Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases CHR subsidiary body
DIFFICULTIES OF PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN FACE OF TERRORISM DEBATED BY SUBCOMMISSION ON PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTION OF MINORITIES
06 August 1998
Share
MORNING
HR/SC/98/6
6 August 1998
National representatives and experts of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities pondered this morning the challenges posed to human rights by Government efforts to battle terrorist insurgencies.
The topic was a major theme as the Subcommission began a second day of debate under its agenda item 2 -- formally, "the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation and of apartheid, in all countries, with particular reference to colonial and other dependent countries and territories". A long list of non-governmental organizations addressing the topic was completed and several Subcommission experts and observers from national delegations took the floor.
A representative of Turkey told the meeting that the country faced a separatist terrorist movement on a scale which was not experienced by Western democracies and that aimed at dismembering one-third of the national territory, complicating the Government's struggle to preserve public order while at the same time fostering respect for human rights. He said a number of measures recently had been taken to prevent abuses under anti-terrorist laws and to improve freedom of expression, but contended that critics of the Government's efforts also had obligations of their own to respect the rule of law and preserve public order.
Subcommission expert Soli J. Sorabjee said terrorism could be a worthy subject of Subcommission attention when the panel was making its delicate decisions on what country situations to consider. Terrorism could cause gross
United Nations Information Service at Geneva Press Releases are available on the Internet at the following address: http://www.unog.ch
violations of human rights, was brutally damaging to innocent people, and was complex in practice and theory and posed difficult challenges for Governments; it had to be combatted through counter-terrorism by States but not by brutal suppression of human rights in pursuance of official policy.
Subcommission expert Francoise Jane Hampson said States often believed they could only defeat so-called terrorists by having recourse to measures not permitted under international human rights law -- an approach that was immoral, unlawful, and did not work. If there was nothing to choose between the conduct of the State and the non-State authorities, she said, the State forfeited its claim to allegiance. While it was understandable that States would lose sight of their long-term interests, she said, it was important for independent and objective outsiders to remind them of their legal responsibilities.
A representative of Sri Lanka contended that the Government was pursuing and succeeding in human-rights reforms in the face of what it called terrorist opposition; it blamed terrorists for recent assassinations of several persons elected in voting in the country's Jaffna Peninsula.
The delegation of Mexico summarized measures to resolve the separatist conflict in the Chiapas region.
Subcommission experts Halima Embarek Warzazi, Erica-Irena A. Daes, and Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro also spoke. Observer delegates for the following countries addressed the meeting: China, Turkey, Republic of Korea, Tunisia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Mexico.
The following non-governmental organizations delivered statements: Third World Movement Against Exploitation of Women; International Association Against Torture; Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Among Peoples; All-Pakistan Women's Organization; International Prison Observatory; Tunisian Organization for Education and the Family; and International Human Rights Association of American Minorities.
The Subcommission will reconvene at 3 p.m. and is expected to conclude over the course of the afternoon its review of human-rights situations in specific countries and territories.
Statements
RAFENDI DJAMIN, of the Third World Movement Against the Exploitation of Women, hoped the meeting would pay serious attention to the people who were victims of human rights violations in Indonesia. The new Government had failed to stop the systematic violation of human rights, marked by the authorities’ inability to bring to justice those responsible for kidnapping of activists, killing of students, and systematic rape of Chinese women. The adoption of the National Action Plan on Human Rights in July 1998 and the ratification of the Convention against Torture had not addressed the institutional machinery of terror. In the last month, 1,700 deaths and disappearances had been reported by the people of Aceh. Recent testimony indicated that the inhabitants of north Aceh, east Aceh and Pidie had been subjected to systematic violence by the Government. The largest number of cases of human rights violations were reported to NGOs, not the Government, and therefore it was important that an independent investigation of human rights abuses in Aceh be launched as soon as possible. The Government had to desist from using religious hatred and social envy as scapegoats.
ROGER WAREHAM, of International Association Against Torture, said a double standard persisted in defiance of the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights; if one looked at the list of Subcommission resolutions over the years under this agenda item, one found a complete absence of references to the so-called "developed world". The United States, often imperceptibly, was consolidating a fascist state; police-state practices were imposed; the country should be placed on the Subcommission's list of countries which were gross violators of human rights. Its three-decade blockade of Cuba had accomplished one thing: violation of the Cuban people's right to development and impoverishment; the United States often used international mechanisms such as the UN to front for it -- witness the war on Iraq, the Somalia fiasco, the sanctions against Iraq and Libya. Within the United States the situation of economic, social, and cultural rights was abhorrent for Blacks - especially Black children - Hispanics, and indigenous nations; the police and the courts discriminated extensively on matters of race; freedom of the press was under increasing attack. In Spain, there were tactics of repression of the rights to self-determination of the Basque people.
JUSFIQ HADJAR, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that some changes had taken place in Indonesia since Mr. B.J. Habibie had taken over from General Suharto, however most of them were cosmetic changes. The Government had adopted measures to ensure that the violations of human rights committed since 1965 would remain unpunished. No criticism of the former President was tolerated. How many Indonesians had been killed during the hunt for Communists? Amnesty International had said close to half a million , but other estimates put the figure at three million. At the start of the 1980s, in the province of Lampung, the army had massacred the majority of the population of a village on the pretext that the school was teaching a form of Islam that the Government did not like. In 1984, General Suharto had admitted that he had given an order to kill thousands of young delinquents in big cities such as Djakarta and Medan. In the province of Irian Jaya in New Guinea, where a part of the population wished to create an independent state, the army had responded by massacring the population. The Indonesian army systematically raped women. It was urgent for the Subcommission to appoint a special rapporteur to assist the Indonesian Government to throw some light on the unpunished violations of human rights in that country.
