Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Multiple Mechanisms
Default title
05 April 2000
Share
Commission on Human Rights
56th session
5 April 2000
Afternoon
FEDERATION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS
OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN CHECHNYA
Commission on Human Rights Continues Debate on Civil and Political Rights
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson this afternoon reported to the Commission on Human Rights on her just-concluded trip to the Russian Federation during which she investigated allegations of human rights violations in Chechnya.
Mrs. Robinson said that during her visit to the region of Ingushetia, she had heard allegations of mass killings, summary executions, rape, torture and pillage. She also heard detailed firsthand testimony from witnesses of alleged gross violations of human rights in Chechnya. These direct accounts and personal testimony were most significant since they bore out the scale and seriousness of the allegations of human rights violations by Russian military, militia and Ministry of Interior forces in Chechnya.
The High Commissioner said that she had asked to visit a number of locations in Chechnya but was informed that for reasons of weather and security, it was only possible to go to the Staropromoslovsky district of Grozny. She stressed that the primary responsibility for addressing human rights violations, as recognized internationally, rested with the Russian authorities and required a sustained, effective national response, including the establishment of a national, broad-based independent Commission of Inquiry into the serious allegations of human rights. However, the scale of serious allegations of gross human rights violations also warranted international attention and concern.
In response, the representative of the Russian Federation said that part of the information presented by the High Commissioner distorted the true nature of the state of affairs. The Russian authorities had been forced to begin the anti-terrorist operation in the region since they had a duty to restore law and order and compliance of human rights and freedoms.
The Russian representative accused the Chechen terrorists and bandits of kidnappings, rapes, cutting peoples' heads off and ruthlessly killed people. If it were not for the Russian Federation, this terrorism would have spread across borders. He said steps were underway to restore the social and economic situation in Chechnya as well as to restore law and order. The Russian Federation was ready to work with all those who had a sincere interest in the region but refused to let its openness be used as a pretext for other countries to interfere in its internal affairs.
Following the High Commissioner’s report, Commission Chairman Shambhu Ram Simkhada said that countries and non-governmental organizations which wished to respond to Mrs. Robinson’s comments could do so next Tuesday, 11 April at a meeting of the Commission which would be devoted to this issue.
Also this afternoon, the Commission continued its debate on civil and political rights, hearing statements from country delegations on how their Governments protected and promoted those rights.
The Independent Expert on restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights, Cherif Bassiouni, introduced his report to the Commission which, among other things, dealt with the questions of victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, treatment of victims, victims' right to remedy, victims' right to access justice, victims' right to reparation, forms of reparation, public access to information and non-discrimination among victims.
The importance of an independent judiciary to uphold democratic institutions; the need to combat torture, which was a grave human rights violation, and to fight against associated impunity; and guaranteeing the freedom of assembly and opinion were among issues that were raised by the country delegations. Alleged violations in specific countries were also made.
Representatives of the following countries addressed the meeting: Japan, Norway, Mexico, Senegal, Chile, Romania, Brazil, El Salvador, Latvia, Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), the Russian Federation, Poland, Argentina, Venezuela and Iraq.
The representatives of Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo also exercised their rights of reply.
The Commission resumed its plenary at 6 p.m. for a night meeting scheduled until 9 p.m. during which it will continue its consideration of the question of civil and political rights.
Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on her trip to the Russian Federation
MARY ROBINSON, United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, reporting to the Commission on the mission she undertook from 31 March to 4 April to Ingushetia, Dagestan, Chechnya and her meetings with Russian officials in Moscow, said that during her visit to the region of Ingushetia, she had heard allegations of mass killings, summary executions, rape, torture and pillage. She also heard detailed firsthand testimony from witnesses of alleged gross violations of human rights in Chechnya. These direct accounts and personal testimony were most significant since they bore out the scale and seriousness of the allegations of human rights violations by Russian military, militia and Ministry of Interior forces in Chechnya.
Mrs. Robinson said that for several hours, she had listened to harrowing accounts from direct witnesses to events. She was given photographs and videotaped evidence and was shown the wounds and scars of those who had themselves been injured. The individuals were clearly traumatized by what they had endured and were frightened, but they gave detailed, precise answers to close questioning. They were earnest to be accurate in response to questions, but the events would need full investigation and verification.
Mrs. Robinson said that she had asked to visit a number of locations in Chechnya but was informed that for reasons of weather and security, it was only possible to go to the Staropromoslovsky district of Grozny. She had also asked to visit detention centres other than Chernokozovo. The detention centre to which she was brought had housed only two women who were being held on charges of looting.
Mrs. Robinson said that she had managed to speak to some of the remaining residents of Grozny. These were mostly women and the elderly who complained bitterly of lack of sufficient food and their miserable living conditions. Many were anxious about relatives who had been detained. Criticism was made of the Chechen fighters for their callous disregard for the welfare of the civilian population.
The scale of the destruction in Grozny, even for those who had seen the television pictures, was shocking. In the central area it was difficult to find any building, large or small, which had not been destroyed or severely damaged. The sight of a city which was once famous in the Caucasus region reduced to rubble symbolized the devastating effect of the conflict.
The trauma of the attack on the Republic of Dagestan, which previously had friendly relations with Chechen people, was evident, Mrs. Robinson said, adding that the view was expressed to her that the international community had shown insufficient interest in the grave violations committed against the people of Dagestan during the incursions which included significant loss of life and displacement of many Dagestani villages in the affected areas.
Mrs. Robinson said that from the perspective of the Commission, the most pressing and immediate issue concerned the adequacy and credibility of the response by the Russian authorities to the scale of allegations of gross human rights violations such as mass killings, extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, violence against women, torture, arbitrary detention and pillage. Certain inquiries had been initiated and nine criminal prosecutions had been opened for offenses against civilians. However, bearing in mind the scale of allegations of violations and the depth of bitterness, resentment and grievance of the civilian population, a different level of response was needed.
The High Commissioner stressed that the primary responsibility for addressing human rights violations, as recognized internationally, rested with the Russian authorities and required a sustained, effective national response, including the establishment of a national, broad-based independent Commission of Inquiry into the serious allegations of human rights. However, the scale of serious allegations of gross human rights violations also warranted international attention and concern. This was particularly true in light of eye witness accounts of mass killings, summary executions, rape and of widespread pillage, together with the disproportionate use of heavy armaments in populated areas. The United Nations human rights mechanism, including the Commission, could play a crucial rule in the present context. Visits by Special Rapporteurs or Representatives were thus among those steps which might be considered in order to have a better assessment of the facts.
