HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE TAKES UP REPORT OF SYRIA; DELEGATION STRESSES COMMITMENT TO HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION AND COVENANTS

Human Rights Committee
Seventy-first Session
30 March 2001
1916th Meeting (AM)




Experts Express Concern about State
of Emergency Posing a Threat to Certain Rights


Syrian society permitted no discrimination for religious, ethnic or any other reasons, the Human Rights Committee was told this morning as it began its consideration of the second periodic report of Syria on compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Abboud Sarraj (Syria), Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Damascus, making an introductory statement on behalf of his delegation, said Syria was a popular democratic State with a republican system. Elections were free and democratic, and every citizen had the right to resort to justice. Freedom of belief was protected, as was freedom of the press.

He noted that a state of emergency had been declared since 1963 because of violence by enemies of the revolutions, and because of external Israeli aggression and occupation of territory, which was still ongoing. Nonetheless, the law of emergency had been used within the narrowest scope possible. Syria was party to a number of international Conventions and Covenants concerning human rights. It was committed to those conventions and applied them fully based on its historical and cultural background.

Following his introductory remarks, Mr. Sarraj responded to written questions posed by the Committee on a number of issues, including legislative measures in place to ensure human rights, gender equality, conditions in prisons and freedom of movement.

During the discussion that followed, many Committee members stressed the need for more information on the actual human rights situation on the ground in Syria. The report and answers given by the delegation had focused more on Constitutional provisions and domestic legislation. The Committee could not perform its duties without facts, an expert stressed.

Members also noted the length of the state of emergency in Syria –-
38 years. What were the prospects for terminating that state, which continued to pose a threat to certain rights, even if authorities chose not to use the powers attributed to them in such a time? one expert asked.


The application of the death penalty, the status of political prisoners and issues related to nationality were among the other issues of concern to experts. They also sought further clarification on the practice of torture and other forms of cruel and unusual treatment in Syria, and the status of non-governmental human rights organizations in the country.

The Committee will meet again this afternoon at 3 p.m. to continue discussing Syria’s report.



Background

The Human Rights Committee met this morning to consider the second periodic Report of the Syrian Arab Republic on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civic and Political Rights (document CCPR/C/SYR/2000/2). Under article 40 of the Covenant, all States parties agree to submit periodic reports on the implementation of the agreement.

According to the report, Syria is a democratic, people’s socialist State which forms part of the Arab nation. Its system of government is republican and sovereignty is exercised by the people. The Arab Baath Socialist Party is the leading party, both in society and in the State, and heads a National Progressive Front, which endeavours to mobilize the combined capacities of the masses in furtherance of the objectives of the Arab Nation. The State has an obligation to safeguard the personal liberty, dignity and security of its citizens. All citizens are equal before the law in regard to their rights and obligations. The judiciary is independent.

The Covenant has formed part of the country’s domestic legislation since 1969. There is no conflict between the articles of the Constitution, drafted in 1973, and the provisions of the Covenant. All citizens, regardless of their occupation or social status, have a legally guaranteed right to seek legal remedy in respect of any act of injustice committed against them. The judiciary adjudicates in any dispute brought before it as a result of a complaint concerning any violation of the rights of citizens. A Complaints Bureau had been established, supervised by the Ministry of Presidential Affairs, which receives complaints and grievances for citizens, takes appropriate action, and submits a monthly report to the President.

Regarding article 3 of the Covenant, covering gender equality and the principle of non-discrimination, the report states that the Syrian Constitution applies to every citizen, without distinction on grounds of race, colour, gender, language, religion or political opinion. Women enjoy the same employment opportunities as men and occupy numerous senior posts in Syria’s administration. They constitute 10.4 per cent of the People’s Assembly.

A state of emergency (addressed by article 4 of the Covenant) had been in force since 1962. By that exceptional constitutional regime the State can transfer some of the powers of the civil authorities to the military authorities. The report states that reasons for the state of emergency are a real threat of war, the continued occupation of part of the territory of Syria and the existence of a real threat of seizure and ongoing occupation of further land in violation of United Nations resolutions. It should be noted that the Emergency Act is virtually in abeyance since it is applied only in a limited number of cases solely involving offences against the security of the State. The President had announced before the People’s Assembly that the Act should be applied to the minimum extent and with great circumspection.