SAEEDA GUL, of All-Pakistan Women's Organization, said the Kashmir struggle for self-determination had entered its fiftieth year; generations of Kashmiris had grown up under the shadow of colonial occupation; over the past decade, more than 60,000 had been killed by Indian security forces; over 35,000 were languishing in jails; thousands had been maimed and disabled. According to the United States State Department, Indian occupation forces and pro-Government "renegades" hired by them had committed an estimated 100 to 200 extrajudicial killings in Kashmir in 1997; torture often preceded these murders. Rape and molestation were widely used as an instrument of suppression by Indian occupation forces; there was a complete incapacity to investigate such offenses; the Indian National Human Rights Commission should be allowed to investigate complaints of violations by Indian armed forces, which it was now prohibited from doing. The Subcommission must act to end the violation of Kashmiris' rights; international human rights organizations must be given unhindered access to Kashmir, and special rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights must be permitted to visit and prepare reports.
YWENZELLE FONTANA, of Observatoire International des Prisons, wished to bring attention to the militarisation of the prison system in certain countries of Latin America. In Argentina, the staff of the penitentiary system included, among others, former members of groups that had been responsible for extrajudicial executions. In Brazil, military police managed prisons in more than half of the states. This kind of militarisation of prisons had grave consequences. Even in countries where the presence of the military was limited to the periphery of prisons, military intervention in prisons gradually became institutionalised. In Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile and Argentina, the management of prisons had gradually became authoritarian, and violence had become the response to prisoners' protests. As a result of the militarisation of prisons, there had been an increase in the number of deaths of prisoners. In the absence of international mechanisms to supervise prisons, it was necessary to appoint a special rapporteur for people held in any form of detention.
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission expert, said there were those who could put an end to serious human rights violations around the world if they tried; at the end of the century it was discouraging to turn on the television or open a newspaper -- massacres, genocides, atrocities, armed conflicts, brother peoples tearing themselves apart in the full sight of a world that seemed unable to act. Geopolitical interests were frequently pursued in which men, women and children were only pawns; to reduce a people to starvation, to send a country back from development, was a horrific thing, and yet that was the consequence of the economic embargoes imposed by the world's powerful countries. The situation in the Middle East grew worse; the Palestinian people suffered still more; the Security Council seemed to have lost its power. How had it come to this on the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Racism and xenophobia in Europe could not be blamed on ignorance; rather it appeared that these racist tendencies had been created to replace the loss of old enemies, such as the Soviet Union. Surveillance systems set up by some European countries threatened rights to privacy and deserved careful watching. The picture wasn't entirely bleak around the world, but the successes had been small, and were largely enjoyed by people who already were privileged. The truth was that the billions of poor people around the globe were a long way from enjoying their human rights; greater efforts were required on their behalf to make this truly a world of peace, justice, and human rights.
ANCHOUR MONCEF, of the Tunisian Organisation of Education and the Family said, governments, national organisations, NGOs and civil society had to find normal responses to overcome political and cultural rifts. In Tunisia, a law passed on 29 July 1991 which had made education compulsory and free until the age of 16. Some 93.1 per cent of children between the ages of 6 and 12 were now in eduction, and more than 50 per cent of the children in schools were female. Defamation and sensationalisation of issues that was practised by many NGOs was detrimental to their credibility. Tunisia's first concern had been to give everyone access to fundamental rights. Tunisia was one of the few countries to promulgate a code of protection of the child that had entered into force since 1995. Tunisia had been able to respond to the challenges of globalization without changing the basis of its national identity.
MAJID TRAMBOO, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said the organization was concerned at the increase in application of the death penalty in the United States; the relevant special rapporteur had already described the use of the death penalty in the United States as unacceptable; and overall there was maltreatment of African-American prisoners in the United States. In Europe, there was a catastrophe unfolding in Kosovo; innocent civilians were suffering from numerous abuses; in some cases, women and children caught up in the conflict were lined up and shot. Attention must be paid to serious and gross human rights violations in India; many of these abuses were generated by intense social tension, the caste system, and deliberate and willful suppression of minorities; the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir continued to suffer brutal repression through murder, torture, arbitrary arrests, detention, molestation and rape by Indian armed forces simply because people demanded to determine their own political future. The situation had only worsened; it was important to guard against the Subcommission turning into a Subcommission “on prevention of terrorism and protection of Governments”. Human rights issues could not be considered as internal affairs; the international community was obligated to act on them.
WU JIANMIN (China) said that the work of the United Nations in human rights over the last 50 years had been influenced by the Cold War. This "Cold War mentality" had not helped the promotion and protection of human rights and this mentality persisted. However, at the fifty-fourth session of the Human Rights Commission, earlier this year, there had been a reduction of confrontation and more dialogue and cooperation and this was a positive change. Cooperation had to be strengthened. This could be done by recognising the common ground between countries: all countries attached importance to human rights, all accepted the principle of the universality of human rights, no country's human rights situation was perfect and all needed improvement, human rights were an integral whole, and all were in favour of the rule of law. If this common ground was strengthened, achievements were possible. The Subcommission had played a constructive role in promoting dialogue and cooperation and had contributed to the positive changes in the fifty-fourth Session of the Human Rights Commission. The United Nations over emphasised civil and political rights at the expense of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development, and this imbalance needed to be addressed.
China believed that human rights should be promoted through dialogue and
cooperation and had conducted dialogue on human rights with many countries. These dialogues had been successful as they were conducted on the basis of equality and mutual respect. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, had been invited by the Chinese Government to visit China in September 1998. This visit would certainly enhance the mutual understanding and give a stimulus to the cooperation between China and UN human rights mechanisms. The atrocities in Indonesia in May against ethnic Chinese had been taken very seriously by the Chinese authorities, and China had asked Indonesia to take measures to punish the culprits and ensure that similar incidents would not recur.