VASSILY SIDOROV (the Russian Federation) said in response to the report by the High Commissioner that Russia had never hidden the truth of the situation. Many delegations and the High Commissioner could testify to this, having visited the Northern Caucasus. Part of the information presented by the High Commissioner distorted the true nature of the state of affairs. The Russian authorities had been forced to begin the anti-terrorist operation in the region. They had a duty to restore law and order and compliance of human rights and freedoms, which had been suppressed by the Doudaiev regime. The Russian delegation noted that no one had said anything when terrorists and bandits had carried out kidnappings, rapes, cut peoples' heads off and ruthlessly killed people. The High Commissioner had been shown a video cassette, made by the terrorists themselves, which showed their inhuman behaviour. The Russian Federation suggested the Commission watch the cassette as well.
Not a week went by without a delegation visiting Chechnya and no one had been prevented from visiting the region. There were 700 accredited journalists out of which 540 were foreign in the region. States were obliged to fight terrorism. The Russian Federation also mentioned that the terrorists had financial help from abroad and that they used foreign mercenaries. If it were not for the Russian Federation, this terrorism would have spread across borders. Steps were underway to restore the social and economic situation in Chechnya and work was being carried out to restore law and order. The Russian Federation was ready to work with all those who had a sincere interest in the region but refused to let its openness be used as a pretext for other countries to interfere in its internal affairs.
Statements
CHERIF BASSIOUNI, Independent Expert on restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights, introducing his report to the Commission, said that section I of his report addressed the question of the obligation to respect, ensure respect and enforce international human rights and humanitarian law norms. This was the obligation of every State. Section II concerned the scope of the obligation, included providing victims with equal and effective access to justice irrespective of who might be the ultimate bearer of responsibility for the violation.
Section III concerned violations of international human rights and humanitarian law which constituted crimes under international law and carried the duty to prosecute persons alleged to have committed these violations, to punish perpetrators adjudged to have committed these violations, and to cooperate and assist States and appropriate international judicial organs in the investigation and prosecution of these violations. Section IV concerned the statutes of limitations. Statues of limitations did not apply for prosecuting violations of international human rights and humanitarian law norms that constituted crimes under international law. The other sections addressed the questions of victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, treatment of victims, victims' right to remedy, victims' right to access justice, victims' right to reparation, forms of reparation, public access to information and non-discrimination among victims.
KOICHI HARAGUCHI (Japan) said that underdevelopment could not be an excuse justifying the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights. The infliction of torture by public officers and other cruel punishments should be absolutely forbidden. Torture by any law enforcement officer should be regarded as a serious crime. This was clearly reflected in the Japanese Constitution, penal code and other relevant laws. Japan was now a State party to the six fundamental human rights treaties as it had acceded to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment last June. The delegation of Japan hoped the Working Group would make substantive progress at the next session. Japan had supplied assistance, medical, psychological and legal, compensation to the victims of torture.
Secondly, the delegation of Japan said that the most effective way to prevent the recurrence of human rights violations was to tackle the issue of impunity. Japan welcomed the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in July 1998. All Governments were called upon to abide by their obligations more effectively, especially through international judicial cooperation.
Thirdly, the work of the Working Groups and the thematic Special Rapporteurs contributed greatly to the promotion and protection of human rights. Japan was concerned about the unwillingness of some States to cooperate with such mechanisms. No State had the power to veto a Special Rapporteur. Finally, Japan highlighted the importance of human rights education in the field of civil and political rights. The Asia-Pacific Member States had discussed the ways and means to improve human rights education for all those involved in the administration of justice. It was also important to disseminate information concerning humanitarian laws among police and military personnel.
YLAVA BIE (Norway) stressed that no democratic state could be consolidated and sustained without the rule of law. The rule of was an indispensable element for the protection of human rights and of good governance. A central feature of the rule of law was the distribution of power between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. Good governance could only be realized where the distribution of power was organized in a system of checks and balances. Constitutional democracy and the rule of law could not survive without an independent judiciary. An independent judiciary served to uphold the integrity of other democratic institutions, reinforce their effectiveness, and prevent abuse of power. Only through a fair and predictable application of the law at all levels by an impartial and independent judge could individuals get the necessary protection against infringements from States.
Norway stressed the need for genuine implementation of international standards on the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment through effective national legislation. Effective legislation on prosecution and punishment of individuals committing torture was essential. That was especially important for the many groups at risk, including minorities, political opponents, journalists and human-rights defenders. Allegations of torture or ill-treatment should be investigated promptly, impartially and thoroughly.
ALICIA PEREZ DUARTE (Mexico) said that eliminating torture was a matter of priority for the Mexican Government. The National Commission on Human Rights was fundamental in eradicating torture. Several lines of action had been pursued in the struggle to eradicate this phenomenon in Mexico, mainly strengthening the legal system, promoting human rights and fighting impunity. Special attention had been devoted to prevention measures.
Since the enactment of federal law against torture in 1991, all the states of Mexico had revised their laws and currently all the states had legal provisions to combat torture. Everything was being done to combat the phenomenon with all the force of the law. Further, the Government did its utmost to combat impunity and corruption, consolidate a culture of equality and fight crime. Mexico knew however that it was not enough to amend laws to guarantee justice. Responding to criticism of the Mexican legal system, especially allegations of detention of suspects incommunicado, the representative said that every detainee had the right to consult with a lawyer and have a trial in a public court. Likewise, every detainee had the right to know what he was accused of. These norms were perfectly compatible with the principles established in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially article 14 thereof.
IBOU NDIAYE (Senegal) said that his country had ratified the Convention against Torture in 1986. Senegal had been aware early on that this Convention was a milestone in the promotion of universal respect for human rights. Respect for the dignity of the individual was the very foundation for justice and peace world wide. Senegalese legislation had established in article 6 of the Constitution a clause which pronounced the individual as sacred. Several steps had been undertaken in reforming the penal code. There were provisions to prevent acts of torture. If acts of torture were committed, they were punished and there was no impunity for public officials. Any detention outside official premises was sanctioned as secret detention often led to torture.