Under article 6 of the Covenant, covering the right to life, the report states that in Syria the death penalty can be given for certain crimes of homicide and for certain political acts such as bearing arms against Syria in the ranks of the enemy, desertion of the armed forces to the enemy and acts of incitement under martial law or in wartime. The death penalty can also be imposed in certain cases involving drugs. The last death sentence imposed in Syria was handed down in 1987.

Regarding torture or degrading treatment (article 7 of the Covenant), the Constitution stipulates that no one may be subjected to those treatments. Courts look into any allegation by a citizen concerning his subjection to such treatment, award appropriate compensation and impose prescribed penalties. A number of complaints in that connection had been brought against police officers, who have been punished and ordered to pay compensation.

The right to freedom (article 9 of the Covenant) is guaranteed by the Constitution and the law. No one can be detained without charge. Syrian law, according to the report, ensures the expeditious implementation of measures in the interests of the accused. For instance, any suspect who is arrested under the terms of a warrant must be questioned within 24 hours from the time of his arrest.

The report notes that Syrian law regards decent treatment of prisoners as an obligation. The well-being of prisoners and detainees must be verified once a month by the examining magistrate and the justice of the peace, and once every three months by the presidents of the criminal courts. Accused persons are separated from convicts and are treated in a different manner consistent with their status as unconvicted persons.

Article 12 of the Covenant covers freedom of movement. According to the report, no laws or measures in Syria restrict the liberty of movement or choice of residence of citizens. Citizens may not be expelled from the homeland. Citizens are required to obtain exit visas, although there are exemptions.

Regarding the right to a fair trial, covered under article 14 of the Covenant, the report states that the judicial authority in Syria is independent and judges are subject to no authority other than the law. Judges enjoy immunity from dismissal or transfer in accordance with the provisions of articles 92 and 93 of the Judicial Authority Act. Judicial practice shows that everyone who has violated the legal provisions enshrined in the articles of the covenant has been prosecuted.

Trials are held in public, although they may be held in camera on order to preserve public order or protect public morals or family honour. No one may be detained for a period longer than that prescribed for cases of flagrante delicto (24 hours) except on the basis of a judicial order. Liberty is the rule and detention is the exception. No one can be detained without charge. Every person arrested must be informed immediately of the reasons for his arrest. The accused has the right to avail himself of the services of a lawyer as soon as he is referred to the judicial authority. In cases involving felonies, the court must appoint a lawyer to defend the accused free of charge. The accused is presumed innocent until convicted by a final court judgement.

Articles 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant cover freedom of opinion and expression, of assembly and association and the principles of non-discrimination. The report states that Syria, freedom of expression is safeguarded and conscience constitutes the only form of censorship of freedom of thought. Every Syrian citizen has the right to participate in political, economic, social and cultural life.

The Journalists’ Federation is a democratic popular association which is responsible for ensuring that the occupational situation of journalists is in conformity with article 19 of the Covenant. The state of emergency does not prevent journalists from discharging their occupational functions and duties. Since 1970, no journalist has been imprisoned, suspended from duty or prevented from expressing his opinion.

Syrian law in no way restricts the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly, guaranteed in the Constitution, except where necessary in order to protect public safety, national security, public order, the rights of others, public health or public morals.

The right to freedom of peaceful association is also recognized in the Constitution, according to the report. Syria has been a member of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and has ratified 46 international labour conventions. Membership of trade unions is subject to no conditions or restrictions whatsoever. The Private Associations and Institutions Act places restrictions on the establishment of associations in order to protect public safety, national security, public order, public health and morals and the rights of others.

The report notes that the State guarantees the principle of equality of opportunity for its citizens, without any discrimination in regard to the exercise of their right to participate in political, economic, social and cultural life in the manner regulated by law. Every citizen has the right of access to public office. The only persons deprived of the right to vote are persons placed under guardianship, afflicted with mental illness, convicted of an offence prejudicial to honour, or serving a sentence of life imprisonment.

Candidates for membership of the People’s Assembly must have held Syrian nationality for not less than five years, enjoy the right to vote, be over 25 years of age, and be proficient in reading and writing. Workers and agricultural labourers must hold at least 50 per cent of the total number of seats in the Assembly.

Concerning rights of the child, covered under article 24 of the Covenant, the report states that Syria ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1993. Following Syria’s accession, the Convention became part of the country’s domestic law and must be implemented and respected by all. Under Syrian law, a minor is any person under 18 years of age.