ERICA-IRENE A. DAES, Subcommission expert, said the fiftieth session of the Subcommission coincided with a number of other anniversaries, including the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it was a time to review and take stock of the situation; it was also a prime responsibility and duty of each State to promote and protect such rights. Subcommission experts had the additional responsibility to stigmatize human rights abuses wherever they occurred. She felt concern about a number of situations around the world. Regional conflicts and ethnic antagonism had apparently replaced the old conflict of the Cold War. Thousands of indigenous peoples were suffering from inhuman treatment around the world; political development and economic globalization often made it difficult for indigenous peoples to maintain their identities, cultures, and traditional economies.
A grim picture was emerging of the situation of indigenous peoples in the Chiapas region of Mexico; there was an atmosphere of fear as they were caught between Government forces and officially funded militias on one side and armed resistance groups on the other; Mrs. Daes said she was thus relieved to hear the recent announcement by the Mexican Government that it had adopted a strategy based on re-establishing the state of law in Chiapas; carrying out dialogue and negotiations with the Zapatista Army there; and attacking the socio-economic causes that had led to the conflict. She also felt concern over the situation in Turkey, including the recent assassination attempt and jail sentence given to the best-known of Turkey's human-rights activists, Akin Birdal. Further, Greek minority residents of the islands of Gokceada and Bozcada continued to suffer untold miseries and in essence were undergoing ethnic cleansing and watching as their cultural heritage was destroyed. Meanwhile, the situation in Cyprus was deteriorating; 38 percent of the territory of the island continued to be occupied; the problem of missing persons continued unresolved; the enclaved Greek Cypriots still faced many serious problems; their living conditions were appalling; establishment of Turkish settlers on the island, an undisputed fact, had fundamentally changed the demographic structure of Cyprus, and constituted an international crime.
PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Subcommission expert, said that the international community was following with hope the efforts of the Government of Iran to implement human rights and establish a state of law. The Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran had noted in his report the positive steps made in this direction. In that framework, the Chairman should ask the Government of Iran to make available to the Subcommission information about the execution of Duhollah Rawhany, Zabihi Moghaddam, Kashefi Nasafabadi and Hamid Nasirzadeh who, it had been alleged, had been prosecuted because they belonged to the Baha'i community. The Government of Iran, by ensuring full transparency in these cases, could make a positive contribution to the fight to ensure the protection of religious rights in the country.
MURAT SUNGAR (Turkey) said Turkey was a well-established democracy that had a long-standing respect for human rights, but unfortunately also faced a separatist terrorist movement on a scale which was not experienced by Western democracies; what Turkey faced was not an "armed conflict", as outsiders often called it, but random terrorism supported from outside that did not defend a so-called harassed "minority" but in fact aimed at dismembering one-third of the national territory. The terrorist organization had killed over 5,000 civilians, most of whom were people of the same ethnic origin it claimed to defend. In general, the claim for minority rights on behalf of this group had to be considered in the context of the multi-ethnic makeup of Turkey as a whole, which had required construction of a State on a unitary basis; such a complex social fabric did not allow for any approach but the according of equal rights and obligations to all regardless of ethnic origin. Turkey had made a number of reforms to anti-terrorist legislation and to judicial and penal practices to improve respect for human rights and enhance freedom of the press, but those critical of the country's performance had their own obligations to respect the law and not to disrupt public order. Turkey would resolutely forge ahead with the human rights reform process.
JONG HOON KIM (Republic of Korea) said resolving the question of impunity for violators of human rights had to be a priority of the international community; for this reason, Korea agreed with the necessity of creating a permanent International Criminal Court and welcomed the adoption of the statute of the Court in Rome. The development of an arrangement or mechanism for the prevention of serious human rights violations all over the world also had to be explored and the suggestion to establish a rapid response system centred around the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was welcome. Human rights education also had to be emphasised.
Despite the Republic of Korea's unique situation as a divided country, Korea had promoted respect for human rights and democracy. President Kim Dae-jung had announced 100 priority tasks that aimed to enhance people's living standards in all sectors. He was also in the process of enacting new human rights legislation and was establishing a national human rights commission.
SOLI J. SORABJEE, Subcommission expert, said the Subcommission was not well-equipped to undertake the task of considering country situations; consideration of country-based resolutions seemed to generate acrimony and bitterness instead of dialogue and understanding; however, it did serve as a useful platform to which activist groups could bring the international community's attention to violations taking place in many parts of the world, and it helped to channel information from a wide range of sources. It was important to decide which country situations the Subcommission should address; otherwise the process was unfair and lost credibility. Certain practical factors should be borne in mind, in his view, including the nature and gravity of the violations; extent and intensity; duration; measures available in a country for enforcing accountability; difficult conditions prevailing; seriousness of State efforts to respond; and historical background and traditions.
It was clear that terrorism posed special problems, Mr. Sorabjee said; it could be a worthy subject of Subcommission attention, as it could constitute gross violations, was brutally damaging to innocent people, and was complex in practice and theory and posed difficult challenges for Governments; it had to be combatted through counter-terrorism by States but not by brutal suppression of human rights in pursuance of an official policy on that behalf; yet it had to be accepted that terrorism did pose special problems for countries.
Another factor to be borne in mind in deciding consideration of country situations was whether human rights violations stemmed from the very nature of the legal regime of a State and thus the violations were systemic, Mr. Sorabjee said; in such cases a consistent pattern of gross violations could be reasonably inferred. In any case, the Subcommission should aim at creating a framework for "goading" a country in such a situation into taking corrective action. Efforts should be made to avoid dangerous ground while carrying out such a process by respecting the values of tolerance and pluralism.