The principle of presumption of innocence was implemented to the benefit of suspects. Prisoners could demand the presence of a lawyer during questioning in custody, and a medical examination could be requested at any time. These provisions went well beyond the conditions of the Convention. The State and judiciary were obliged to respect the law, and adhesion to human rights and the permanent consolidation thereof had been recognized by the Committee against Torture. The frank and open cooperation of the Government had shown the political will to promote and protect human rights. Senegal had implemented a national human rights programme targeting the army, police and doctors.
The delegation of Senegal welcomed the increase in the number of States parties to the Convention to 118 States. This was encouraging. The creation of a world with a more human face was the highest aspiration of mankind.
GERARDO ATEAGA (Chile) said that the act of torture was one of the grave violations of human rights. In order to guarantee adequate protection against such abuse, the United Nations had a long time ago implemented a universal norm which was accepted world wide. With regards to Chile, the Special Rapporteur against Torture had affirmed that there was no evidence of acts of torture in the country and that the Government was not pursuing a policy of torture. In addition, the Government had made torture a crime punishable by law. If acts of torture existed in the history of Chile, it was during the past military regime. At present, the systematic practice of torture had been put to an end with the introduction of a democratic regime in the country. The Government had also enacted legislation which favoured the prevention of torture, in addition to the number of programmes launched to increase awareness among the law enforcement agencies.
IOAN MAXIM (Romania) said that one of the major transformations witnessed in the past decade was the unprecedented spread and recognition of democratic values around the world. It was remarkable that for the first time in mankind's history, the vast majority of States had embraced democracy. Indeed, the club of democratic States had now enough members to prove that democracy lay at the heart of peaceful international relations and internal stability. Romania had suffered traumatic episodes because of lack of democracy. To revert the course and regain normality, Romanian people had had to pay a very high price and the recovery was still a difficult day to day process. Romania was not alone in that respect however. That was why a number of States, including Romania, had decided to establish a Forum of New and Restored Democracies with a view to share their concerns and eliminate the adverse effects of past experiences as well as to articulate a pragmatic approach for implementing democratic mechanisms.
CELSO AMORIM (Brazil) said that twenty years after the entry into force of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedoms and freedom from want and fear remained a Utopian vision. Encouragement could be drawn from the growing acceptance of democracy as the one political system capable of creating the necessary conditions for the enjoyment of all basic human rights. Latin America provided an eloquent example of a peaceful democratic revolution. The determination to promote democracy could be seen through the Organization of American States and within MERCOSUL, which recently adopted regional and sub-regional mechanisms to ensure that the region's societies did not stray from the democratic path.
Elections in and by themselves were not sufficient to define political systems as democratic. Electoral processes could be misused to ensure the prevalence of essentially undemocratic ideas and practices and widespread corruption could corrode democracy. Similarly, a society could not claim to be democratic if it did not guarantee freedom of opinion and assembly. The international community was recommended to develop a complete awareness of the different types of threats to democracy. The Commission was urged to focus attention on trends threatening democracy, such as bias and bigotry. Those who espoused racist or xenophobic ideas could not be allowed to invoke the respectability associated with democratic rule to legitimize values that were intrinsically objectionable. Democracy was incompatible with racism, and racism undermined democracy. Brazil's draft resolution highlighted this incompatibility and it was directed to all nations, as no society had reached a stage where exclusion or preference based on colour, descent, national or ethnic origin had entirely disappeared.
MARIO CASTRO GRANDE (El Salvador) said that his country was determined to consolidate peace and national reconciliation and the predominance of the rule of law through a process designed to modernize its democratic institutions. The administration of justice and the independence of the judiciary had been strengthened so that the human rights of citizens were properly respected. Since 1998, the act of enforced disappearances had been incorporated in the country's penal code as a crime against humanity. In addition, measures had been agreed upon on the material compensation and political reparation to victims of enforced disappearances. A mechanism was also being established in collaboration with non-governmental organizations. During the commemoration of the International Week of Enforced Disappearances celebrated in May 1999, a series of initiatives had been adopted by the Government, with the participation of members of the civil society.
RAIMONDS JANSONS (Latvia) said that the modern world was so closely integrated that the administration of justice, the issues of fair trial and impunity could no longer be merely national issues. The responsibility of Governments to ensure that perpetrators of human rights abuses wherever they were committed did not escape justice was increasingly becoming a part of the code of conduct of inter-state relations. This code was not under the jurisdiction of any given State, but rather a commonly shared set of principles which countries freely agreed to implement.
To ensure that countries were implementing that principle, transparency was a key issue. The administration of justice would be meaningless if the judiciary was not independent and impartial. Crimes against humanity and war crimes were declared imprescriptible by the Convention of the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity of 1968. Latvia firmly supported the principle of seeking justice for crimes against humanity, regardless of the ideology on behalf of which they were perpetrated and without statute of limitation.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and States associated with it, stated that persons who were deprived of their liberty, for whatever reason, were particularly vulnerable to gross violations of their human rights. European Union countries were striving to eradicate the practices of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary detentions and other incidents of detention which violated human rights standards wherever they occurred. Nevertheless, the Union recognized that there was still much to be done. It noted with concern that those problems persisted all over the world, requiring careful attention and constant action by all States and other relevant actors to ensure that the human rights and guarantees of detained persons were protected under all circumstances.
The European Union was disturbed by the fact that administrative detention and re-education through labour continued to be used on an arbitrary basis in China, which clearly infringed the principle of the rule of law. China was urged to ensure all safe guards of a fair trial, including appropriate legal assistance and intervention of a judge at the earliest possible moment. The Union also called upon China not to apply re-education through labour to persons having exercised their fundamental freedoms. The Union was likewise gravely concerned that, despite the extensive provisions relating to the prohibition of torture which existed under national and international laws, police brutality and ill-treatment of detainees remained widespread and were often condoned or even actively encouraged by the authorities.
The Union continued to regret that the Governments of Algeria, Bahrain, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia and Tunisia had failed to respond to outstanding requests by the Special Rapporteur against Torture to visit, and urged those Governments to respond favourably and speedily to the Special Rapporteur.
With regard to the independence of judges and lawyers, the Union was deeply concerned about the progress of the proceedings initiated against the Special Rapporteur on the independence of lawyers and judges in Malaysia and called upon the Government to abide by the opinion of the International Court of Justice of 29 April 1999 on the Special Rapporteur's immunity from legal process of any kind for statements made in his capacity as an independent expert on mission for the United Nations.