Opening Statement by Syrian Delegation

ABBOUD SARRAJ (Syria), Dean of Law Faculty of the University of Damascus, apologized for being unable to submit the report in a timely manner, because of technical problems.

Syria was a popular democratic State with a republican system of government. Elections were free and democratic, and society allowed no discrimination based on religious, ethnic or any other background. Nobody should be investigated or arrested except under legal regulations. Nobody should be tortured. Every citizen had the right to resort to justice. The accused was innocent until proven guilty and should be tried in open court in the presence of his lawyer. The confidence of communications was covered by the law. Freedom of belief was also protected and the State respected all religions. Every citizen had the right to express his views freely. The State protected the freedom of the press. Citizens had the right to meet and demonstrate peacefully.

A state of emergency had been declared since 1963, he said. That law represented an exceptional constitutional situation in order to protect the State from external danger. The state of emergency had been declared following the revolution of March 8. Regrettably, political enemies of the revolution derogated from democratic procedures and resorted to violence. Due to Israeli aggression, part of Syria’s territory had been occupied. The new Israeli Government was now preparing a new war against Syria, and the occupation of territory was still ongoing. That situation had required continuing the state of emergency. There was also violence on the part of the “Muslim Brothers”.

Nonetheless, the law of emergency had been used within the narrowest scope possible, he said. Those arrested under the emergency law were those committing crimes like murder, armed robbery and dealing in narcotic drugs. Detention was not to exceed seven days, beyond which the accused had to be submitted to competent courts. Appeal against those measures was possible. The information provided by some organizations on Syria was greatly exaggerated, derived from the opposition to the ruling regime.

He emphasized that Syria was party to a number of international Conventions and Covenants concerning Human Rights. It was committed to those conventions and applied them fully based on its historical and cultural background. His Government was always ready for dialogue, and questions and comments would be forwarded to competent authorities.

Delegation’s Responses to Written Questions

Mr. SARRAJ (Syria) then took up questions posed previously to the delegation in writing. He said that the Covenant rights could be invoked before the courts. There were two ways for individuals to appeal. First, there was an office of appeals and complaints, which submitted a monthly report to the President. Also, the courts were open to all individuals who felt their rights had been violated.

He said that that article 25 of the Civil Law explicitly stated that no legal text that contravened international conventions was valid. Article 311 of the State Trial Regulations also emphasized the principle. It went without saying that international conventions prevailed over internal laws.

He said that since Syria had acceded to the Covenant on 12 April 1969, it had taken into account the text of the Covenant whenever it legislated on a related law. The Constitution fully respected all provisions of the Covenant and reflected them as articles. There were striking similarities between the articles of the two documents.

He said the judicial and administrative channels were open to those seeking remedy for human rights violations, he said. The office of appeals and complaints followed up on complaints and made sure of their validity.

Responding to another question, he reiterated that the judiciary supervised the respect of human rights, as did the office of complaints.

The relevant legislative decree stipulated that a national state of emergency could be applied in the case of a state of war or threat of war, or if public security in the territory was threatened by internal problems or general catastrophes. Such a state must be passed by a two-thirds majority of the council of ministers under the chairmanship of the President.

There had never been any derogations from the rights set out in the Covenant since the state of emergency had been declared, he said in response to another question. The Government had done all it could to avoid such derogations. The law of emergency was not currently applied in Syria except in very restricted cases and for a very short time.

The law of personal status had been applied since 1953, he said. It guaranteed full equality for husband and wife. Girls could accept or decline marriage. Their age of marriage must not be less than 17 years unless their physical makeup made it possible. Divorce was the prerogative of the husband, but the right was restricted by several legislative factors. Women could seek divorce through the courts. The wife had the right to inheritance from her husband, shared with the husband’s children.

Women in Syria enjoyed the same constitutional, political and social rights as men. The percentage of women in Parliament was 10.4. The Council of Ministers had two women. Women had the absolute right to work and received equal wages. A large number of university and governmental institutions had more female than male employees.

Regarding a question on the death penalty, he said capital punishment hardly ever took place in practice. Over the last 10 years, the death penalty had not been applied. Sometimes there were prisoners condemned to death, but most convictions were commuted on appeal or by the President. The minimum age for the imposition of the death penalty was 18 years. The maximum age was not defined in Syrian law, but there had never been a case of somebody condemned to death older than 60 years.