FRANCOISE HAMPSON, Subcommission expert, focused on cases where there were allegations of violation of human rights in situations of serious organised political violence. In such situations, the State remained bound by its human rights obligations. However, States often believed that they could only defeat the so-called terrorists by having recourse to measures not permitted under international human rights law. This was immoral, unlawful, and did not work. If there was nothing to choose between the conduct of the State and the non-State authorities, the State forfeited its claim to allegiance. While it was understandable that States would lose sight of their long-term interests, independent and objective outsiders needed to remind the States of their legal responsibilities. In the case of serious organised political violence, States commonly entered a notice of derogation with regard to their human rights commitments. This was a serious step, and it would appear logical that in such a case, no State should be permitted to deny the applicability of at least common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Though States often said that there was no way of punishing non-State forces involved in organised political violence, this was inaccurate. There was domestic criminal law, and international humanitarian law, and every State in this situation should sign up to the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Against this background, certain situations needed to be considered, Mrs. Hampson said. In south-east Turkey, though the PKK had violated human rights, so too had the Turkish authorities. More than 1 million people were displaced, many of them fleeing after their homes had been burned by the security forces. Many people had disappeared and torture was allegedly wide spread in the whole of Turkey. Certain cases had not been properly investigated domestically and Turkish citizens had had to seek redress from international forum. This was in the interest of neither Turkish citizens, nor the State. In Algeria, the Human Rights Committee had expressed concern at the allegations of torture, arbitrary or extrajudicial executions and reports of collusion of the security forces with terrorist groups. In Colombia, as in Algeria and Turkey, there were reports of security forces and state licenced civilian vigilante organisations being responsible for serious human rights violations. States were licencing civilian armed groups but were refusing to be held responsible for these groups. States had to realise that the claim to sovereignty carried with it responsibilities and that they had to protect their citizens. Only States that had something to hide had anything to fear from international scrutiny.
KAMEL MORJANE (Tunisia) said recent Subcommission efforts were laudable for their attempt to study human rights with respect for all the diversity reality imposed; it was now time to leave the sphere of theories and speeches and to undertake implementation and practical furthering of these rights. Tunisia had been advancing, day to day, its commitment to human rights; the Government's approach was holistic, gradual, and thorough; the result was a free society where all enjoyed the exercise of their basic rights; the press was free, including many opposition newspapers and periodicals; freedom of association was guaranteed by the Constitution; freedom of movement was respected; human-rights education was part of the training of security forces; prisons were subject to spot checks to ensure conditions were suitable and inmates' rights were protected. Multi-party democracy had been reinforced; minorities were guaranteed representation in the legislature; minorities acting in a responsible matter, rather than a biased manner, were supported. Tunisia condemned those who had criticized the country in a biased way and who were in no way interested in true progress for human rights; objective foreign observers belied the slander some hostile elements inflicted on the country.
EDDY PRATOMO (Indonesia) said that the new Government in Indonesia had undertaken a review of all national laws and regulations to make them consistent with international human rights norms. The Government had also reviewed cases of detention on political grounds, had pardoned 70 detainees and was considering other cases. The ban on political parties had been lifted, and Indonesia had ratified ILO Convention 87 on the freedom of association. Freedom of the press had been ensured, and many new NGOs had emerged. A Plan of Action on Human Rights had been launched by President B.J. Habibie on 25 June 1998, and various international human rights instruments would be ratified. The attacks on Indonesian citizens, especially on the Chinese minority, during May 1998, had been described by President Habibie as inhuman, and the Government was committed to bringing those responsible to justice. The Government had established a forum to provide recommendations on assistance to victims. An independent fact-finding team had also been formed to investigate the incidents that occurred between 12 and 15 May 1998 and a report was expected by November 1998. The Government was preparing to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination.
HEWA S. PALIHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) said the Government continued its programme to promote human rights and combat impunity for any violations; some tangible measures had been taken in relation to institution building, and the Government had published reports of three Commissions appointed to investigate alleged involuntary disappearances; the Working Group on Disappearances had received the report, had been invited to visit the country, and had accepted. Disappearances, particularly in the Jaffna Peninsula, had greatly diminished, due to a number of stringent investigative and punitive measures. Sri Lanka had ratified the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights despite its difficulties in battling a tendentious propaganda campaign by a well-funded terrorist organization, the LTTE. Despite terrorist opposition, local elections in Jaffna Peninsula had been held, although unfortunately the terrorists had then assassinated several elected political leaders. However, those and other terrorist attempts had failed to create communal violence in the country. Despite these provocations, there had been no communal violence in the last 15 years; Sri Lankans wanted peace and a negotiated solution to the conflict.
ALICIA E. PEREZ-DUARTE (Mexico) said that her country had established one of the most complete institutional systems to protect human rights in the world. While violations of human rights happened in Mexico, the authorities were doing all they could to try and eliminate them. There was cause for concern for what was happening in the state of Chiapas, and the Government intended to use peaceful dialogue and not violence to resolve the situation. Regrettable events had occurred in the village of Acteal on 22 December 1997, but the Government had taken swift action to find those responsible and punish them. The general Government strategy did not only include dialogue, but also included resolving extreme poverty, and giving hope and equity to indigenous communities. A state of law had to be maintained, and dialogue had to continue with the Zapatistas and funds had to be rapidly disbursed to overcome the poverty which shamed all Mexicans. Mexico had nothing to hide. It was party to nearly all international treaties and conventions on human rights and it fully complied with its responsibility to present reports. In 1997 and 1998, several special rapporteurs had visited Mexico and the Government was assisting them in preparing their reports. Amnesty International would soon be going to Mexico and many other organisations had already been to the country. There was no policy in Mexico of violation of human rights. Rather, there was a committed policy on the part of the Government to promote and defend human rights and comply with international mechanisms in this sphere.