ROMAN KUZNIAR (Poland) said the recognition of the inseparable and interdependent nature of human rights, development and democracy, was of fundamental importance. Democracy had been neglected in this triad. This was part of the consideration that lay behind the initiative by Poland, the Czech Republic, Chile, India, Mali, the Republic of Korea and the United States, to organize an international conference 'Towards a Community of Democracy' due to take place in June this year. The struggle for human rights was a struggle for democracy. Violations of human rights signalled a retreat from democracy.
There was no question that the advances of democracy had been one of the most momentous and encouraging developments of the closing years of the second millennium. Democracy should be founded on the values specific to a given culture, where it would have a strong moral and cultural underpinning. It had been empirically demonstrated beyond all doubt that democracy, regardless of its culture-based distinctive features and the problems inseparably associated with it, was a system which best fulfilled the aspirations of individuals, societies and entire peoples and the need for development, empowerment and creativity.
Social development was not a harmonious and linear process. The risks of instability, backsliding and breakdown were always present. Some of these aspects, or side-effects, were derived from chronic underdevelopment, social instability, intensification of internal conflicts and the collapse of State structures. Therefore they needed to be reaffirmed on a continual basis. The conference on democracy would be an opportunity to consider how to deal with the aforementioned threats, and how to make better use of the existing forms of cooperation.
NORMA NASCIMBENE DE DUMONT (Argentina) said that despite the country’s successive previous military Governments, Argentina was able to consolidate democracy by holding periodic elections and by strengthening its democratic institutions. With regard to torture, Argentina considered it as one of the scourges that had not yet been fully eradicated. Argentina on its part had upgraded the human rights secretariat of the Ministry of Interior and had integrated it with the Ministry of Justice, which now added to its title “Human Rights”. That measure was accompanied with the new concept of human rights and tackling problems relating to it. In the past, investigations of allegations of human-rights violations under the military regime had been obstructed and had been made impossible. However, with the new doctrine followed by Argentinean judges, cases of torture were now being dealt with properly. In addition, the Government had put in place preventive mechanisms and had take measures to strengthen its legislative provisions aimed at punishing perpetrators of torture. The Government had also contributed to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
MARIA CRISTINA PEREZ DE PLANCISOR (Venezuela) reaffirmed his country’s support for the right to democracy. Venezuela was proud to be one of the oldest democracies in the region and it was party to all regional instruments on human rights. The processes of democracy and human rights were intimately intertwined. The promotion and protection of human rights required democracy, as it was the natural political environment to ensure respect for such rights. These mechanisms of human rights were closely related to the very existence of democracy. The Venezuelan delegation recognized the historical and cultural particularities of democracy in various countries. Countries sometimes faced adverse conditions in their transition to democracy on a national and international level. The international community was called upon to help the transition countries through cooperation, not finger-pointing.
Venezuela functioned through participatory democracy. Popular participation was the ultimate raison d'etre of democracy. Participation required that citizens took part in the decision-making process itself. This was only possible if the population assumed its role responsibly and was not just a passive observer. Venezuela was a staunch defender of the democratic system and had been working actively on the promotion of democracy in the Inter-American context. The forthcoming meeting in Washington D.C would be an opportunity to debate the kind of democracy the region aspired to. The international community was called upon to start off with cautious and firm steps to implement the right to democracy. The international community should never depart from its determination to realize this right.
TAHA CHUKR MAHMOUD (Iraq) said that his country had ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1970. Iraq's achievements in the fields of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights affirmed the will of the national political administration to promote human rights. Since 1970, there had been several political changes and achievements aimed at the promotion of civil and political rights. The adoption of the Iraqi Constitution affirmed that the Iraqi population was composed of two basic nations, the Arab nation and the Kurdish nation, and affirmed the national rights of the Kurdish population and other minorities. The State allowed party plurality under the National Action Charter and the Charter of the National Progressive Patriotic Front. The State had adopted the Autonomy Law, the Executive Council Law and a number of national laws in connection with the promotion of cultural rights of minorities. Laws had also been adopted which authorized the establishment of trade unions and associations. These laws also guaranteed the rights of women and expanded the scope of women’s participation in the political and civil life.
The advancement and promotion of human rights could not be achieved in a sound manner in the light of continued offensives conducted against Iraq. These threats menaced the peace and security of Iraq's sovereignty and had deprived its population of basic means of subsistence for ten years. This situation had created abnormal conditions in which the State found itself forced to take measures to guarantee the rights of its population, and to maintain the security and integrity of the Iraqi society. The situation had not forced Iraq to declare a state of emergency, as the Government believed in the necessity of guaranteeing a genuine, normal and ordinary life for its population. The Government was maintaining the application of the Constitution and the law, including those provisions related to the freedom of the practice of religious rituals and beliefs. However, it forbade the use of religious and sectarian plurality as a means to instigate discrimination among citizens and to split the country's national unity. Freedom of expression of opinion and the right of publication were allowed. The State was keen on monitoring and guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary and the executive body.
Peace and security were necessary for the promotion of civil and political rights. The Commission was called upon to take all necessary measures to condemn foreign interference in north Iraq and to bring an end to the embargo as well as the aggression conducted against Iraq.
Rights of Reply
The representative of Rwanda, speaking in right of reply, referred to a statement by the Minister of Justice of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and said that his country wished to recall that the presence of its forces in that country was aimed at protecting Rwanda from the continuation of deadly incursions by members of the former Rwanda army into Rwanda. Since its intervention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the situation was under control and peace had reigned in the country, in particular in the north-west.
The representative of Burundi, said in right of reply, that Kabila's regime was exacerbating the tension already existing in the region. The behaviour of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was leading to the imminent breakdown of the Lusaka Agreement. Burundi had enough concerns with its own internal conflicts. The delegation of Burundi assured the Democratic Republic of the Congo that it would continue to keep a close eye on the shared border in order to make sure that the rebel forces did not infiltrate through them.
The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in exercise of his right of reply, said that the human rights violations in the eastern part of his country had continued to be carried out by the occupying armies of Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi. The war of aggression waged by Rwanda had also resulted in the massacre of Congolese citizens. Although the genocide in Rwanda had aroused the compassion of his Government, the massacre perpetuated by the uninvited foreign army of Rwanda was not understandable.