He then turned to the issue of measures taken to investigate alleged disappearances, arrest without trial and other inhuman punishment or degrading treatment. He said there was no statistical information available on cases of extrajudicial killings, torture, or disappearance carried out by members of the army or other security forces. However, he had personally contacted the relevant authorities, who had said that accusations of such violations were completely unfounded. Any such incidents would of course be investigated, if and when they arose.

He said the Criminal Code set out the modalities for custody, pre-trial detention or provisional arrest. It also established the relevant essential guarantees. Individuals could not be arrested unless there was evidence against them. The investigating magistrate must question detainees within 24 hours.

Persons must not be held for more than 24 hours unless there was a court order. Accused persons were entitled to access to defence counsel and the investigating magistrate must ensure that guarantee. Legal proceedings could not take place unless defence counsel was present. The accused was entitled to remain in contact with counsel at all times and could meet with him or her alone.

He said he had often visited prisons to conduct studies about prisoners, and personally he was happy with the conditions in the central prison in Damascus, which was representative of other prisons. They were clean and had recreational and cultural activities. Prisoners and detainees were separated. There were health centres where prisoners could be treated by specialists including psychiatrists and psychologists. Prisoners got free medical treatment.

The prisons disseminated information and education at no cost. There were primary and secondary classes as well as accounting classes. There was also religious instruction, both Muslim and Christian. There were sports centres, musical centres and libraries. Attention was paid to recreation. “Life in prison was not bad after all”, some students had told him.

In case of the death of a prisoner, a committee chaired by a judge and a doctor would look into the case and the cause of death would be determined. If an autopsy was required, it would be done under supervision of that committee. Autopsies were not prohibited by authorities. Statistics were provided to the Committee, including the number of people who had died in prison. Statistics about demographic and geographical breakdowns would also be submitted to the Committee. The number of female prisoners did not exceed 4 per cent of the total prison population.

It was true that the penal code of 1949 stipulated hard labour, but that was theoretical law. There was no hard labour in the prison. Work consisted of agriculture and handicrafts and other jobs for which prisoners were paid. Since 1949 up till now there had not been a case where the penalty of hard labour had been applied. The Penal Code was being amended and the deletion of the phrase “hard labour” had been agreed upon. Forced labour had been banned in prisons.

He then turned to the issue of freedom of movement and protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference. Foreigners who entered Syria could live wherever they chose. They did, however, have to register with the immigration or passport office, which must be informed of any change in residence. These were precautionary measures. Foreigners could appeal decisions for their deportation from the country, he added.

He said the Ministry of the Interior was currently studying reforms to facilitate the travel of citizens. The purpose of exit visas was not to restrict the freedom of citizens, he stressed.

The Constitution and the law guaranteed full confidentiality of correspondence, he said. Anyone deliberately destroying correspondence not addressed to him or listening to telephone calls not made to him was penalized.

Questions from Experts

An expert said the answers to questions had been very clear and informative. In order to be productive, the dialogue should also be very frank. The report, he said, had been delayed for more than 17 years. The current report was rather formal. Legal data were mentioned without reference to their practical implications. The Syrian Constitution did indeed refer to different kinds of rights and freedoms, but gave the law the possibility for interpretation. The Syrian laws, he found, had generally limited the rights and freedoms of the Constitution, instead of protecting them.

The report and legal texts used phrases which could be interpreted differently, such as “aim of the revolution” and “riots”, he said. Security concerns had covered everything in the laws and the report, he said. Security, however, could not justify everything. Regarding the emergency situation since 1963 he asked about the proportionality of means and ends.

He said that frankly, the report posed some serious questions. He could refer to many cases of people sentenced to death, including a woman, under conditions that could not be described as a fair trial. In military and other prisons there were many cases of torture. There were cases in which people were arrested but not tried. One of them had been released after 18 years. There were many political prisoners, some 1,500. One Lebanese prisoner in Syria had been executed. He asked the Syrian delegation for clarification of those matters.

An expert confirmed what the previous speaker had said about the objective of the dialogue and the role of the Committee, which was aimed at achieving progress in the application of the Covenant’s provisions. He had listened carefully to the comments on the country’s state of emergency. Such declarations might well be the prerogative of States, but they were conceived to be limited to situations threatening the life of the nation. According to the Covenant, measures that might be taken in such situations were limited to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.

