Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases CHR subsidiary body
EXPERTS PRESENT REPORTS ON HOUSING AND PROPERTY RESTITUTIONAND ON THE SOCIAL FORUM AT THE SUB-COMMISSION
04 August 2004
Share
4 August 2004
MORNING
The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this morning heard two of its Experts present reports on housing and property restitution in the context of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons and on the second session of the Social Forum as it continued its debate on issues related to economic, social and cultural rights.
Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on housing and property restitution in the context of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, presented a progress report, saying that for refugees and displaced persons, returning home in safety and dignity was often seen as the most desired, sustainable, and dignified solution to displacement. The development of the work of various United Nations organs in the areas of housing and property restitution represented a unique convergence between international human rights law, international humanitarian law and local-level implementation.
In an inter-active dialogue which followed, Experts commented on the usefulness of the draft universal guidelines on the issue which were provided in the report, the need to involve the affected persons in decision-making, the need to define more clearly those refugees and displaced persons who would have the right to restoration of property, the responsibilities of refugees and displaced persons, practical issues linked to financial points, and the need for further clarification of the issues of follow-up mechanisms and situations of impossibility of restitution.
Jose Bengoa, Chairman/Rapporteur of the Second Session of the Social Forum, introduced the report of the Forum, saying it had been made clear this year that the Social Forum was the place for discussion of issues of poverty; it was a place where the poor could participate in the work of the United Nations, and there were other places for the participation of other social sectors. The Social Forum was evolving, and was becoming the forum for the discussion of issues, and poverty, it was agreed, was one of the key issues facing the world today. The notion of poverty had acquired great specificity which would facilitate the creation of norms and standards for the future. There was a need to ensure an annual renewal of this Forum.
Experts commenting and questioning the report broached such topics as the raising of international awareness of the issue of poverty, the disturbing absence of representatives of the poor at the Forum, the importance of the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the need for the Forum to concentrate on specific issues to a greater extent, and the need to make the Forum an annual event.
Experts and Alternate Experts speaking this morning included Kalliopi Koufa, Vladimir Kartashkin, Marc Bossuyt, Jakob Moller, Emmanuel Decaux, Ibrahim Salama, El-Hadji Guisse, Christy Ezim Mbonu, Shiqiu Chen, Gaspar Biro, Florizelle O’Connor, Abdul Sattar, Chin Sung Chung, Miguel Alfonso Martinez, and Rui Baltazar Dos Santos Alves.
A number of Experts and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also delivered statements on economic, social and cultural rights. Topics addressed included the inequalities caused by globalization and the prevalence of corruption in various countries.
NGOs speaking under this agenda item included International Human Rights Association of American Minorities; Interfaith International; European Union of Public Relations; World Muslim Congress; Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions; Europe-Third World Centre; World Peace Council; Pax Romana; International Movement ATD Fourth World; speaking on behalf of International Movement of Apostolate in the Independent Social Milieus; Voluntary Action Network India; and International Movement for Fraternal Union among Races and Peoples.
The Sub-Commission will reconvene this afternoon at 3 p.m. when it will continue to discuss economic, social and cultural rights. It is scheduled to hear the presentation of the report of the Working Group on the working methods and activities of transnational corporations.
Statements on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
ALTAF HUSSAIN QADRI, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said the era of globalization had so far promoted lop-sided development, with many denied the fruits of globalization. Least Developed Countries had doubled in number over the last three decades and this had put in place an economic apartheid, with the segregation of rich nations from the poor ones. Only an inclusive globalization that catered to the interests and well being of all would be sustainable. A much-needed rectification of the deep-seated imbalances caused by globalization would require action at both the international and national levels. At the international level, it was the speed of globalization that had overwhelmed the capacity of many developing countries to make the necessary adjustments. The economic emancipation promised by globalization could in no way be realized in the absence of economic freedom.
MR. SHARUKH, of Interfaith International, said water was becoming scarce all over the world and perhaps future wars would take place over water instead of gas, petroleum and other mineral reserves. Sindh, whose economy essentially depended on agrarian pursuits, had been subjected to a man-made crisis, unjust as well as inhuman. Pakistan’s Water and Power Development Authority had considerably reduced Sindh’s water allocation, thereby ignoring the 1991 water accord. A punitive measure had been taken against the Sindhis and Mohajirs, the permanent citizens of the province, to punish them for opposing the proposed hydroelectric dam that would siphon off water from the Indus River to produce electric power for exclusive use for the Punjab province. He appealed to the Sub-Commission to impress upon and seek a commitment from Pakistan that all discrimination against Sindh and Balochistan and their people was stopped immediately.
MOHAMMAD ZIA MUSTAFA, of European Union of Public Relations, said corruption had become one of the biggest stumbling blocks standing in the way of the effective enjoyment of human rights, particularly in developing countries. The National Accountability Bureau in Pakistan was a body set up by the current regime to prosecute without bias those guilty of fiscal wrongdoing and to cleanse the deep-rooted culture of malpractice embedded in the country’s institutions. Its complete failure to curb the evil practice of corruption clearly showed that popularly elected democratic governments, despite all their flaws, were infinitely better than dictatorial and authoritarian regimes in this regard, and it was hoped the Special Rapporteur would give some thought to this issue in subsequent reports on the global phenomenon of corruption.
ISHTIYAQ HAMID, of World Muslim Congress, said the ideal of human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want had been endorsed by the preamble common to the two International Covenants on human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. More recently, in the Millennium Declaration, States had pledged to spare no effort to free their fellowmen, women and children from the abject and dehumanising condition of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them were currently subjected, by making the right to development a reality for everyone and freeing the entire human race from want. Despite a multiplicity of commitments, endorsements and reaffirmations, the notion of impunity was restricted to the realization of social and political rights. Development continued to be an object of desire for billions mainly because a small minority of countries considered the right to development as an affront to their political and economic status in the global order.