HR/SC/98/6
6 August 1998
National representatives and experts of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities pondered this morning the challenges posed to human rights by Government efforts to battle terrorist insurgencies.
The topic was a major theme as the Subcommission began a second day of debate under its agenda item 2 -- formally, "the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation and of apartheid, in all countries, with particular reference to colonial and other dependent countries and territories". A long list of non-governmental organizations addressing the topic was completed and several Subcommission experts and observers from national delegations took the floor.
A representative of Turkey told the meeting that the country faced a separatist terrorist movement on a scale which was not experienced by Western democracies and that aimed at dismembering one-third of the national territory, complicating the Government's struggle to preserve public order while at the same time fostering respect for human rights. He said a number of measures recently had been taken to prevent abuses under anti-terrorist laws and to improve freedom of expression, but contended that critics of the Government's efforts also had obligations of their own to respect the rule of law and preserve public order.
Subcommission expert Soli J. Sorabjee said terrorism could be a worthy subject of Subcommission attention when the panel was making its delicate decisions on what country situations to consider. Terrorism could cause gross
United Nations Information Service at Geneva Press Releases are available on the Internet at the following address: http://www.unog.ch
violations of human rights, was brutally damaging to innocent people, and was complex in practice and theory and posed difficult challenges for Governments; it had to be combatted through counter-terrorism by States but not by brutal suppression of human rights in pursuance of official policy.
Subcommission expert Francoise Jane Hampson said States often believed they could only defeat so-called terrorists by having recourse to measures not permitted under international human rights law -- an approach that was immoral, unlawful, and did not work. If there was nothing to choose between the conduct of the State and the non-State authorities, she said, the State forfeited its claim to allegiance. While it was understandable that States would lose sight of their long-term interests, she said, it was important for independent and objective outsiders to remind them of their legal responsibilities.
A representative of Sri Lanka contended that the Government was pursuing and succeeding in human-rights reforms in the face of what it called terrorist opposition; it blamed terrorists for recent assassinations of several persons elected in voting in the country's Jaffna Peninsula.
The delegation of Mexico summarized measures to resolve the separatist conflict in the Chiapas region.
Subcommission experts Halima Embarek Warzazi, Erica-Irena A. Daes, and Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro also spoke. Observer delegates for the following countries addressed the meeting: China, Turkey, Republic of Korea, Tunisia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Mexico.
The following non-governmental organizations delivered statements: Third World Movement Against Exploitation of Women; International Association Against Torture; Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Among Peoples; All-Pakistan Women's Organization; International Prison Observatory; Tunisian Organization for Education and the Family; and International Human Rights Association of American Minorities.
The Subcommission will reconvene at 3 p.m. and is expected to conclude over the course of the afternoon its review of human-rights situations in specific countries and territories.
Statements
RAFENDI DJAMIN, of the Third World Movement Against the Exploitation of Women, hoped the meeting would pay serious attention to the people who were victims of human rights violations in Indonesia. The new Government had failed to stop the systematic violation of human rights, marked by the authorities’ inability to bring to justice those responsible for kidnapping of activists, killing of students, and systematic rape of Chinese women. The adoption of the National Action Plan on Human Rights in July 1998 and the ratification of the Convention against Torture had not addressed the institutional machinery of terror. In the last month, 1,700 deaths and disappearances had been reported by the people of Aceh. Recent testimony indicated that the inhabitants of north Aceh, east Aceh and Pidie had been subjected to systematic violence by the Government. The largest number of cases of human rights violations were reported to NGOs, not the Government, and therefore it was important that an independent investigation of human rights abuses in Aceh be launched as soon as possible. The Government had to desist from using religious hatred and social envy as scapegoats.
ROGER WAREHAM, of International Association Against Torture, said a double standard persisted in defiance of the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights; if one looked at the list of Subcommission resolutions over the years under this agenda item, one found a complete absence of references to the so-called "developed world". The United States, often imperceptibly, was consolidating a fascist state; police-state practices were imposed; the country should be placed on the Subcommission's list of countries which were gross violators of human rights. Its three-decade blockade of Cuba had accomplished one thing: violation of the Cuban people's right to development and impoverishment; the United States often used international mechanisms such as the UN to front for it -- witness the war on Iraq, the Somalia fiasco, the sanctions against Iraq and Libya. Within the United States the situation of economic, social, and cultural rights was abhorrent for Blacks - especially Black children - Hispanics, and indigenous nations; the police and the courts discriminated extensively on matters of race; freedom of the press was under increasing attack. In Spain, there were tactics of repression of the rights to self-determination of the Basque people.
JUSFIQ HADJAR, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that some changes had taken place in Indonesia since Mr. B.J. Habibie had taken over from General Suharto, however most of them were cosmetic changes. The Government had adopted measures to ensure that the violations of human rights committed since 1965 would remain unpunished. No criticism of the former President was tolerated. How many Indonesians had been killed during the hunt for Communists? Amnesty International had said close to half a million , but other estimates put the figure at three million. At the start of the 1980s, in the province of Lampung, the army had massacred the majority of the population of a village on the pretext that the school was teaching a form of Islam that the Government did not like. In 1984, General Suharto had admitted that he had given an order to kill thousands of young delinquents in big cities such as Djakarta and Medan. In the province of Irian Jaya in New Guinea, where a part of the population wished to create an independent state, the army had responded by massacring the population. The Indonesian army systematically raped women. It was urgent for the Subcommission to appoint a special rapporteur to assist the Indonesian Government to throw some light on the unpunished violations of human rights in that country.
