HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF NETHERLANDS ON COMPLIANCE WITH COVENANT

Human Rights Committee
72nd session
10 July 2001
Afternoon



Chairperson Stresses Responsibility of the Netherlands
for the Implementation of the Covenant in
all Territories under its Jurisdiction


The Human Rights Committee this afternoon concluded its consideration of a third periodic report of the Netherlands with the Chairperson stating in preliminary comments that the Government of the Netherlands was accountable for the implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in all territories under its jurisdiction.

Chairperson Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati said that the Government of the Netherlands should fully assume its treaty obligations in all the territories under its jurisdiction; and with the situation of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, it was the responsibility of the Government of the Netherlands to monitor the human right situation in those territories, as a State party to the treaty.

Formal, written conclusions on the report will be issued by the Committee towards the end of its current three-week session, which concludes on 27 July.

As one of the 148 States parties to the Covenant, the Netherlands must prepare periodic summaries on its efforts designed to implement the provisions of the treaty. An 8-member Dutch delegation was on hand during three meetings to answer questions raised by the Committee Experts.

Before adjourning its afternoon meeting, the Committee briefly discussed its draft General Comment on article 4 of the Covenant.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 11 July, it will take up the initial report of the Czech Republic.


Discussion on Report of Aruba

At the beginning of the meeting, some Committee Experts raised questions relating to the practice of quotas for the admission of foreign nationals to settle in the territory; and the situation of domestic workers and their right to switch employment, among other things.


Presentation of Report of Netherlands Antilles

A representative of the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands in Geneva introduced the report of the Netherlands Antilles. He regretted that the delegation from that island was unable to appear before the Committee due to financial difficulties.

The delegate said that the most salient of current developments in the territory was the profound restructuring of public finance which affected both the structure of the government as well as the focus of public policy. The accumulation of huge budget deficits over the past years had brought the Netherlands Antilles to the brink of a financial collapse which until now had been averted due to tremendous efforts on the part of the present administration. A structural adjustment programme was presently in execution in collaboration with the International Monetary Fund and the Dutch Government.

The socio-economic situation of the Netherlands Antilles was grim due to the economic recession and as a result of the high unemployment, the representative said. Poverty, drug abuse and drugs-related crimes were very much interwoven and gave reason to serious concerns throughout the community. The migration trend and related brain-drain were also a growing concern. In 2000 alone, for example, about 10,000 persons migrated from the territory to Holland.

The representative said that another major issue was the constitutional restructuring of the Netherlands Antilles. For the last decade, the inherent challenge had essentially been how to accommodate a groups of islands with different sizes, needs and interests, within a federal form of Government.

The Ordinance on Admission and Expulsion had been revised to the extent that European Dutch nationals no longer required a working permit for the Netherlands Antilles, the representative said.

Further, the representative said that new national legislation had been introduced against torture and other forms of cruel, or inhuman treatment or degrading punishment, which were made criminal acts punishable by law. In addition, overall improvement had been made in the detention conditions and the prison operation.


Response of Netherlands Antilles

On behalf of the Government of the Netherlands Antilles, a representative of the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands provided answers to written questions prepared by the Committee members in advance.


Asked about the impact of the new civil code for the Netherlands Antilles on the promotion of equality between men and women, the representative affirmed that the new code had eliminated the provisions that had discriminated against women. The equal treatment of men and women had been confirmed, thus eradicating the husband's prerogative to decide alone on the affairs of the couple. In addition, a provision was introduced for separate taxation for working wives, effective 1 January 1998. Since the Netherlands Antilles did not have an Equal Opportunities Act, the right to equal opportunities was guaranteed by the direct effect of the ban on discrimination in the new code.

The representative said that there was a backlog in the revision of outdated legislation in the Netherlands Antilles, mainly attributed to the lack of qualified personnel to draft new provisions.

A question was raised about the functioning of the police conduct complaints committee, to which the representative said that the "country ordinance" provided the statuary grounds for the public to submit complaints about police conduct to the committee, which responded to each complaint by setting up an investigation. The committee lodged its findings with the Minster of Justice, but the Minister was not obliged to follow the committee's recommendations. The committee itself had no competence to impose sanctions on police officers.

The cooperation agreement between the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles concerning the reorganization of the prison system did not address issues such as the improvement of detention conditions, in particularly overcrowding and poor sanitary conditions in prisons, the representative said. The agreement was designed to speed up improvements in the prison system in the Netherlands Antilles and to ensure effective coordination between the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles to that end.