SCOTT LECKIE, of Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, said the development of standards by the Sub-Commission represented a real achievement in the progression of international protection for millions of the world’s most vulnerable and marginalized people - namely those who had, for reasons of conflict, persecution and disaster, been forcibly uprooted from their homes and lands. For millions of these displaced persons, human rights had little meaning without the right to return home, to rebuild their lives in dignity and peace. Displacement and forced migration were all too often the results of massive human rights violations, including forced eviction. Displacement was also too often the entry point to a future of uncertainty and insecurity, rendering the individual vulnerable to other human rights violations. The efforts of the Sub-Commission to articulate international standards related to housing and property restitution would further the rights of refugees and other displaced persons, and would help to turn back the clock on some of the world’s most egregious human rights violations.
MALIK OZDEN, of Europe-Third World Centre, said that a number of resolutions of the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights had underlined the importance of the right to development and the priority that should be given by the United Nations system with the view of its realization. The promotion of the right to development implied the necessity to recognize the validity, indivisibility, obligatory character and justiciabilty of all human rights, including that of solidarity, which was contained in several international instruments. It also implied replacing the relations of exploitation and subordination by relations of equality so that all people and human beings could benefit from all rights. Such procedure would eliminate the suffering of millions of people who were living in deplorable conditions despite the technical progress made in the world.
SHRI PRAKASH, of World Peace Council, said the global landscape after the fall of the Soviet Union and its break-up had been defaced by brutal and genocidal conflicts on the parts of States trying to prevent their own break-up. The question of setting up a network of information and informants in areas of potential or ongoing ethnic conflicts was being discussed to enable the United Nations to get advance information about the danger of a genocide taking place in some area or the other. The issue under discussion should be broadened to the setting up of a Working Group on Genocide. The real issue for the Sub-Commission and the United Nations was to build an information system on ethnic minorities globally which would tell them not only of their social, economic and political situation, but of the conflict and the degree of conflict these ethnic minorities could be involved in.
Presentation of Report on Housing and Property Restitution in Context of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons
PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) presenting his progress report on housing and property restitution in the context of refugees and internally displaced persons, said today there were approximately 12.4 million refugees worldwide, and an additional 25 million internally displaced persons. For them, returning home in safety and dignity was often seen as the most desired, sustainable, and dignified solution to displacement. In past years, literally hundreds of thousands of persons had been successfully returned to their original places after having been arbitrarily deprived of housing, land and other property. The development of the work of various United Nations organs in the areas of housing and property restitution represented a unique convergence between international human rights law, international humanitarian law and local-level implementation.
Returning home was often fraught with political uncertainty, even in situations where violence had ceased, and restitution processes were too often compromised by a failure to deal effectively with legal and practical obstacles and to adequately enforce the rule of law. For example, such commonalities might include the loss or destruction of housing and property records and documentation, secondary occupation, property destruction, the existence of ineffectual institutions, and the adoption of discriminatory restitution programmes and policies. Each of those issues required a comprehensive policy approach based on international human rights principles.
While the international community had made important contributions vis-à-vis the implementation of several voluntary repatriation programmes, there continued to be a need for a consolidated set of international standards on housing and property restitution in the context of the return of refugees and other displaced persons. Recognizing that fact, last year, the Sub-Commission had adopted resolution 2003/18, which asked him to prepare draft universal principles and guidelines on housing and property restitution in his capacity as Special Rapporteur. His progress report this year attempted to fulfil that request, and presented for the Sub-Commission’s consideration the said draft. The draft had been prepared in collaboration with various experts, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Discussion of Report on Housing and Property Restitution in Context of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons
KALLIOPI KOUFA (Sub-Commission Expert) said the report was an important contribution to the topic of housing and restitution. The draft principles and guidelines had been developed with colleagues and were valuable; this was a very useful exercise, as one of the fundamental jobs of the Sub-Commission was standard setting. Section 4.11 was particularly appreciated, as it was essential to consult affected groups when decisions were made, and special attention should be given to ethnic minorities, the elderly, and women and children, as these were especially vulnerable groups. The detailed commentary of the draft guidelines, which was part and parcel of the guideline process, was also very useful and to be applauded.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN (Sub-Commission Expert) said the report had been studied in detail; it was actually a presentation of some draft principles on housing and property restitution for displaced persons, with the first and second parts of the report forming an introduction to these principles. Overall, the main ideas were agreed with, and Mr. Pinheiro was to be congratulated for a very detailed presentation of the principles that he believed were necessary for the restitution of the property of refugees and the displaced. When reading these principles, there were questions: this was a very complex issue and an important matter which required further clarification. The principles made no exclusions regarding refugees and displaced persons, and this was not necessarily the correct approach, as there were certain circumstances which could negate the right to have property restored, and this should be borne in mind. Some paragraphs on the obligations towards refugees and displaced persons should therefore be dropped. Some principles related to the responsibilities of refugees and displaced persons should also be included.
MARC BOSSUYT (Sub-Commission Expert) asked about the manner in which displaced persons were able to recover their houses and property. He wondered if the draft principles would be applicable in all circumstances.
JAKOB MOLLER (Sub-Commission Alternate Expert) said the work was very detailed, and the draft principles on housing and property restitution for refugees and displaced persons were very interesting. The draft principles as they stood would need further elaboration, consultations and high-level thinking in order to be able to produce a final report next year. The achievement so far was commendable, and there was no doubt that among the biggest factors for achieving reconciliation in post-conflict peace building was to permit returns to pre-conflict homes. Another side of the same coin, which was not dealt with, was the same need to reinstate refugees and the displaced in their place of work. Practical experience in the recent return of massive fluxes of refugees had pointed to a number of practical difficulties, including that only an infinitely small number of refugees would have benefited from these draft principles. One example was the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina where the majority of displaced persons claims had already been dealt with, admittedly over the period of almost nine years, as there was no mechanism which could function in a year or two. The Special Rapporteur could consider various practical possibilities linked to this, for example who would finance the national mechanisms that would have to be set up if these principles were to be adopted.
EMMANUEL DECAUX (Sub-Commission Expert) said that the situation of second occupants should not be neglected. The complexity and historical dimension in the process of restitution of property should be given a thought. He did not believe that the time limit for the restitution of property could be valid. The creation of a chamber of human rights was encouraging.