* *** *
56th session
5 April 2000
Afternoon
FEDERATION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS
OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN CHECHNYA
Commission on Human Rights Continues Debate on Civil and Political Rights
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson this afternoon reported to the Commission on Human Rights on her just-concluded trip to the Russian Federation during which she investigated allegations of human rights violations in Chechnya.
Mrs. Robinson said that during her visit to the region of Ingushetia, she had heard allegations of mass killings, summary executions, rape, torture and pillage. She also heard detailed firsthand testimony from witnesses of alleged gross violations of human rights in Chechnya. These direct accounts and personal testimony were most significant since they bore out the scale and seriousness of the allegations of human rights violations by Russian military, militia and Ministry of Interior forces in Chechnya.
The High Commissioner said that she had asked to visit a number of locations in Chechnya but was informed that for reasons of weather and security, it was only possible to go to the Staropromoslovsky district of Grozny. She stressed that the primary responsibility for addressing human rights violations, as recognized internationally, rested with the Russian authorities and required a sustained, effective national response, including the establishment of a national, broad-based independent Commission of Inquiry into the serious allegations of human rights. However, the scale of serious allegations of gross human rights violations also warranted international attention and concern.
In response, the representative of the Russian Federation said that part of the information presented by the High Commissioner distorted the true nature of the state of affairs. The Russian authorities had been forced to begin the anti-terrorist operation in the region since they had a duty to restore law and order and compliance of human rights and freedoms.
The Russian representative accused the Chechen terrorists and bandits of kidnappings, rapes, cutting peoples' heads off and ruthlessly killed people. If it were not for the Russian Federation, this terrorism would have spread across borders. He said steps were underway to restore the social and economic situation in Chechnya as well as to restore law and order. The Russian Federation was ready to work with all those who had a sincere interest in the region but refused to let its openness be used as a pretext for other countries to interfere in its internal affairs.
Following the High Commissioner’s report, Commission Chairman Shambhu Ram Simkhada said that countries and non-governmental organizations which wished to respond to Mrs. Robinson’s comments could do so next Tuesday, 11 April at a meeting of the Commission which would be devoted to this issue.
Also this afternoon, the Commission continued its debate on civil and political rights, hearing statements from country delegations on how their Governments protected and promoted those rights.
The Independent Expert on restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights, Cherif Bassiouni, introduced his report to the Commission which, among other things, dealt with the questions of victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, treatment of victims, victims' right to remedy, victims' right to access justice, victims' right to reparation, forms of reparation, public access to information and non-discrimination among victims.
The importance of an independent judiciary to uphold democratic institutions; the need to combat torture, which was a grave human rights violation, and to fight against associated impunity; and guaranteeing the freedom of assembly and opinion were among issues that were raised by the country delegations. Alleged violations in specific countries were also made.
Representatives of the following countries addressed the meeting: Japan, Norway, Mexico, Senegal, Chile, Romania, Brazil, El Salvador, Latvia, Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), the Russian Federation, Poland, Argentina, Venezuela and Iraq.
The representatives of Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo also exercised their rights of reply.
The Commission resumed its plenary at 6 p.m. for a night meeting scheduled until 9 p.m. during which it will continue its consideration of the question of civil and political rights.
Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on her trip to the Russian Federation
MARY ROBINSON, United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, reporting to the Commission on the mission she undertook from 31 March to 4 April to Ingushetia, Dagestan, Chechnya and her meetings with Russian officials in Moscow, said that during her visit to the region of Ingushetia, she had heard allegations of mass killings, summary executions, rape, torture and pillage. She also heard detailed firsthand testimony from witnesses of alleged gross violations of human rights in Chechnya. These direct accounts and personal testimony were most significant since they bore out the scale and seriousness of the allegations of human rights violations by Russian military, militia and Ministry of Interior forces in Chechnya.
Mrs. Robinson said that for several hours, she had listened to harrowing accounts from direct witnesses to events. She was given photographs and videotaped evidence and was shown the wounds and scars of those who had themselves been injured. The individuals were clearly traumatized by what they had endured and were frightened, but they gave detailed, precise answers to close questioning. They were earnest to be accurate in response to questions, but the events would need full investigation and verification.
Mrs. Robinson said that she had asked to visit a number of locations in Chechnya but was informed that for reasons of weather and security, it was only possible to go to the Staropromoslovsky district of Grozny. She had also asked to visit detention centres other than Chernokozovo. The detention centre to which she was brought had housed only two women who were being held on charges of looting.
Mrs. Robinson said that she had managed to speak to some of the remaining residents of Grozny. These were mostly women and the elderly who complained bitterly of lack of sufficient food and their miserable living conditions. Many were anxious about relatives who had been detained. Criticism was made of the Chechen fighters for their callous disregard for the welfare of the civilian population.
The scale of the destruction in Grozny, even for those who had seen the television pictures, was shocking. In the central area it was difficult to find any building, large or small, which had not been destroyed or severely damaged. The sight of a city which was once famous in the Caucasus region reduced to rubble symbolized the devastating effect of the conflict.
The trauma of the attack on the Republic of Dagestan, which previously had friendly relations with Chechen people, was evident, Mrs. Robinson said, adding that the view was expressed to her that the international community had shown insufficient interest in the grave violations committed against the people of Dagestan during the incursions which included significant loss of life and displacement of many Dagestani villages in the affected areas.
Mrs. Robinson said that from the perspective of the Commission, the most pressing and immediate issue concerned the adequacy and credibility of the response by the Russian authorities to the scale of allegations of gross human rights violations such as mass killings, extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, violence against women, torture, arbitrary detention and pillage. Certain inquiries had been initiated and nine criminal prosecutions had been opened for offenses against civilians. However, bearing in mind the scale of allegations of violations and the depth of bitterness, resentment and grievance of the civilian population, a different level of response was needed.
The High Commissioner stressed that the primary responsibility for addressing human rights violations, as recognized internationally, rested with the Russian authorities and required a sustained, effective national response, including the establishment of a national, broad-based independent Commission of Inquiry into the serious allegations of human rights. However, the scale of serious allegations of gross human rights violations also warranted international attention and concern. This was particularly true in light of eye witness accounts of mass killings, summary executions, rape and of widespread pillage, together with the disproportionate use of heavy armaments in populated areas. The United Nations human rights mechanism, including the Commission, could play a crucial rule in the present context. Visits by Special Rapporteurs or Representatives were thus among those steps which might be considered in order to have a better assessment of the facts.