The state of emergency in Syria had remained in force for 38 years, he said. What were the prospects for terminating that state, which continued to pose a constant threat to certain rights, even if authorities chose not to use the powers attributed to them in such a time?

He then asked about a certain category of Syrians living abroad who might wish to return to Syria -- were there still blacklists that forbade renewals of their passports, a practice which had reportedly left whole families, including children born abroad, without documents. Did this not violate article 24.3 of the Covenant? Was nationality denied to some 140,000 Kurds, as had been reported?

He then turned to presidential amnesties, noting the welcome developments in that area. How many political prisoners were still behind bars? he asked. Amnesty International members had visited Syria and had participated in dialogue with Syrian officials and had collected first-hand information. They had since expressed concern about certain cases -- he sought further information on them.

Another expert asked about disagreements between the Covenant and the Constitution. Internal law had created problems with the hierarchy of provisions and laws. The Court of Cassation had decided in 1931 that it was not possible for an internal law to be contradictory to an international commitment of Syria. She asked if there were more recent decisions regarding laws not in conformity of the Covenant. She doubted whether laws on the status of women, capital punishment or the press were in line with the Covenant.

She had contradictory information on the state of emergency. Had the state of emergency been lifted, if so how and when, she asked. The legislation on the state of emergency was not in line with article 4, according to information she had. What circumstances justified the declaration of a state of emergency in the country and how was the rule of proportionality respected? Was there a provision on derogations from certain rights?

She asked whether there was a need for laws on the death sentence. What were the working conditions in prisons? She also wanted more information about the direct transfer of Lebanese prisoners to Syria. How many complaints had the legal body dealing with torture received? Was there any administrative detention and if there was, what legal regime applied to that kind of detention?

Regarding the status of women, she said that by law women had to get permission from their family to marry. The crime of disobedience had also been recognized in the law if a woman worked without her husband's agreement. Did crimes of honour still exist, she asked? Adultery was not punished the same for women as men. She noted that article 12 of the Covenant provided for some restrictions on the freedom of movement, but a general exit visa requirement was not correct.

An expert said the Committee would have liked for it to have been demonstrated in the report that there had been significant developments in the human rights situation in Syria on the ground. The Committee needed more information on hands-on application of the law.

The extreme length of the state of emergency in Syria must be noted. There was information before the Committee that during the state of emergency, Syria had detained thousands of persons and arrested many without charges or trials. Some of the cases had gone before military courts rather than civilian ones. The death of President Assad had been most lamentable; however, despite the change in President there had been no change in political direction in the country. Perhaps new studies could be carried out and new remedies offered.

He asked what the possibilities were for lifting the state of emergency. He asked why the Government had not provided the information required by article 4 of the Covenant on notifying other States parties to the Covenant of the emergency situation and resultant derogations.

While it had been encouraging to hear that the death penalty was only rarely used in Syria, the Committee had information before it that in certain cases the penalty had been applied. Two people, for example, had been executed in 1999 in a public square after having been declared guilty of murder. He asked for statistics if, in fact, the penalty was used. He also sought clarification on Lebanese who had been taken prisoner by the Syrian armed forces. He stressed his concern about Lebanese detained in Syria –- it seemed that in very many cases information on their situation was limited or unavailable.

According to information before the Committee, torture was still a common practice in Syria, he said. In the military prison of Tamur, the Committee had heard, torture continued to be practiced assiduously. The conditions of detention, in many cases, constituted inhuman and degrading treatment –- he sought more information on those conditions. What happened to prisoners who suffered cruel or degrading treatment or torture? What recourse did they have and what was the likelihood that such cases would be investigated?

He was happy that equality between men and women was referred to in article 45 of the Constitution. However, there was a difference between the law and the way it was applied. He sought further information on the inheritance law and laws related to obedience. How was polygamy addressed -- was it tolerated or condemned? He subscribed to previous speakers’ concerns about freedom of movement.