IBRAHIM SALAMA (Sub-Commission Expert) said there was deep and sincere appreciation for the work done. It was a perfect example of important value-added work done by the Sub-Commission, and it addressed important gaps. The mere fact of putting these together gave the issue importance and visibility. The importance of international financing should not be neglected, and there was an element of duty and cooperation in this respect. Regarding follow-up mechanisms, this required clarification. When speaking about compensation, it was important to treat this in the same draft, but the notion of impossibility of restitution needed further clarification, as it could often serve as an easy way out in situations of conflict, and it should include elements of objective criteria to provide guidance in this respect.
PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) said the criminal behaviour in housing and property restitution should be taken into consideration. The problem was that if the husband committed a crime, the situation of his family should be taken into account. He noted the important point raised to make the draft principle available to petitioners. The financial support in the process of restitution should be provided as a sign of collaboration. He supported that the laws should be implemented worldwide in a consistent manner. He also took note of the comments made by all his colleagues.
EL-HADJI GUISSE (Sub-Commission Expert) said the quality of the work was excellent, but how did the work complement or actually be complimented by the study carried out by Dr. van Boven on this issue, as there appeared to be a duplication of work. The report should refer to all the different matters raised, so that they would be combined.
PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) said indeed these principles were just a small part of the large set of issues dealt with by Mr. van Boven, and that this was a specific issue, and its specificity should be shown and brought out better, and the reaction of Mr. Guisse showed that the work carried out should move in that same direction.
Presentation of the Report of the Social Forum
JOSE BENGOA (Sub-Commission Expert), Chairman/Rapporteur of the Second Social Forum, said the report of the Social Forum (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/026 which was not immediately available) stressed the very active participation in the work of the Forum of the members of the Sub-Commission. Unfortunately, there had been no benefit from the presence of the core groups as had been done before, and this was linked to budgetary issues. The report contained a summary of the meeting, and attention was drawn to the balance that had been struck in the presentations, which were balanced between national and international issues connected to the issue of poverty, and this was not a given. Often focus was on one side or the other, with discussion of international factors leading to poverty, and there was neglect of national issues. The presentations had been of excellent quality, and this year the discussion of the issue of rural poverty had made it possible to outline various aspects of the issue, which encouraged the work significantly. This was a highly marginalized sector, and many of those in the situation of poverty in this sector, which was also a result of globalization, found themselves part of a sector that had very little as far as elements of protection were concerned, although the members of this sector were very vulnerable.
The Social Forum also identified the central role of participation, the need for raising the responsibility, and it had been noted that it would be difficult to resolve the situation of rural poverty without involving those concerned. It was hoped that the next Social Forum would see the participation of representatives from the world of the poor. This year, it was particularly made clear that the Social Forum was the place for the discussion of issues of poverty, and it was a place where the poor could participate in the work of the United Nations, and there were other places for the participation of other social sectors. The Social Forum was evolving, and was becoming the forum for the discussion of these issues, and poverty, it had been agreed, was one of the key issues facing the world today.
The document also contained recommendations made by the Social Forum, and it was stated that international organizations that were engaged in monitoring and protection as well as others were urged to use the level of poverty and the existence of situations of poverty as yardsticks for evaluation, as well as the eradication of such situations. This was an important new aspect, which should continue to be developed further in future work. The second conclusion was that the notion of poverty had acquired great specificity, which would facilitate the creation of norms and standards for the future. There was a need to ensure an annual renewal of this Forum.
The report (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/026) details the organization of the session, and the topics treated. These include poverty and human rights; empowerment of people living in poverty; rural poverty and extreme poverty; the voice of affected groups; human rights in operational strategies to address poverty; and conclusions and recommendations that came out of the discussions.
Discussion on the Report of the Social Forum
PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) said the holding of the forum was an important achievement and it would open the opportunity for an international discussion. It would also be a positive contribution.
CHRISTY EZIM MBONU (Sub-Commission Alternate Expert) thanked Mr. Bengoa for putting the report together. She was pleased that it underlined preoccupation concerning the absence of representatives of the poor, as this had been of concern. The Forum should meet annually. The calibre of participants had been high, and this was proved by the work done. It was a forum where poverty was discussed, and a definition of the term had been attempted.
VLADMIR KARTASHKIN (Sub-Commission Expert) said important propositions had been made at the Social Forum. The report reflected the issues discussed and the ideas suggested. The importance of the ratification of the two International Covenants on human rights was given prominence. The ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was the most important because of the fact that people needed to be provided with food. The Covenant was very important for people living in situations of extreme poverty. It was also a paradox to observe that some countries that experienced extreme poverty had not ratified the Covenant, making it difficult to receive information on the situation in them.
SHIQIU CHEN (Sub-Commission Expert) said the report was appreciated, and Mr. Bengoa deserved thanks. The Social Forum had dealt with the important issue of poverty, and the inclusion of many groups was a means of enriching the experience and should be pursued. The suggestions contained in the report were also agreed with, namely that the Social Forum should be held annually. It mainly dealt with economic, social and cultural rights, and the Sub-Commission should be aware of its work. The scope of these rights was however very broad, and each Social Forum could deal with one two subjects, and in this way the members could concentrate greatly on the subject, thus increasing the level of the discussion.
GASPAR BIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) said he was impressed by the importance of the discussion at the Social Forum. Given the complexity of the subject and the importance of the discussion, he supported that more time be allotted to the Social Forum.
FLORIZELLE O’CONNOR (Sub-Commission Expert) said the work of Mr. Bengoa was to be congratulated. Having looked at the report, the vision of the members of the Forum itself had been a bridge between non-governmental organizations on a wider scale and members of the Sub-Commission, providing these with information that had developed tremendously over the last year. There was support for the recommendations made in the text, in particular for the views expressed by Mr. Biro that there was a need for additional time to develop the dialogue.
JOSEPH RAJKUMAR, of Pax Romana, said the Forum should give more importance to the right to development. The way the Forum operated would be more relevant if it also included opinions of the poor. The Forum could be a centre for reaction among non-governmental organizations, Experts and States.