VASSILY SIDOROV (the Russian Federation) said in response to the report by the High Commissioner that Russia had never hidden the truth of the situation. Many delegations and the High Commissioner could testify to this, having visited the Northern Caucasus. Part of the information presented by the High Commissioner distorted the true nature of the state of affairs. The Russian authorities had been forced to begin the anti-terrorist operation in the region. They had a duty to restore law and order and compliance of human rights and freedoms, which had been suppressed by the Doudaiev regime. The Russian delegation noted that no one had said anything when terrorists and bandits had carried out kidnappings, rapes, cut peoples' heads off and ruthlessly killed people. The High Commissioner had been shown a video cassette, made by the terrorists themselves, which showed their inhuman behaviour. The Russian Federation suggested the Commission watch the cassette as well.
Not a week went by without a delegation visiting Chechnya and no one had been prevented from visiting the region. There were 700 accredited journalists out of which 540 were foreign in the region. States were obliged to fight terrorism. The Russian Federation also mentioned that the terrorists had financial help from abroad and that they used foreign mercenaries. If it were not for the Russian Federation, this terrorism would have spread across borders. Steps were underway to restore the social and economic situation in Chechnya and work was being carried out to restore law and order. The Russian Federation was ready to work with all those who had a sincere interest in the region but refused to let its openness be used as a pretext for other countries to interfere in its internal affairs.
Statements
CHERIF BASSIOUNI, Independent Expert on restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights, introducing his report to the Commission, said that section I of his report addressed the question of the obligation to respect, ensure respect and enforce international human rights and humanitarian law norms. This was the obligation of every State. Section II concerned the scope of the obligation, included providing victims with equal and effective access to justice irrespective of who might be the ultimate bearer of responsibility for the violation.
Section III concerned violations of international human rights and humanitarian law which constituted crimes under international law and carried the duty to prosecute persons alleged to have committed these violations, to punish perpetrators adjudged to have committed these violations, and to cooperate and assist States and appropriate international judicial organs in the investigation and prosecution of these violations. Section IV concerned the statutes of limitations. Statues of limitations did not apply for prosecuting violations of international human rights and humanitarian law norms that constituted crimes under international law. The other sections addressed the questions of victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, treatment of victims, victims' right to remedy, victims' right to access justice, victims' right to reparation, forms of reparation, public access to information and non-discrimination among victims.
KOICHI HARAGUCHI (Japan) said that underdevelopment could not be an excuse justifying the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights. The infliction of torture by public officers and other cruel punishments should be absolutely forbidden. Torture by any law enforcement officer should be regarded as a serious crime. This was clearly reflected in the Japanese Constitution, penal code and other relevant laws. Japan was now a State party to the six fundamental human rights treaties as it had acceded to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment last June. The delegation of Japan hoped the Working Group would make substantive progress at the next session. Japan had supplied assistance, medical, psychological and legal, compensation to the victims of torture.
Secondly, the delegation of Japan said that the most effective way to prevent the recurrence of human rights violations was to tackle the issue of impunity. Japan welcomed the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in July 1998. All Governments were called upon to abide by their obligations more effectively, especially through international judicial cooperation.
Thirdly, the work of the Working Groups and the thematic Special Rapporteurs contributed greatly to the promotion and protection of human rights. Japan was concerned about the unwillingness of some States to cooperate with such mechanisms. No State had the power to veto a Special Rapporteur. Finally, Japan highlighted the importance of human rights education in the field of civil and political rights. The Asia-Pacific Member States had discussed the ways and means to improve human rights education for all those involved in the administration of justice. It was also important to disseminate information concerning humanitarian laws among police and military personnel.
YLAVA BIE (Norway) stressed that no democratic state could be consolidated and sustained without the rule of law. The rule of was an indispensable element for the protection of human rights and of good governance. A central feature of the rule of law was the distribution of power between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. Good governance could only be realized where the distribution of power was organized in a system of checks and balances. Constitutional democracy and the rule of law could not survive without an independent judiciary. An independent judiciary served to uphold the integrity of other democratic institutions, reinforce their effectiveness, and prevent abuse of power. Only through a fair and predictable application of the law at all levels by an impartial and independent judge could individuals get the necessary protection against infringements from States.
Norway stressed the need for genuine implementation of international standards on the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment through effective national legislation. Effective legislation on prosecution and punishment of individuals committing torture was essential. That was especially important for the many groups at risk, including minorities, political opponents, journalists and human-rights defenders. Allegations of torture or ill-treatment should be investigated promptly, impartially and thoroughly.
ALICIA PEREZ DUARTE (Mexico) said that eliminating torture was a matter of priority for the Mexican Government. The National Commission on Human Rights was fundamental in eradicating torture. Several lines of action had been pursued in the struggle to eradicate this phenomenon in Mexico, mainly strengthening the legal system, promoting human rights and fighting impunity. Special attention had been devoted to prevention measures.
Since the enactment of federal law against torture in 1991, all the states of Mexico had revised their laws and currently all the states had legal provisions to combat torture. Everything was being done to combat the phenomenon with all the force of the law. Further, the Government did its utmost to combat impunity and corruption, consolidate a culture of equality and fight crime. Mexico knew however that it was not enough to amend laws to guarantee justice. Responding to criticism of the Mexican legal system, especially allegations of detention of suspects incommunicado, the representative said that every detainee had the right to consult with a lawyer and have a trial in a public court. Likewise, every detainee had the right to know what he was accused of. These norms were perfectly compatible with the principles established in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially article 14 thereof.
IBOU NDIAYE (Senegal) said that his country had ratified the Convention against Torture in 1986. Senegal had been aware early on that this Convention was a milestone in the promotion of universal respect for human rights. Respect for the dignity of the individual was the very foundation for justice and peace world wide. Senegalese legislation had established in article 6 of the Constitution a clause which pronounced the individual as sacred. Several steps had been undertaken in reforming the penal code. There were provisions to prevent acts of torture. If acts of torture were committed, they were punished and there was no impunity for public officials. Any detention outside official premises was sanctioned as secret detention often led to torture.