SAEEDA GUL, of All-Pakistan Women's Organization, said the Kashmir struggle for self-determination had entered its fiftieth year; generations of Kashmiris had grown up under the shadow of colonial occupation; over the past decade, more than 60,000 had been killed by Indian security forces; over 35,000 were languishing in jails; thousands had been maimed and disabled. According to the United States State Department, Indian occupation forces and pro-Government "renegades" hired by them had committed an estimated 100 to 200 extrajudicial killings in Kashmir in 1997; torture often preceded these murders. Rape and molestation were widely used as an instrument of suppression by Indian occupation forces; there was a complete incapacity to investigate such offenses; the Indian National Human Rights Commission should be allowed to investigate complaints of violations by Indian armed forces, which it was now prohibited from doing. The Subcommission must act to end the violation of Kashmiris' rights; international human rights organizations must be given unhindered access to Kashmir, and special rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights must be permitted to visit and prepare reports.
YWENZELLE FONTANA, of Observatoire International des Prisons, wished to bring attention to the militarisation of the prison system in certain countries of Latin America. In Argentina, the staff of the penitentiary system included, among others, former members of groups that had been responsible for extrajudicial executions. In Brazil, military police managed prisons in more than half of the states. This kind of militarisation of prisons had grave consequences. Even in countries where the presence of the military was limited to the periphery of prisons, military intervention in prisons gradually became institutionalised. In Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile and Argentina, the management of prisons had gradually became authoritarian, and violence had become the response to prisoners' protests. As a result of the militarisation of prisons, there had been an increase in the number of deaths of prisoners. In the absence of international mechanisms to supervise prisons, it was necessary to appoint a special rapporteur for people held in any form of detention.
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission expert, said there were those who could put an end to serious human rights violations around the world if they tried; at the end of the century it was discouraging to turn on the television or open a newspaper -- massacres, genocides, atrocities, armed conflicts, brother peoples tearing themselves apart in the full sight of a world that seemed unable to act. Geopolitical interests were frequently pursued in which men, women and children were only pawns; to reduce a people to starvation, to send a country back from development, was a horrific thing, and yet that was the consequence of the economic embargoes imposed by the world's powerful countries. The situation in the Middle East grew worse; the Palestinian people suffered still more; the Security Council seemed to have lost its power. How had it come to this on the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Racism and xenophobia in Europe could not be blamed on ignorance; rather it appeared that these racist tendencies had been created to replace the loss of old enemies, such as the Soviet Union. Surveillance systems set up by some European countries threatened rights to privacy and deserved careful watching. The picture wasn't entirely bleak around the world, but the successes had been small, and were largely enjoyed by people who already were privileged. The truth was that the billions of poor people around the globe were a long way from enjoying their human rights; greater efforts were required on their behalf to make this truly a world of peace, justice, and human rights.
ANCHOUR MONCEF, of the Tunisian Organisation of Education and the Family said, governments, national organisations, NGOs and civil society had to find normal responses to overcome political and cultural rifts. In Tunisia, a law passed on 29 July 1991 which had made education compulsory and free until the age of 16. Some 93.1 per cent of children between the ages of 6 and 12 were now in eduction, and more than 50 per cent of the children in schools were female. Defamation and sensationalisation of issues that was practised by many NGOs was detrimental to their credibility. Tunisia's first concern had been to give everyone access to fundamental rights. Tunisia was one of the few countries to promulgate a code of protection of the child that had entered into force since 1995. Tunisia had been able to respond to the challenges of globalization without changing the basis of its national identity.
MAJID TRAMBOO, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said the organization was concerned at the increase in application of the death penalty in the United States; the relevant special rapporteur had already described the use of the death penalty in the United States as unacceptable; and overall there was maltreatment of African-American prisoners in the United States. In Europe, there was a catastrophe unfolding in Kosovo; innocent civilians were suffering from numerous abuses; in some cases, women and children caught up in the conflict were lined up and shot. Attention must be paid to serious and gross human rights violations in India; many of these abuses were generated by intense social tension, the caste system, and deliberate and willful suppression of minorities; the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir continued to suffer brutal repression through murder, torture, arbitrary arrests, detention, molestation and rape by Indian armed forces simply because people demanded to determine their own political future. The situation had only worsened; it was important to guard against the Subcommission turning into a Subcommission “on prevention of terrorism and protection of Governments”. Human rights issues could not be considered as internal affairs; the international community was obligated to act on them.
WU JIANMIN (China) said that the work of the United Nations in human rights over the last 50 years had been influenced by the Cold War. This "Cold War mentality" had not helped the promotion and protection of human rights and this mentality persisted. However, at the fifty-fourth session of the Human Rights Commission, earlier this year, there had been a reduction of confrontation and more dialogue and cooperation and this was a positive change. Cooperation had to be strengthened. This could be done by recognising the common ground between countries: all countries attached importance to human rights, all accepted the principle of the universality of human rights, no country's human rights situation was perfect and all needed improvement, human rights were an integral whole, and all were in favour of the rule of law. If this common ground was strengthened, achievements were possible. The Subcommission had played a constructive role in promoting dialogue and cooperation and had contributed to the positive changes in the fifty-fourth Session of the Human Rights Commission. The United Nations over emphasised civil and political rights at the expense of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development, and this imbalance needed to be addressed.
China believed that human rights should be promoted through dialogue and
cooperation and had conducted dialogue on human rights with many countries. These dialogues had been successful as they were conducted on the basis of equality and mutual respect. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, had been invited by the Chinese Government to visit China in September 1998. This visit would certainly enhance the mutual understanding and give a stimulus to the cooperation between China and UN human rights mechanisms. The atrocities in Indonesia in May against ethnic Chinese had been taken very seriously by the Chinese authorities, and China had asked Indonesia to take measures to punish the culprits and ensure that similar incidents would not recur.