XAVIER VERZAT, of International Movement ATD Fourth World, speaking on behalf of International Movement of Apostolate in the Independent Social Milieus, said international fora should recognize the question of poverty, and its approach should fundamentally be from the human rights aspect. People who daily faced working with the poor had the need to have their interventions and experience and points of view taken into account, and national delegations also had a role to play in explaining what could be done nationally. The debate had also highlighted that the Sub-Commission had made several contributions to combating poverty. The Social Forum ought to continue thinking about how it could hear the views of the poorest. Access to knowledge made participation of the poorest in the meeting extremely difficult, and it needed to be worked out how to remedy this situation. Much progress in legislation had stemmed in varied regions of the world from the work of the Social Forum.
JOSE BENGOA (Sub-Commission Expert) said the initiative of the Social Forum was formed as a result of a collective effort in which many non-governmental organizations and governments had been involved. There had been a good opportunity in the Forum to advance some ideas. It was true that the Forum had been discussing the situation of poverty but the poor were not participating. Financial requirements had to be met to fulfil that. It was necessary to give more than two days for the discussion, and he would be happy to hear more on the issue.
Statements on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
ABDUL SATTAR (Sub-Commission Expert) said general remarks on this agenda item arose from discussions held with representatives of regional groups, who had hoped that the Commission itself would devote greater attention to economic, social and cultural rights. The Sub-Commission should also ponder what could be done to rectify the present imbalance in the time and attention paid to these rights on one hand, and civil and political rights on the other. There could be no doubt that more people in the world suffered from denial and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights. Poverty was the generic cause of deprivation of civil and political rights as much as economic, social and cultural rights. Equality before the law, for example was a fiction for the poor, and even the right to vote was often vitiated.
The Sub-Commission members should consider the addition of subjects relevant to economic, social and cultural rights. The subjects could be selected through mutual consultation, and economic and social rights and population planning could be one subject. The Sub-Commission should recommend to the Commission that the Social Forum should be given at least the same period of five working days as was allocated to three of the Working Groups. The Commission had established an open-ended Working Group to consider the options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Sub-Commission should also consider that subject.
Four years ago, leaders of States participating in the Millennium Session had agreed on the goal of halving poverty by 2015. Progress towards this goal had been patchy, however, and in some parts of the world poverty had actually intensified. There was a clear need for greater attention to economic, social and cultural rights.
CHIN SUNG CHUNG (Sub-Commission Expert) suggested that the Sub-Commission move forward on another aspect of globalization – the unbridled movement of finance on the international level. The free flow of capital was considered to ensure efficient use of resources, but the reality was often the opposite in many countries. Especially, speculative capital was essentially non-productive and increased the exposure of recipient countries to financial risk. The lack of regulation and predictability in the current international financial system was a source of destabilization for many developing countries and economies in transition. International finance had erratic effect in many parts of the world, particularly in regions whose economic development had been fragile. The Social Forum would be the right place to discuss such a topic.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Sub-Commission Expert) said sometimes modern technology created problems, particularly when it could not be operated properly. The best possible definition was given by Mr. Pinheiro to the Social Forum, when he said that it was a platform that made it possible to show creativity in the field of the promotion and protection of human rights. When this idea was first received, it was greeted by scepticism, and it appeared to be a complicated matter, and there had been reservations to the idea of holding this Forum in practice. Today, it could only be said that the baby had been born, and was a healthy child, producing work of excellent quality. In the future, thanks to the existence of this Forum and the Sub-Commission, there was great potential for the development of new ideas in this important area, in making economic, social and cultural rights more specific. If political and civil rights were made more specific, without providing more guarantees for economic, social and cultural rights, this would be a utopian task. The activities of the Social Forum aimed at deepening the discussion on these matters and others. This provided a great opportunity and it was something that could contribute greatly in the future. Intellectual work could be combined with specific proposals in the context of the Forum on many different issues, including poverty and extreme poverty. The work of Mr. Bengoa in pioneering the definitions of these terms and their treatment was to be commended.
CRISTIANO DOS SANTOS (Sub-Commission Expert) said it was his opinion that the consolidation of peace and stability should be a pre-requisite to development. Many challenges lay ahead but they should be overcome. Poverty was one of the major causes of conflicts that exacerbated poverty. The consolidation of peace should be a matter of creating stability and reconciliation, particularly in post-conflict situations. Several experiences in the world had shown that only reconciliation was not enough by itself during the aftermath of conflicts, it required the development of a peace culture. In the majority of countries extreme poverty remained a reality. Without the cancellation of the debt burden, it was also difficult for those countries to realize their economic, social and cultural rights. It was now time to move from rhetoric to practical action against poverty and to achieve sustainable development.
NARENDER KUMAR, of Voluntary Action Network India, said as civil society representatives, the right to development had revolutionized the concept of human life, and had given importance to the concept of development as divorced from the well being of the people. In the interface between human rights and development, the concept of the right to development sought to promote development as a human right. International political differences blocking its crystallization notwithstanding, the international community did believe that the right to food, education and health, though not exhaustive, should form the contours of the right, and that its perusal should include democratization of societies and political systems, and a narrowing of the gaps of inequality. It was unfortunate that the right was neither justiciable nor enforceable in many countries. Peace was an absolutely necessary condition for the realization of the right, and the tendencies of ethnocentrism leading to intercommunity tensions, the situation of armed conflicts, insurgencies and others made it nearly impossible for local communities and nations to create permissive conditions and the required infrastructure for development.
PAUL BEERSMANS, of International Movement for Fraternal Union among Races and Peoples, said that since the end of 1989, a spiral of violence had erupted resulting in the endless suffering of the Kashmiris. Grave violations of international human rights, with a total lack of respect for the economic, social and cultural rights of the population had been committed by the security forces and also by militant organizations fighting for independence, for accession to Pakistan or for a jihad, a holy war. All the parties involved in the dispute should seize every opportunity to find a lasting solution to that long-standing political conflict. The need of the hour was to give a genuine healing touch and it was time for the people of Jammu and Kashmir to be allowed to live in peace with honour and dignity, without fear of oppression.