The principle of presumption of innocence was implemented to the benefit of suspects. Prisoners could demand the presence of a lawyer during questioning in custody, and a medical examination could be requested at any time. These provisions went well beyond the conditions of the Convention. The State and judiciary were obliged to respect the law, and adhesion to human rights and the permanent consolidation thereof had been recognized by the Committee against Torture. The frank and open cooperation of the Government had shown the political will to promote and protect human rights. Senegal had implemented a national human rights programme targeting the army, police and doctors.
The delegation of Senegal welcomed the increase in the number of States parties to the Convention to 118 States. This was encouraging. The creation of a world with a more human face was the highest aspiration of mankind.
GERARDO ATEAGA (Chile) said that the act of torture was one of the grave violations of human rights. In order to guarantee adequate protection against such abuse, the United Nations had a long time ago implemented a universal norm which was accepted world wide. With regards to Chile, the Special Rapporteur against Torture had affirmed that there was no evidence of acts of torture in the country and that the Government was not pursuing a policy of torture. In addition, the Government had made torture a crime punishable by law. If acts of torture existed in the history of Chile, it was during the past military regime. At present, the systematic practice of torture had been put to an end with the introduction of a democratic regime in the country. The Government had also enacted legislation which favoured the prevention of torture, in addition to the number of programmes launched to increase awareness among the law enforcement agencies.
IOAN MAXIM (Romania) said that one of the major transformations witnessed in the past decade was the unprecedented spread and recognition of democratic values around the world. It was remarkable that for the first time in mankind's history, the vast majority of States had embraced democracy. Indeed, the club of democratic States had now enough members to prove that democracy lay at the heart of peaceful international relations and internal stability. Romania had suffered traumatic episodes because of lack of democracy. To revert the course and regain normality, Romanian people had had to pay a very high price and the recovery was still a difficult day to day process. Romania was not alone in that respect however. That was why a number of States, including Romania, had decided to establish a Forum of New and Restored Democracies with a view to share their concerns and eliminate the adverse effects of past experiences as well as to articulate a pragmatic approach for implementing democratic mechanisms.
CELSO AMORIM (Brazil) said that twenty years after the entry into force of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedoms and freedom from want and fear remained a Utopian vision. Encouragement could be drawn from the growing acceptance of democracy as the one political system capable of creating the necessary conditions for the enjoyment of all basic human rights. Latin America provided an eloquent example of a peaceful democratic revolution. The determination to promote democracy could be seen through the Organization of American States and within MERCOSUL, which recently adopted regional and sub-regional mechanisms to ensure that the region's societies did not stray from the democratic path.
Elections in and by themselves were not sufficient to define political systems as democratic. Electoral processes could be misused to ensure the prevalence of essentially undemocratic ideas and practices and widespread corruption could corrode democracy. Similarly, a society could not claim to be democratic if it did not guarantee freedom of opinion and assembly. The international community was recommended to develop a complete awareness of the different types of threats to democracy. The Commission was urged to focus attention on trends threatening democracy, such as bias and bigotry. Those who espoused racist or xenophobic ideas could not be allowed to invoke the respectability associated with democratic rule to legitimize values that were intrinsically objectionable. Democracy was incompatible with racism, and racism undermined democracy. Brazil's draft resolution highlighted this incompatibility and it was directed to all nations, as no society had reached a stage where exclusion or preference based on colour, descent, national or ethnic origin had entirely disappeared.
MARIO CASTRO GRANDE (El Salvador) said that his country was determined to consolidate peace and national reconciliation and the predominance of the rule of law through a process designed to modernize its democratic institutions. The administration of justice and the independence of the judiciary had been strengthened so that the human rights of citizens were properly respected. Since 1998, the act of enforced disappearances had been incorporated in the country's penal code as a crime against humanity. In addition, measures had been agreed upon on the material compensation and political reparation to victims of enforced disappearances. A mechanism was also being established in collaboration with non-governmental organizations. During the commemoration of the International Week of Enforced Disappearances celebrated in May 1999, a series of initiatives had been adopted by the Government, with the participation of members of the civil society.
RAIMONDS JANSONS (Latvia) said that the modern world was so closely integrated that the administration of justice, the issues of fair trial and impunity could no longer be merely national issues. The responsibility of Governments to ensure that perpetrators of human rights abuses wherever they were committed did not escape justice was increasingly becoming a part of the code of conduct of inter-state relations. This code was not under the jurisdiction of any given State, but rather a commonly shared set of principles which countries freely agreed to implement.
To ensure that countries were implementing that principle, transparency was a key issue. The administration of justice would be meaningless if the judiciary was not independent and impartial. Crimes against humanity and war crimes were declared imprescriptible by the Convention of the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity of 1968. Latvia firmly supported the principle of seeking justice for crimes against humanity, regardless of the ideology on behalf of which they were perpetrated and without statute of limitation.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and States associated with it, stated that persons who were deprived of their liberty, for whatever reason, were particularly vulnerable to gross violations of their human rights. European Union countries were striving to eradicate the practices of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary detentions and other incidents of detention which violated human rights standards wherever they occurred. Nevertheless, the Union recognized that there was still much to be done. It noted with concern that those problems persisted all over the world, requiring careful attention and constant action by all States and other relevant actors to ensure that the human rights and guarantees of detained persons were protected under all circumstances.
The European Union was disturbed by the fact that administrative detention and re-education through labour continued to be used on an arbitrary basis in China, which clearly infringed the principle of the rule of law. China was urged to ensure all safe guards of a fair trial, including appropriate legal assistance and intervention of a judge at the earliest possible moment. The Union also called upon China not to apply re-education through labour to persons having exercised their fundamental freedoms. The Union was likewise gravely concerned that, despite the extensive provisions relating to the prohibition of torture which existed under national and international laws, police brutality and ill-treatment of detainees remained widespread and were often condoned or even actively encouraged by the authorities.
The Union continued to regret that the Governments of Algeria, Bahrain, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia and Tunisia had failed to respond to outstanding requests by the Special Rapporteur against Torture to visit, and urged those Governments to respond favourably and speedily to the Special Rapporteur.
With regard to the independence of judges and lawyers, the Union was deeply concerned about the progress of the proceedings initiated against the Special Rapporteur on the independence of lawyers and judges in Malaysia and called upon the Government to abide by the opinion of the International Court of Justice of 29 April 1999 on the Special Rapporteur's immunity from legal process of any kind for statements made in his capacity as an independent expert on mission for the United Nations.