ERICA-IRENE A. DAES, Subcommission expert, said the fiftieth session of the Subcommission coincided with a number of other anniversaries, including the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it was a time to review and take stock of the situation; it was also a prime responsibility and duty of each State to promote and protect such rights. Subcommission experts had the additional responsibility to stigmatize human rights abuses wherever they occurred. She felt concern about a number of situations around the world. Regional conflicts and ethnic antagonism had apparently replaced the old conflict of the Cold War. Thousands of indigenous peoples were suffering from inhuman treatment around the world; political development and economic globalization often made it difficult for indigenous peoples to maintain their identities, cultures, and traditional economies.
A grim picture was emerging of the situation of indigenous peoples in the Chiapas region of Mexico; there was an atmosphere of fear as they were caught between Government forces and officially funded militias on one side and armed resistance groups on the other; Mrs. Daes said she was thus relieved to hear the recent announcement by the Mexican Government that it had adopted a strategy based on re-establishing the state of law in Chiapas; carrying out dialogue and negotiations with the Zapatista Army there; and attacking the socio-economic causes that had led to the conflict. She also felt concern over the situation in Turkey, including the recent assassination attempt and jail sentence given to the best-known of Turkey's human-rights activists, Akin Birdal. Further, Greek minority residents of the islands of Gokceada and Bozcada continued to suffer untold miseries and in essence were undergoing ethnic cleansing and watching as their cultural heritage was destroyed. Meanwhile, the situation in Cyprus was deteriorating; 38 percent of the territory of the island continued to be occupied; the problem of missing persons continued unresolved; the enclaved Greek Cypriots still faced many serious problems; their living conditions were appalling; establishment of Turkish settlers on the island, an undisputed fact, had fundamentally changed the demographic structure of Cyprus, and constituted an international crime.
PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Subcommission expert, said that the international community was following with hope the efforts of the Government of Iran to implement human rights and establish a state of law. The Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran had noted in his report the positive steps made in this direction. In that framework, the Chairman should ask the Government of Iran to make available to the Subcommission information about the execution of Duhollah Rawhany, Zabihi Moghaddam, Kashefi Nasafabadi and Hamid Nasirzadeh who, it had been alleged, had been prosecuted because they belonged to the Baha'i community. The Government of Iran, by ensuring full transparency in these cases, could make a positive contribution to the fight to ensure the protection of religious rights in the country.
MURAT SUNGAR (Turkey) said Turkey was a well-established democracy that had a long-standing respect for human rights, but unfortunately also faced a separatist terrorist movement on a scale which was not experienced by Western democracies; what Turkey faced was not an "armed conflict", as outsiders often called it, but random terrorism supported from outside that did not defend a so-called harassed "minority" but in fact aimed at dismembering one-third of the national territory. The terrorist organization had killed over 5,000 civilians, most of whom were people of the same ethnic origin it claimed to defend. In general, the claim for minority rights on behalf of this group had to be considered in the context of the multi-ethnic makeup of Turkey as a whole, which had required construction of a State on a unitary basis; such a complex social fabric did not allow for any approach but the according of equal rights and obligations to all regardless of ethnic origin. Turkey had made a number of reforms to anti-terrorist legislation and to judicial and penal practices to improve respect for human rights and enhance freedom of the press, but those critical of the country's performance had their own obligations to respect the law and not to disrupt public order. Turkey would resolutely forge ahead with the human rights reform process.
JONG HOON KIM (Republic of Korea) said resolving the question of impunity for violators of human rights had to be a priority of the international community; for this reason, Korea agreed with the necessity of creating a permanent International Criminal Court and welcomed the adoption of the statute of the Court in Rome. The development of an arrangement or mechanism for the prevention of serious human rights violations all over the world also had to be explored and the suggestion to establish a rapid response system centred around the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was welcome. Human rights education also had to be emphasised.
Despite the Republic of Korea's unique situation as a divided country, Korea had promoted respect for human rights and democracy. President Kim Dae-jung had announced 100 priority tasks that aimed to enhance people's living standards in all sectors. He was also in the process of enacting new human rights legislation and was establishing a national human rights commission.
SOLI J. SORABJEE, Subcommission expert, said the Subcommission was not well-equipped to undertake the task of considering country situations; consideration of country-based resolutions seemed to generate acrimony and bitterness instead of dialogue and understanding; however, it did serve as a useful platform to which activist groups could bring the international community's attention to violations taking place in many parts of the world, and it helped to channel information from a wide range of sources. It was important to decide which country situations the Subcommission should address; otherwise the process was unfair and lost credibility. Certain practical factors should be borne in mind, in his view, including the nature and gravity of the violations; extent and intensity; duration; measures available in a country for enforcing accountability; difficult conditions prevailing; seriousness of State efforts to respond; and historical background and traditions.
It was clear that terrorism posed special problems, Mr. Sorabjee said; it could be a worthy subject of Subcommission attention, as it could constitute gross violations, was brutally damaging to innocent people, and was complex in practice and theory and posed difficult challenges for Governments; it had to be combatted through counter-terrorism by States but not by brutal suppression of human rights in pursuance of an official policy on that behalf; yet it had to be accepted that terrorism did pose special problems for countries.
Another factor to be borne in mind in deciding consideration of country situations was whether human rights violations stemmed from the very nature of the legal regime of a State and thus the violations were systemic, Mr. Sorabjee said; in such cases a consistent pattern of gross violations could be reasonably inferred. In any case, the Subcommission should aim at creating a framework for "goading" a country in such a situation into taking corrective action. Efforts should be made to avoid dangerous ground while carrying out such a process by respecting the values of tolerance and pluralism.
FRANCOISE HAMPSON, Subcommission expert, focused on cases where there were allegations of violation of human rights in situations of serious organised political violence. In such situations, the State remained bound by its human rights obligations. However, States often believed that they could only defeat the so-called terrorists by having recourse to measures not permitted under international human rights law. This was immoral, unlawful, and did not work. If there was nothing to choose between the conduct of the State and the non-State authorities, the State forfeited its claim to allegiance. While it was understandable that States would lose sight of their long-term interests, independent and objective outsiders needed to remind the States of their legal responsibilities. In the case of serious organised political violence, States commonly entered a notice of derogation with regard to their human rights commitments. This was a serious step, and it would appear logical that in such a case, no State should be permitted to deny the applicability of at least common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Though States often said that there was no way of punishing non-State forces involved in organised political violence, this was inaccurate. There was domestic criminal law, and international humanitarian law, and every State in this situation should sign up to the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Against this background, certain situations needed to be considered, Mrs. Hampson said. In south-east Turkey, though the PKK had violated human rights, so too had the Turkish authorities. More than 1 million people were displaced, many of them fleeing after their homes had been burned by the security forces. Many people had disappeared and torture was allegedly wide spread in the whole of Turkey. Certain cases had not been properly investigated domestically and Turkish citizens had had to seek redress from international forum. This was in the interest of neither Turkish citizens, nor the State. In Algeria, the Human Rights Committee had expressed concern at the allegations of torture, arbitrary or extrajudicial executions and reports of collusion of the security forces with terrorist groups. In Colombia, as in Algeria and Turkey, there were reports of security forces and state licenced civilian vigilante organisations being responsible for serious human rights violations. States were licencing civilian armed groups but were refusing to be held responsible for these groups. States had to realise that the claim to sovereignty carried with it responsibilities and that they had to protect their citizens. Only States that had something to hide had anything to fear from international scrutiny.
KAMEL MORJANE (Tunisia) said recent Subcommission efforts were laudable for their attempt to study human rights with respect for all the diversity reality imposed; it was now time to leave the sphere of theories and speeches and to undertake implementation and practical furthering of these rights. Tunisia had been advancing, day to day, its commitment to human rights; the Government's approach was holistic, gradual, and thorough; the result was a free society where all enjoyed the exercise of their basic rights; the press was free, including many opposition newspapers and periodicals; freedom of association was guaranteed by the Constitution; freedom of movement was respected; human-rights education was part of the training of security forces; prisons were subject to spot checks to ensure conditions were suitable and inmates' rights were protected. Multi-party democracy had been reinforced; minorities were guaranteed representation in the legislature; minorities acting in a responsible matter, rather than a biased manner, were supported. Tunisia condemned those who had criticized the country in a biased way and who were in no way interested in true progress for human rights; objective foreign observers belied the slander some hostile elements inflicted on the country.
EDDY PRATOMO (Indonesia) said that the new Government in Indonesia had undertaken a review of all national laws and regulations to make them consistent with international human rights norms. The Government had also reviewed cases of detention on political grounds, had pardoned 70 detainees and was considering other cases. The ban on political parties had been lifted, and Indonesia had ratified ILO Convention 87 on the freedom of association. Freedom of the press had been ensured, and many new NGOs had emerged. A Plan of Action on Human Rights had been launched by President B.J. Habibie on 25 June 1998, and various international human rights instruments would be ratified. The attacks on Indonesian citizens, especially on the Chinese minority, during May 1998, had been described by President Habibie as inhuman, and the Government was committed to bringing those responsible to justice. The Government had established a forum to provide recommendations on assistance to victims. An independent fact-finding team had also been formed to investigate the incidents that occurred between 12 and 15 May 1998 and a report was expected by November 1998. The Government was preparing to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination.
HEWA S. PALIHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) said the Government continued its programme to promote human rights and combat impunity for any violations; some tangible measures had been taken in relation to institution building, and the Government had published reports of three Commissions appointed to investigate alleged involuntary disappearances; the Working Group on Disappearances had received the report, had been invited to visit the country, and had accepted. Disappearances, particularly in the Jaffna Peninsula, had greatly diminished, due to a number of stringent investigative and punitive measures. Sri Lanka had ratified the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights despite its difficulties in battling a tendentious propaganda campaign by a well-funded terrorist organization, the LTTE. Despite terrorist opposition, local elections in Jaffna Peninsula had been held, although unfortunately the terrorists had then assassinated several elected political leaders. However, those and other terrorist attempts had failed to create communal violence in the country. Despite these provocations, there had been no communal violence in the last 15 years; Sri Lankans wanted peace and a negotiated solution to the conflict.
ALICIA E. PEREZ-DUARTE (Mexico) said that her country had established one of the most complete institutional systems to protect human rights in the world. While violations of human rights happened in Mexico, the authorities were doing all they could to try and eliminate them. There was cause for concern for what was happening in the state of Chiapas, and the Government intended to use peaceful dialogue and not violence to resolve the situation. Regrettable events had occurred in the village of Acteal on 22 December 1997, but the Government had taken swift action to find those responsible and punish them. The general Government strategy did not only include dialogue, but also included resolving extreme poverty, and giving hope and equity to indigenous communities. A state of law had to be maintained, and dialogue had to continue with the Zapatistas and funds had to be rapidly disbursed to overcome the poverty which shamed all Mexicans. Mexico had nothing to hide. It was party to nearly all international treaties and conventions on human rights and it fully complied with its responsibility to present reports. In 1997 and 1998, several special rapporteurs had visited Mexico and the Government was assisting them in preparing their reports. Amnesty International would soon be going to Mexico and many other organisations had already been to the country. There was no policy in Mexico of violation of human rights. Rather, there was a committed policy on the part of the Government to promote and defend human rights and comply with international mechanisms in this sphere.