MORNING
The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this morning heard two of its Experts present reports on housing and property restitution in the context of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons and on the second session of the Social Forum as it continued its debate on issues related to economic, social and cultural rights.
Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on housing and property restitution in the context of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, presented a progress report, saying that for refugees and displaced persons, returning home in safety and dignity was often seen as the most desired, sustainable, and dignified solution to displacement. The development of the work of various United Nations organs in the areas of housing and property restitution represented a unique convergence between international human rights law, international humanitarian law and local-level implementation.
In an inter-active dialogue which followed, Experts commented on the usefulness of the draft universal guidelines on the issue which were provided in the report, the need to involve the affected persons in decision-making, the need to define more clearly those refugees and displaced persons who would have the right to restoration of property, the responsibilities of refugees and displaced persons, practical issues linked to financial points, and the need for further clarification of the issues of follow-up mechanisms and situations of impossibility of restitution.
Jose Bengoa, Chairman/Rapporteur of the Second Session of the Social Forum, introduced the report of the Forum, saying it had been made clear this year that the Social Forum was the place for discussion of issues of poverty; it was a place where the poor could participate in the work of the United Nations, and there were other places for the participation of other social sectors. The Social Forum was evolving, and was becoming the forum for the discussion of issues, and poverty, it was agreed, was one of the key issues facing the world today. The notion of poverty had acquired great specificity which would facilitate the creation of norms and standards for the future. There was a need to ensure an annual renewal of this Forum.
Experts commenting and questioning the report broached such topics as the raising of international awareness of the issue of poverty, the disturbing absence of representatives of the poor at the Forum, the importance of the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the need for the Forum to concentrate on specific issues to a greater extent, and the need to make the Forum an annual event.
Experts and Alternate Experts speaking this morning included Kalliopi Koufa, Vladimir Kartashkin, Marc Bossuyt, Jakob Moller, Emmanuel Decaux, Ibrahim Salama, El-Hadji Guisse, Christy Ezim Mbonu, Shiqiu Chen, Gaspar Biro, Florizelle O’Connor, Abdul Sattar, Chin Sung Chung, Miguel Alfonso Martinez, and Rui Baltazar Dos Santos Alves.
A number of Experts and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also delivered statements on economic, social and cultural rights. Topics addressed included the inequalities caused by globalization and the prevalence of corruption in various countries.
NGOs speaking under this agenda item included International Human Rights Association of American Minorities; Interfaith International; European Union of Public Relations; World Muslim Congress; Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions; Europe-Third World Centre; World Peace Council; Pax Romana; International Movement ATD Fourth World; speaking on behalf of International Movement of Apostolate in the Independent Social Milieus; Voluntary Action Network India; and International Movement for Fraternal Union among Races and Peoples.
The Sub-Commission will reconvene this afternoon at 3 p.m. when it will continue to discuss economic, social and cultural rights. It is scheduled to hear the presentation of the report of the Working Group on the working methods and activities of transnational corporations.
Statements on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
ALTAF HUSSAIN QADRI, of International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said the era of globalization had so far promoted lop-sided development, with many denied the fruits of globalization. Least Developed Countries had doubled in number over the last three decades and this had put in place an economic apartheid, with the segregation of rich nations from the poor ones. Only an inclusive globalization that catered to the interests and well being of all would be sustainable. A much-needed rectification of the deep-seated imbalances caused by globalization would require action at both the international and national levels. At the international level, it was the speed of globalization that had overwhelmed the capacity of many developing countries to make the necessary adjustments. The economic emancipation promised by globalization could in no way be realized in the absence of economic freedom.
MR. SHARUKH, of Interfaith International, said water was becoming scarce all over the world and perhaps future wars would take place over water instead of gas, petroleum and other mineral reserves. Sindh, whose economy essentially depended on agrarian pursuits, had been subjected to a man-made crisis, unjust as well as inhuman. Pakistan’s Water and Power Development Authority had considerably reduced Sindh’s water allocation, thereby ignoring the 1991 water accord. A punitive measure had been taken against the Sindhis and Mohajirs, the permanent citizens of the province, to punish them for opposing the proposed hydroelectric dam that would siphon off water from the Indus River to produce electric power for exclusive use for the Punjab province. He appealed to the Sub-Commission to impress upon and seek a commitment from Pakistan that all discrimination against Sindh and Balochistan and their people was stopped immediately.
MOHAMMAD ZIA MUSTAFA, of European Union of Public Relations, said corruption had become one of the biggest stumbling blocks standing in the way of the effective enjoyment of human rights, particularly in developing countries. The National Accountability Bureau in Pakistan was a body set up by the current regime to prosecute without bias those guilty of fiscal wrongdoing and to cleanse the deep-rooted culture of malpractice embedded in the country’s institutions. Its complete failure to curb the evil practice of corruption clearly showed that popularly elected democratic governments, despite all their flaws, were infinitely better than dictatorial and authoritarian regimes in this regard, and it was hoped the Special Rapporteur would give some thought to this issue in subsequent reports on the global phenomenon of corruption.
ISHTIYAQ HAMID, of World Muslim Congress, said the ideal of human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want had been endorsed by the preamble common to the two International Covenants on human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. More recently, in the Millennium Declaration, States had pledged to spare no effort to free their fellowmen, women and children from the abject and dehumanising condition of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them were currently subjected, by making the right to development a reality for everyone and freeing the entire human race from want. Despite a multiplicity of commitments, endorsements and reaffirmations, the notion of impunity was restricted to the realization of social and political rights. Development continued to be an object of desire for billions mainly because a small minority of countries considered the right to development as an affront to their political and economic status in the global order.