ROMAN KUZNIAR (Poland) said the recognition of the inseparable and interdependent nature of human rights, development and democracy, was of fundamental importance. Democracy had been neglected in this triad. This was part of the consideration that lay behind the initiative by Poland, the Czech Republic, Chile, India, Mali, the Republic of Korea and the United States, to organize an international conference 'Towards a Community of Democracy' due to take place in June this year. The struggle for human rights was a struggle for democracy. Violations of human rights signalled a retreat from democracy.
There was no question that the advances of democracy had been one of the most momentous and encouraging developments of the closing years of the second millennium. Democracy should be founded on the values specific to a given culture, where it would have a strong moral and cultural underpinning. It had been empirically demonstrated beyond all doubt that democracy, regardless of its culture-based distinctive features and the problems inseparably associated with it, was a system which best fulfilled the aspirations of individuals, societies and entire peoples and the need for development, empowerment and creativity.
Social development was not a harmonious and linear process. The risks of instability, backsliding and breakdown were always present. Some of these aspects, or side-effects, were derived from chronic underdevelopment, social instability, intensification of internal conflicts and the collapse of State structures. Therefore they needed to be reaffirmed on a continual basis. The conference on democracy would be an opportunity to consider how to deal with the aforementioned threats, and how to make better use of the existing forms of cooperation.
NORMA NASCIMBENE DE DUMONT (Argentina) said that despite the country’s successive previous military Governments, Argentina was able to consolidate democracy by holding periodic elections and by strengthening its democratic institutions. With regard to torture, Argentina considered it as one of the scourges that had not yet been fully eradicated. Argentina on its part had upgraded the human rights secretariat of the Ministry of Interior and had integrated it with the Ministry of Justice, which now added to its title “Human Rights”. That measure was accompanied with the new concept of human rights and tackling problems relating to it. In the past, investigations of allegations of human-rights violations under the military regime had been obstructed and had been made impossible. However, with the new doctrine followed by Argentinean judges, cases of torture were now being dealt with properly. In addition, the Government had put in place preventive mechanisms and had take measures to strengthen its legislative provisions aimed at punishing perpetrators of torture. The Government had also contributed to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
MARIA CRISTINA PEREZ DE PLANCISOR (Venezuela) reaffirmed his country’s support for the right to democracy. Venezuela was proud to be one of the oldest democracies in the region and it was party to all regional instruments on human rights. The processes of democracy and human rights were intimately intertwined. The promotion and protection of human rights required democracy, as it was the natural political environment to ensure respect for such rights. These mechanisms of human rights were closely related to the very existence of democracy. The Venezuelan delegation recognized the historical and cultural particularities of democracy in various countries. Countries sometimes faced adverse conditions in their transition to democracy on a national and international level. The international community was called upon to help the transition countries through cooperation, not finger-pointing.
Venezuela functioned through participatory democracy. Popular participation was the ultimate raison d'etre of democracy. Participation required that citizens took part in the decision-making process itself. This was only possible if the population assumed its role responsibly and was not just a passive observer. Venezuela was a staunch defender of the democratic system and had been working actively on the promotion of democracy in the Inter-American context. The forthcoming meeting in Washington D.C would be an opportunity to debate the kind of democracy the region aspired to. The international community was called upon to start off with cautious and firm steps to implement the right to democracy. The international community should never depart from its determination to realize this right.
TAHA CHUKR MAHMOUD (Iraq) said that his country had ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1970. Iraq's achievements in the fields of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights affirmed the will of the national political administration to promote human rights. Since 1970, there had been several political changes and achievements aimed at the promotion of civil and political rights. The adoption of the Iraqi Constitution affirmed that the Iraqi population was composed of two basic nations, the Arab nation and the Kurdish nation, and affirmed the national rights of the Kurdish population and other minorities. The State allowed party plurality under the National Action Charter and the Charter of the National Progressive Patriotic Front. The State had adopted the Autonomy Law, the Executive Council Law and a number of national laws in connection with the promotion of cultural rights of minorities. Laws had also been adopted which authorized the establishment of trade unions and associations. These laws also guaranteed the rights of women and expanded the scope of women’s participation in the political and civil life.
The advancement and promotion of human rights could not be achieved in a sound manner in the light of continued offensives conducted against Iraq. These threats menaced the peace and security of Iraq's sovereignty and had deprived its population of basic means of subsistence for ten years. This situation had created abnormal conditions in which the State found itself forced to take measures to guarantee the rights of its population, and to maintain the security and integrity of the Iraqi society. The situation had not forced Iraq to declare a state of emergency, as the Government believed in the necessity of guaranteeing a genuine, normal and ordinary life for its population. The Government was maintaining the application of the Constitution and the law, including those provisions related to the freedom of the practice of religious rituals and beliefs. However, it forbade the use of religious and sectarian plurality as a means to instigate discrimination among citizens and to split the country's national unity. Freedom of expression of opinion and the right of publication were allowed. The State was keen on monitoring and guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary and the executive body.
Peace and security were necessary for the promotion of civil and political rights. The Commission was called upon to take all necessary measures to condemn foreign interference in north Iraq and to bring an end to the embargo as well as the aggression conducted against Iraq.
Rights of Reply
The representative of Rwanda, speaking in right of reply, referred to a statement by the Minister of Justice of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and said that his country wished to recall that the presence of its forces in that country was aimed at protecting Rwanda from the continuation of deadly incursions by members of the former Rwanda army into Rwanda. Since its intervention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the situation was under control and peace had reigned in the country, in particular in the north-west.
The representative of Burundi, said in right of reply, that Kabila's regime was exacerbating the tension already existing in the region. The behaviour of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was leading to the imminent breakdown of the Lusaka Agreement. Burundi had enough concerns with its own internal conflicts. The delegation of Burundi assured the Democratic Republic of the Congo that it would continue to keep a close eye on the shared border in order to make sure that the rebel forces did not infiltrate through them.
The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in exercise of his right of reply, said that the human rights violations in the eastern part of his country had continued to be carried out by the occupying armies of Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi. The war of aggression waged by Rwanda had also resulted in the massacre of Congolese citizens. Although the genocide in Rwanda had aroused the compassion of his Government, the massacre perpetuated by the uninvited foreign army of Rwanda was not understandable.
* *** *