Asked about the situation in Koraal Specht prison, in Curacao, and in police stations in St. Marteen and Bonaire, the representative said that improvements had been undertaken in the Koraal Specht prison. The prisons in Bonaire and St. Marteen were in better condition. Overcrowding and the abuse of force took place only at Koraal Specht. However, Point Blanche prison on St. Marteen and Bonaire prison had no organized activities for inmates. In October 2000, the Bonaire prison was closed down and its inmates were transferred to Koraal Specht.

Three mass escapes by prisoners took place in the space of six weeks this year because of a lack of commitment and irresponsible conduct on the part of the local staff in the Koraal Specht prison, the representative said. Cell checks revealed the constant presence of illegal contraband, including firearms, drugs, mobile phones and various handmade weapons. The prison was renamed in April 2001 and took the name of "Bon Futuro". Two prison officers had since been detained and fourteen had been transferred to other parts of the prison service.


Discussion

A number of Committee Experts raised questions to be transmitted to the Government authorities of the Netherlands Antilles. Among other things, an Expert said that he was not fully convinced that the whole provisions of the Covenant were guaranteed in the Netherlands Antilles. For example, concerning the declaration of a state of emergency, it was not clear if fundamental rights would be derogated during the emergency period. What were the limits of the right to freedom of speech in relation to the incitement of hatred or racial discrimination? In the report, the case evasion of duties by a naval crew member was described as an issue under article 8 of the Covenant on prohibition of slavery; was that considered to be a new form of slavery? What was the status of minorities vis-a-vis the majority?

An Expert underlined that it was the responsibility of the Netherlands Government, as a State party to the Covenant, to ensure that the provisions of the treaty were implemented in all of the territories under its jurisdiction.


Preliminary Comments on Report of the Netherlands

Committee Chairperson Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati offered preliminary comments on the report of the Netherlands. He said that the delegation had answered the questions raised by the Committee, particularly concerning the European part of the report. It had been a constructive dialogue between the delegation and the Committee with a view to exploring what were the achievements and equally what were the drawbacks and difficulties concerning the human rights record of the Netherlands.

He said notwithstanding a detailed report and a satisfactory dialogue, one could not help expressing regret that the Netherlands was almost 5 years late in submitting its report. The Committee expected exemplary response from a developed country like the Netherlands. It should be a role model for other countries. But all the same, it was a matter of satisfaction that, despite that delay in submission of the report, the Netherlands had done a good job in presenting a full and complete picture of its human rights situation.

The Chairperson said that there were definitely some remarkable achievements in the Netherlands in the last few years in the field of human rights. It had established the institution of the Ombudsman with jurisdiction to enquire into maladministration by the executive. The Netherlands had also set up a special rapporteur for combatting trafficking in women with effect from 1 April 2000. A new aliens act had been passed and had come into effect from 1 April 2001.

The law permitting euthanasia had been enacted by parliament and had come into force on 1 January 2001. Unless strictly controlled, this phenomena was likely to be open to abuse. The Committee was glad to learn that several safeguards had been provided for; but even so, there was cause for apprehension and there would have to be strict monitoring.

The Chairperson said that medical research involving human subjects act was also susceptible to possible abuse. The issue involved highly subjective criteria and the possibility of zeal for research overtaking consideration of risk to the subject could not be ruled out.

He said that the Committee also found that the period of 3 days and 15 hours for which a suspect could be detained in police custody before being produced before a magistrate was a violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant which required an accused to be produced promptly before a judicial authority.

The Chairperson said that the Government of the Netherlands should fully assume its treaty obligations in all the territories under its jurisdiction. With regard to the report of the Aruba and Netherlands Antilles, it was the accountability and the obligation of the Government of the Netherlands to monitor the human right situation in those territories.

Draft General Comment on article 4

Continuing its consideration of the draft General Comment on article 4 of the Covenant, the Committee adopted paragraph 14 of its draft which said that article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant required that there should be effective domestic remedies to deal with any violations of the Covenant; while that clause was not mentioned in the list of non-deragable provisions in article 4, paragraph 2, it constituted a treaty obligation to the Convention as a whole; States should comply with their obligations.

On paragraph 15 of the draft, some Experts said that the reference to article 6, which said, among other things, that "Every human being had the inherent right to life; this right shall be protected by law; and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life", was not necessary. Another Expert said that individual cases of states of emergency were not dealt with in the paragraph. Paragraph 15 of the draft deals with non-derogable procedural rights and judicial remedies in time of states of emergency.




* *** *