them, instead of being told how their future agenda should be.
MELANIE LEVERGER, of France Libertes, said the Mapuche people of Chile were being deprived of their human rights, particularly the Lafkenches of the province of Arauco. National logging companies with international financing had almost completely destroyed their communities' ecosystems. Also, commercial fishing enterprises were plundering traditional coastal fishing grounds. Chile was failing to protect relevant indigenous lands, and cases of torture had been noted against Mapuche, along with various forms of repression by the Chilean police and by agents of the powerful economic interests who were capitalizing on the riches of the indigenous peoples' environment.
Chile must enter into negotiations with all Mapuche, including the main Mapuche leaders, who had been excluded from negotiations so far. Construction of the Ralco hydro power station on indigenous lands also must be halted. The Commission should send an investigatory team to see what was happening and urge the Chilean Government to return the land in question to the Mapuche people.
Right of Reply
CAMILO REYES (Colombia), speaking in right of reply, said that the Government rejected statements made by several NGOs. The Government had started a consultation process with indigenous peoples, in pursuance of the law and Constitution and several instruments. The representative referred delegates to some documents which explained in detail the measures taken by the Government with regard to two indigenous communities in the country.
Consideration of the Report of the Subcommission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
RIBOT HATANO, Chairperson of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, introducing the Subcommission's report, said the newly renamed Subcommission had concentrated during its 1999 session on punctuality, impartiality and effectiveness. As requested by the Commission, the Subcommission had established a sessional Working Group on methods of work which had finalized a paper compiling rules of procedure. It was sincerely hoped that the paper, passed on to the Commission for its information, would be endorsed by the Commission and that the Commission would kindly request the Economic and Social Council to have the guidelines printed and widely distributed in the form of an independent booklet by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. A final report on treaties and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous populations had been submitted, while studies were ongoing on five topics. The Subcommission was requesting the Commission to approve studies on three new subjects to be carried out by Subcommission members, on the rights of non-citizens; globalization and its impact on human rights; and reservations to human-rights treaties.
As for reforms proposed by the Bureau of the Commission, the Subcommission was not strongly opposed to most recommendations, but held rather strong views against the following proposals: that its membership be reduced; that the election of members by the Commission be replaced by nominations by the Chairperson of the Commission; that the length of the Subcommission's annual session be reduced; and that the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery be replaced by a new Special Rapporteur.
Although it had been contended that the cost of the Subcommission was greater than that of the Commission, a subsequent check of the figures showed that not to be the case, Mr. Hatano said. In fact, the cost of a Subcommission session was about one-third that of a Commission session. The precise figures were given in paragraph 3 of his report.
SYRUS QAZI (Pakistan) said that the Subcommission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights had been devoting considerable effort and time on deliberating its own role and methods of work over the past year. These deliberations had resulted in rationalization of its agenda. The Subcommission had also been quite efficient in its use of time. It had been able to balance the conflicting needs of time and speakers wishing to take the floor, particularly the NGOs. The result was that the Subcommission remained one of the most well-attended meetings of the UN system in terms of participation of NGOs and human rights defenders. In this age of globalization the validity and relevance of almost every thing was judged by its added value. The Subcommission passed this criterion with flying colours.
It was recommended that the Subcommission continue to examine its role; that a criterion be adopted for the expansion of its agenda, that the Commission adopt stringent criteria for the commissioning of studies; and that a rigorous filtration process be adopted in the case of the elaboration of new instruments
REN YISHENG (China) said one year ago today, a certain bloc of countries had bypassed the United Nations and carried out military attacks against the territory of a sovereign State, under the pretext of humanitarian intervention. The attacks ran directly counter to a valuable resolution passed by the Subcommission at its 1999 session, which appealed to all countries to step up efforts to achieve cooperation for peaceful solutions to humanitarian problems, and to comply strictly with the UN principles and norms, including the principle of noninterference in State sovereignty under any pretext, and in particular not by using humanitarianism as an excuse. The Subcommission also had adopted resolutions on the promotion and dialogue on human-rights issues and on the right to development.
These resolutions showed a positive approach towards moving human rights forward and highlighted the strengths of the Subcommission. It should continue to carry out thematic studies but, in China's view, should not involve itself in individual country situations; it should remain at its current size of 26 members; and if the length of its session was reduced, it should not be to the detriment of the consideration of economic, social, cultural and development rights, nor of rights relating to special groups, such as women, children, minorities and indigenous people.
WILTON LITTLECHILD, of the International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, said the Working Group on indigenous populations must continue with its specific mandate. The Working Group should not be a trade-off with either the UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous People nor a Special Rapporteur on Indigenous' Peoples issues. The Permanent Forum was essential to deal with a broad range of urgent matters that implied life or death situations for indigenous peoples. Indigenous people should also reserve the right to continue seeking improvement on the proposed UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples.
With regard to the Working Group, it was said that five days of meetings was simply no longer sufficient to address the various concerns of indigenous peoples. Three minute interventions were simply too short given the distance that indigenous people had to travel in the hopes of getting their concerns addressed. An eight to ten-day annual meeting was called for. Concern was also expressed about discussions of a rule to enforce consensus at the UN Permanent Forum since such procedure would simply grant power of veto to any of its members. Further, the Forum must take into account not only equal representation but a basis of membership that respected the cultural and geographical diversity of indigenous peoples.
ALBERTO SALDAMANDO, of the International Indian Treaty Council, said the study on treaties and other agreements between indigenous peoples and States should be given the widest possible publicity, and the recommendation that a seminar be organized to study possible follow-up to the study was a good one; such a seminar would be of great value as it might lead to an equitable resolution to long-standing but unresolved issues such as non-compliance with treaties entered into in good faith.
The Working Group on indigenous populations absolutely should not be eliminated. Its continued existence should be rationally based on its contribution to human rights and fundamental freedoms, on its own merits. The Commission in fact should authorize the Working Group to meet for 10 days, as it could not accomplish its work in the current five days.
CORRIGENDUM
In the press release HR/CN/00/41 of 12 April, the right of reply of Nepal on page 15 should read as follows:
The representative of Nepal, speaking in right of reply, placed on record his country’s sincere appreciation to the distinguished Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography for her commendable work. However, Nepal was taken by surprise to see its name being mentioned in her report as being one of those countries where most of the domestic servants were subjected to severe sexual harassment in their employers’ residence. This kind of allegation expressed in a generalised form, without citing any concrete instances, did not reflect the real state of affairs prevailing in the country. If the Special Rapporteur could cite specific cases, the Government would be more than willing to bring the perpetrators to justice. Nepal was one of the first countries to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child and it had in place legislative mechanisms to care for the well being of children. Trafficking in human beings, in whatsoever form, was categorically prohibited and perpetrators of such crimes were liable to a heavy penalty of up to 20 years in prison. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal was doing its best , within the limited resources of the country, to protect the rights of the child. If there had been some isolated cases of the crimes mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, she should provide more concrete instances so that firm action could be taken against such menaces.
* *** *