One expert said the interruption in the dialogue had in itself been a violation of the Covenant. Listening to the delegation, however, that seemed to be the only violation, he remarked. Article 25 of the Constitution stipulated that freedom was a sacred right. He asked why, then, there were so many reports suggesting that in practice the contrary was true. How could people remain in custody although their sentence had expired more than 10 years ago? Was that because people were afraid to invoke the Covenant, or did not know about it? Both reasons constituted violations of the Covenant, he said.

Regarding Lebanese citizens in Syrian detention, he asked what the legal basis was for Syrian authorities to abduct and arrest Lebanese people on Lebanese territory. He did not want to hear that those allegations were wrong, because he personally had heard eyewitnesses and people who had been subject to that treatment.

He could not understand why there were no reports from non-governmental organizations inside Syria, and asked what the Government’s relationship was with domestic and international non-governmental organizations. Regarding extrajudicial killings and torture, the delegation in its answers had based itself on assurances of authorities. How could the delegation expect an honest answer from the accused authorities, he wondered. According to the Constitution, liberty and freedom of the individual was guaranteed. He recommended that action should follow those words.

An expert said there were many problems -- not least the gap between the Covenant and national legislation and between that legislation and the facts on the ground. He asked about the existence of an independent monitoring body charged with dealing with human rights violations. The answers given on that issue had not been satisfactory, as neither a complaint’s office operating under the auspices of the President nor the judiciary could be considered independent. The General Assembly had recommended the creation of national human rights institutions. Was there any prospect of creating such an institution in Syria?

There was no indication of the existence in Syria of national, domestic human rights non-governmental organizations. Were there any accepted by the authorities? If not, why not? He said there were sources of information before the Committee that suggested that the situation in prisons was different than that described by the delegation. No factual information on the Constitutional guarantee of equality for women had been provided. The Committee could not do its job without facts. He asked for further information from the delegation as soon as possible.

Another expert asked about article 23, paragraph 2 of the Syrian Constitution on artistic creation. How was that provision applied in practice? Were there forms of artistic creation which had been suppressed under that provision? Referring to the head of delegation’s statement regarding a visit made to prison, he asked if people were jailed in Syria for offenses that would not involve incarceration in other countries.

One expert said the obligation to report was a legal obligation on which all other rights depended. He urged the State party to report candidly and on time. Regarding the state of emergency, he asked what rights Syria had derogated from and what the need for a state of emergency was at the present time.

He had been told that leading non-governmental organizations had not been permitted into Syria and that entry requests had been denied, including those of the Arab Human Rights Committee. The Baath party had prohibited officials from meeting with human rights organizations. He found that outrageous, he said, and strongly reiterated the request for an open dialogue between the Government and non-governmental organizations.

Another expert said shortly after Syria’s initial report, there had been a massacre in a village during which 10 to 15 thousand villagers had disappeared, he said. He appealed to Syrian authorities to release all citizens who were detained after that crisis and to find out where the people who had lost their lives were. Shouldn’t the civilians in exile be allowed to go back home? He recommended that an inquiry be instigated into that situation.

Regarding impunity for officials violating human rights, he said that many people in detention had complained about torture, and asked if those complaints had been considered by a court.

The report stated that Syria was a land of civilization and that discrimination was absent. He had, however, information about decrees prohibiting the use of the Kurdish language in the workplace and the use of non-Arab songs during marriages and festivals. He would like some response to that.

Another expert, addressing a remark in the delegation’s opening statement about the veracity of information given by hostile citizens, said that information had been received from such reputable organizations as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Arab Committee of Human Rights. In cases of specific allegations, a blanket denial was not acceptable, he said. The State party must respond to specific allegations.

The delegation had answered that there had not been any investigation into extrajudicial executions, because there had not been any extrajudicial executions. Syria, however, had been asked about allegations of those executions, as it had been asked about allegations of torture. He asked what investigations had taken place into those allegations, and asked for the reports on the death of certain individuals who had died in detention.

An expert said there had been a long delay since the last report filed by Syria. He emphasized that the purpose of the dialogue was to determine the real human rights situation and move towards resolving problems. The Committee must know the real situation on the ground.

He noted that the rights set out in the Covenant fell into two categories –- those that could not be restricted under any circumstances and those that could be restricted on grounds set out in the Covenant. How was the different approach of the Constitution of Syria reconciled with that in the Convention?

He asked for further information on the daily life of women –- such as property rights, rights to education, inheritance, transfer of nationality to their children. Did Syria envisage ratifying the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination against Women?





* *** *