SCOTT LECKIE, of Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, said the development of standards by the Sub-Commission represented a real achievement in the progression of international protection for millions of the world’s most vulnerable and marginalized people - namely those who had, for reasons of conflict, persecution and disaster, been forcibly uprooted from their homes and lands. For millions of these displaced persons, human rights had little meaning without the right to return home, to rebuild their lives in dignity and peace. Displacement and forced migration were all too often the results of massive human rights violations, including forced eviction. Displacement was also too often the entry point to a future of uncertainty and insecurity, rendering the individual vulnerable to other human rights violations. The efforts of the Sub-Commission to articulate international standards related to housing and property restitution would further the rights of refugees and other displaced persons, and would help to turn back the clock on some of the world’s most egregious human rights violations.
MALIK OZDEN, of Europe-Third World Centre, said that a number of resolutions of the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights had underlined the importance of the right to development and the priority that should be given by the United Nations system with the view of its realization. The promotion of the right to development implied the necessity to recognize the validity, indivisibility, obligatory character and justiciabilty of all human rights, including that of solidarity, which was contained in several international instruments. It also implied replacing the relations of exploitation and subordination by relations of equality so that all people and human beings could benefit from all rights. Such procedure would eliminate the suffering of millions of people who were living in deplorable conditions despite the technical progress made in the world.
SHRI PRAKASH, of World Peace Council, said the global landscape after the fall of the Soviet Union and its break-up had been defaced by brutal and genocidal conflicts on the parts of States trying to prevent their own break-up. The question of setting up a network of information and informants in areas of potential or ongoing ethnic conflicts was being discussed to enable the United Nations to get advance information about the danger of a genocide taking place in some area or the other. The issue under discussion should be broadened to the setting up of a Working Group on Genocide. The real issue for the Sub-Commission and the United Nations was to build an information system on ethnic minorities globally which would tell them not only of their social, economic and political situation, but of the conflict and the degree of conflict these ethnic minorities could be involved in.
Presentation of Report on Housing and Property Restitution in Context of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons
PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) presenting his progress report on housing and property restitution in the context of refugees and internally displaced persons, said today there were approximately 12.4 million refugees worldwide, and an additional 25 million internally displaced persons. For them, returning home in safety and dignity was often seen as the most desired, sustainable, and dignified solution to displacement. In past years, literally hundreds of thousands of persons had been successfully returned to their original places after having been arbitrarily deprived of housing, land and other property. The development of the work of various United Nations organs in the areas of housing and property restitution represented a unique convergence between international human rights law, international humanitarian law and local-level implementation.
Returning home was often fraught with political uncertainty, even in situations where violence had ceased, and restitution processes were too often compromised by a failure to deal effectively with legal and practical obstacles and to adequately enforce the rule of law. For example, such commonalities might include the loss or destruction of housing and property records and documentation, secondary occupation, property destruction, the existence of ineffectual institutions, and the adoption of discriminatory restitution programmes and policies. Each of those issues required a comprehensive policy approach based on international human rights principles.
While the international community had made important contributions vis-à-vis the implementation of several voluntary repatriation programmes, there continued to be a need for a consolidated set of international standards on housing and property restitution in the context of the return of refugees and other displaced persons. Recognizing that fact, last year, the Sub-Commission had adopted resolution 2003/18, which asked him to prepare draft universal principles and guidelines on housing and property restitution in his capacity as Special Rapporteur. His progress report this year attempted to fulfil that request, and presented for the Sub-Commission’s consideration the said draft. The draft had been prepared in collaboration with various experts, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Discussion of Report on Housing and Property Restitution in Context of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons
KALLIOPI KOUFA (Sub-Commission Expert) said the report was an important contribution to the topic of housing and restitution. The draft principles and guidelines had been developed with colleagues and were valuable; this was a very useful exercise, as one of the fundamental jobs of the Sub-Commission was standard setting. Section 4.11 was particularly appreciated, as it was essential to consult affected groups when decisions were made, and special attention should be given to ethnic minorities, the elderly, and women and children, as these were especially vulnerable groups. The detailed commentary of the draft guidelines, which was part and parcel of the guideline process, was also very useful and to be applauded.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN (Sub-Commission Expert) said the report had been studied in detail; it was actually a presentation of some draft principles on housing and property restitution for displaced persons, with the first and second parts of the report forming an introduction to these principles. Overall, the main ideas were agreed with, and Mr. Pinheiro was to be congratulated for a very detailed presentation of the principles that he believed were necessary for the restitution of the property of refugees and the displaced. When reading these principles, there were questions: this was a very complex issue and an important matter which required further clarification. The principles made no exclusions regarding refugees and displaced persons, and this was not necessarily the correct approach, as there were certain circumstances which could negate the right to have property restored, and this should be borne in mind. Some paragraphs on the obligations towards refugees and displaced persons should therefore be dropped. Some principles related to the responsibilities of refugees and displaced persons should also be included.
MARC BOSSUYT (Sub-Commission Expert) asked about the manner in which displaced persons were able to recover their houses and property. He wondered if the draft principles would be applicable in all circumstances.
JAKOB MOLLER (Sub-Commission Alternate Expert) said the work was very detailed, and the draft principles on housing and property restitution for refugees and displaced persons were very interesting. The draft principles as they stood would need further elaboration, consultations and high-level thinking in order to be able to produce a final report next year. The achievement so far was commendable, and there was no doubt that among the biggest factors for achieving reconciliation in post-conflict peace building was to permit returns to pre-conflict homes. Another side of the same coin, which was not dealt with, was the same need to reinstate refugees and the displaced in their place of work. Practical experience in the recent return of massive fluxes of refugees had pointed to a number of practical difficulties, including that only an infinitely small number of refugees would have benefited from these draft principles. One example was the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina where the majority of displaced persons claims had already been dealt with, admittedly over the period of almost nine years, as there was no mechanism which could function in a year or two. The Special Rapporteur could consider various practical possibilities linked to this, for example who would finance the national mechanisms that would have to be set up if these principles were to be adopted.
EMMANUEL DECAUX (Sub-Commission Expert) said that the situation of second occupants should not be neglected. The complexity and historical dimension in the process of restitution of property should be given a thought. He did not believe that the time limit for the restitution of property could be valid. The creation of a chamber of human rights was encouraging.
IBRAHIM SALAMA (Sub-Commission Expert) said there was deep and sincere appreciation for the work done. It was a perfect example of important value-added work done by the Sub-Commission, and it addressed important gaps. The mere fact of putting these together gave the issue importance and visibility. The importance of international financing should not be neglected, and there was an element of duty and cooperation in this respect. Regarding follow-up mechanisms, this required clarification. When speaking about compensation, it was important to treat this in the same draft, but the notion of impossibility of restitution needed further clarification, as it could often serve as an easy way out in situations of conflict, and it should include elements of objective criteria to provide guidance in this respect.
PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) said the criminal behaviour in housing and property restitution should be taken into consideration. The problem was that if the husband committed a crime, the situation of his family should be taken into account. He noted the important point raised to make the draft principle available to petitioners. The financial support in the process of restitution should be provided as a sign of collaboration. He supported that the laws should be implemented worldwide in a consistent manner. He also took note of the comments made by all his colleagues.
EL-HADJI GUISSE (Sub-Commission Expert) said the quality of the work was excellent, but how did the work complement or actually be complimented by the study carried out by Dr. van Boven on this issue, as there appeared to be a duplication of work. The report should refer to all the different matters raised, so that they would be combined.
PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) said indeed these principles were just a small part of the large set of issues dealt with by Mr. van Boven, and that this was a specific issue, and its specificity should be shown and brought out better, and the reaction of Mr. Guisse showed that the work carried out should move in that same direction.
Presentation of the Report of the Social Forum
JOSE BENGOA (Sub-Commission Expert), Chairman/Rapporteur of the Second Social Forum, said the report of the Social Forum (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/026 which was not immediately available) stressed the very active participation in the work of the Forum of the members of the Sub-Commission. Unfortunately, there had been no benefit from the presence of the core groups as had been done before, and this was linked to budgetary issues. The report contained a summary of the meeting, and attention was drawn to the balance that had been struck in the presentations, which were balanced between national and international issues connected to the issue of poverty, and this was not a given. Often focus was on one side or the other, with discussion of international factors leading to poverty, and there was neglect of national issues. The presentations had been of excellent quality, and this year the discussion of the issue of rural poverty had made it possible to outline various aspects of the issue, which encouraged the work significantly. This was a highly marginalized sector, and many of those in the situation of poverty in this sector, which was also a result of globalization, found themselves part of a sector that had very little as far as elements of protection were concerned, although the members of this sector were very vulnerable.
The Social Forum also identified the central role of participation, the need for raising the responsibility, and it had been noted that it would be difficult to resolve the situation of rural poverty without involving those concerned. It was hoped that the next Social Forum would see the participation of representatives from the world of the poor. This year, it was particularly made clear that the Social Forum was the place for the discussion of issues of poverty, and it was a place where the poor could participate in the work of the United Nations, and there were other places for the participation of other social sectors. The Social Forum was evolving, and was becoming the forum for the discussion of these issues, and poverty, it had been agreed, was one of the key issues facing the world today.
The document also contained recommendations made by the Social Forum, and it was stated that international organizations that were engaged in monitoring and protection as well as others were urged to use the level of poverty and the existence of situations of poverty as yardsticks for evaluation, as well as the eradication of such situations. This was an important new aspect, which should continue to be developed further in future work. The second conclusion was that the notion of poverty had acquired great specificity, which would facilitate the creation of norms and standards for the future. There was a need to ensure an annual renewal of this Forum.
The report (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/026) details the organization of the session, and the topics treated. These include poverty and human rights; empowerment of people living in poverty; rural poverty and extreme poverty; the voice of affected groups; human rights in operational strategies to address poverty; and conclusions and recommendations that came out of the discussions.
Discussion on the Report of the Social Forum
PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) said the holding of the forum was an important achievement and it would open the opportunity for an international discussion. It would also be a positive contribution.
CHRISTY EZIM MBONU (Sub-Commission Alternate Expert) thanked Mr. Bengoa for putting the report together. She was pleased that it underlined preoccupation concerning the absence of representatives of the poor, as this had been of concern. The Forum should meet annually. The calibre of participants had been high, and this was proved by the work done. It was a forum where poverty was discussed, and a definition of the term had been attempted.
VLADMIR KARTASHKIN (Sub-Commission Expert) said important propositions had been made at the Social Forum. The report reflected the issues discussed and the ideas suggested. The importance of the ratification of the two International Covenants on human rights was given prominence. The ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was the most important because of the fact that people needed to be provided with food. The Covenant was very important for people living in situations of extreme poverty. It was also a paradox to observe that some countries that experienced extreme poverty had not ratified the Covenant, making it difficult to receive information on the situation in them.
SHIQIU CHEN (Sub-Commission Expert) said the report was appreciated, and Mr. Bengoa deserved thanks. The Social Forum had dealt with the important issue of poverty, and the inclusion of many groups was a means of enriching the experience and should be pursued. The suggestions contained in the report were also agreed with, namely that the Social Forum should be held annually. It mainly dealt with economic, social and cultural rights, and the Sub-Commission should be aware of its work. The scope of these rights was however very broad, and each Social Forum could deal with one two subjects, and in this way the members could concentrate greatly on the subject, thus increasing the level of the discussion.
GASPAR BIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) said he was impressed by the importance of the discussion at the Social Forum. Given the complexity of the subject and the importance of the discussion, he supported that more time be allotted to the Social Forum.
FLORIZELLE O’CONNOR (Sub-Commission Expert) said the work of Mr. Bengoa was to be congratulated. Having looked at the report, the vision of the members of the Forum itself had been a bridge between non-governmental organizations on a wider scale and members of the Sub-Commission, providing these with information that had developed tremendously over the last year. There was support for the recommendations made in the text, in particular for the views expressed by Mr. Biro that there was a need for additional time to develop the dialogue.
JOSEPH RAJKUMAR, of Pax Romana, said the Forum should give more importance to the right to development. The way the Forum operated would be more relevant if it also included opinions of the poor. The Forum could be a centre for reaction among non-governmental organizations, Experts and States.
XAVIER VERZAT, of International Movement ATD Fourth World, speaking on behalf of International Movement of Apostolate in the Independent Social Milieus, said international fora should recognize the question of poverty, and its approach should fundamentally be from the human rights aspect. People who daily faced working with the poor had the need to have their interventions and experience and points of view taken into account, and national delegations also had a role to play in explaining what could be done nationally. The debate had also highlighted that the Sub-Commission had made several contributions to combating poverty. The Social Forum ought to continue thinking about how it could hear the views of the poorest. Access to knowledge made participation of the poorest in the meeting extremely difficult, and it needed to be worked out how to remedy this situation. Much progress in legislation had stemmed in varied regions of the world from the work of the Social Forum.
JOSE BENGOA (Sub-Commission Expert) said the initiative of the Social Forum was formed as a result of a collective effort in which many non-governmental organizations and governments had been involved. There had been a good opportunity in the Forum to advance some ideas. It was true that the Forum had been discussing the situation of poverty but the poor were not participating. Financial requirements had to be met to fulfil that. It was necessary to give more than two days for the discussion, and he would be happy to hear more on the issue.
Statements on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
ABDUL SATTAR (Sub-Commission Expert) said general remarks on this agenda item arose from discussions held with representatives of regional groups, who had hoped that the Commission itself would devote greater attention to economic, social and cultural rights. The Sub-Commission should also ponder what could be done to rectify the present imbalance in the time and attention paid to these rights on one hand, and civil and political rights on the other. There could be no doubt that more people in the world suffered from denial and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights. Poverty was the generic cause of deprivation of civil and political rights as much as economic, social and cultural rights. Equality before the law, for example was a fiction for the poor, and even the right to vote was often vitiated.
The Sub-Commission members should consider the addition of subjects relevant to economic, social and cultural rights. The subjects could be selected through mutual consultation, and economic and social rights and population planning could be one subject. The Sub-Commission should recommend to the Commission that the Social Forum should be given at least the same period of five working days as was allocated to three of the Working Groups. The Commission had established an open-ended Working Group to consider the options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Sub-Commission should also consider that subject.
Four years ago, leaders of States participating in the Millennium Session had agreed on the goal of halving poverty by 2015. Progress towards this goal had been patchy, however, and in some parts of the world poverty had actually intensified. There was a clear need for greater attention to economic, social and cultural rights.
CHIN SUNG CHUNG (Sub-Commission Expert) suggested that the Sub-Commission move forward on another aspect of globalization – the unbridled movement of finance on the international level. The free flow of capital was considered to ensure efficient use of resources, but the reality was often the opposite in many countries. Especially, speculative capital was essentially non-productive and increased the exposure of recipient countries to financial risk. The lack of regulation and predictability in the current international financial system was a source of destabilization for many developing countries and economies in transition. International finance had erratic effect in many parts of the world, particularly in regions whose economic development had been fragile. The Social Forum would be the right place to discuss such a topic.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Sub-Commission Expert) said sometimes modern technology created problems, particularly when it could not be operated properly. The best possible definition was given by Mr. Pinheiro to the Social Forum, when he said that it was a platform that made it possible to show creativity in the field of the promotion and protection of human rights. When this idea was first received, it was greeted by scepticism, and it appeared to be a complicated matter, and there had been reservations to the idea of holding this Forum in practice. Today, it could only be said that the baby had been born, and was a healthy child, producing work of excellent quality. In the future, thanks to the existence of this Forum and the Sub-Commission, there was great potential for the development of new ideas in this important area, in making economic, social and cultural rights more specific. If political and civil rights were made more specific, without providing more guarantees for economic, social and cultural rights, this would be a utopian task. The activities of the Social Forum aimed at deepening the discussion on these matters and others. This provided a great opportunity and it was something that could contribute greatly in the future. Intellectual work could be combined with specific proposals in the context of the Forum on many different issues, including poverty and extreme poverty. The work of Mr. Bengoa in pioneering the definitions of these terms and their treatment was to be commended.
CRISTIANO DOS SANTOS (Sub-Commission Expert) said it was his opinion that the consolidation of peace and stability should be a pre-requisite to development. Many challenges lay ahead but they should be overcome. Poverty was one of the major causes of conflicts that exacerbated poverty. The consolidation of peace should be a matter of creating stability and reconciliation, particularly in post-conflict situations. Several experiences in the world had shown that only reconciliation was not enough by itself during the aftermath of conflicts, it required the development of a peace culture. In the majority of countries extreme poverty remained a reality. Without the cancellation of the debt burden, it was also difficult for those countries to realize their economic, social and cultural rights. It was now time to move from rhetoric to practical action against poverty and to achieve sustainable development.
NARENDER KUMAR, of Voluntary Action Network India, said as civil society representatives, the right to development had revolutionized the concept of human life, and had given importance to the concept of development as divorced from the well being of the people. In the interface between human rights and development, the concept of the right to development sought to promote development as a human right. International political differences blocking its crystallization notwithstanding, the international community did believe that the right to food, education and health, though not exhaustive, should form the contours of the right, and that its perusal should include democratization of societies and political systems, and a narrowing of the gaps of inequality. It was unfortunate that the right was neither justiciable nor enforceable in many countries. Peace was an absolutely necessary condition for the realization of the right, and the tendencies of ethnocentrism leading to intercommunity tensions, the situation of armed conflicts, insurgencies and others made it nearly impossible for local communities and nations to create permissive conditions and the required infrastructure for development.
PAUL BEERSMANS, of International Movement for Fraternal Union among Races and Peoples, said that since the end of 1989, a spiral of violence had erupted resulting in the endless suffering of the Kashmiris. Grave violations of international human rights, with a total lack of respect for the economic, social and cultural rights of the population had been committed by the security forces and also by militant organizations fighting for independence, for accession to Pakistan or for a jihad, a holy war. All the parties involved in the dispute should seize every opportunity to find a lasting solution to that long-standing political conflict. The need of the hour was to give a genuine healing touch and it was time for the people of Jammu and Kashmir to be allowed to live in peace with honour and dignity, without fear of oppression.
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: