INFORMAL NOTE ON PRESS CONFERENCE BY CHAIRMAN OF THE FIFTY-FOURTH SESSION OF COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Geneva, 23 April 1998


INFORMAL NOTE ON PRESS CONFERENCE BY CHAIRMAN OF THE FIFTY-FOURTH SESSION OF COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Ambassador Jacob Selebi (South Africa) opened by saying that at the beginning of the session, he had posed the question of whether on the last day, the Commission could say if it had made a difference. Today was not the last day, but he wanted to say that it had made a difference. He would give examples why. The session had put greater emphasis on economic social and cultural rights by creating new mechanisms to focus on the right to education and to deal with questions of extreme poverty. That was an important difference. The second was that the session had organized an interactive dialogue on the human rights of women and had agreed to place the issue of gender equality on the agenda; that would be adopted tomorrow without a vote. Previously, the focus had been on violations against women; now the Commission would address the gender perspective and gender equality.

There had also been other activities, among them the creation of a mechanism to review the different mechanisms of the Commission and ask whether they were doing their work and if not, how they could be strengthened, he said. That would also be adopted tomorrow. In additino, the Commission had dealt with the restructured agenda, again to be adopted tomorrow without a vote. There were new issues, like the question of human rights defenders -- the Commission had adopted a declaration on human rights defenders, but a few days later, a human rights defender had been killed in Colombia. The declaration was not the totality, and there was a need to make sure its provisions were respected by governments. These were some of the positive things in the Commission.

At this session, there had been an emphasis to create a climate of cooperation between Governments and non-governmental organizations, and among Governments themselves to reduce confrontations and to enable the Commission to handle substantive questions on promoting and protecting human rights, the Ambassador said. The Commission would never again be just an event: it would be a process that would continuously develop to make sure it was possible to measure if there had been a global improvement of the situation of human rights.

A number of failures had been recorded this session, Mr. Selebi continued. One was that according to the reports of the Special Rapporteurs, there were still a great number of violations of human rights around the globe. Another failure was that the Commission was still dealing with issues in a ritualistic way, repeating instead of looking for innovative ways to promote human rights. The Commission had also still not addressed a number of questions of violations of human rights, concentrating instead on big headline-story questions. A young man had approached the Chairman; he came from a small country which was not on the first pages of the media. That man said more than 100,000 people in that country had had their citizenship revoked and were being sent out. Because this man's cause was not at the top of the charts, the Chairman had been unable to get the Commission to say that the man needed to have a home like everyone else. The Commission was not able to address this issue and the Chairman was sorry for this because the body should address problems of people who did not have voices. This was a failure.

There was also a need to do something about the resources of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Commission had adopted mechanisms on racism and socio-economic and cultural rights, it had appointed Special Rapporteurs to go to different countries, but all this was without resources because the budget of the Office of the High Commissioner had been predetermined months ago. Tomorrow, the Commission would adopt an appeal to the Secretary-General and the General Assembly, requesting them and Governments to do something about the question of resources. It was important not to fail in this area. Another issue was that the reports of the Special Rapporteurs and the other mechanisms still came in very late, sometimes on the day a topic would be discussed. As a result, no one read the reports and so various violations of human rights were not tended to. The Bureau intended to do everything in its power to ensure this stopped, and would follow up the implementation of decisions so that at the end, it could say that the session had made a real difference.

Overall, the Chairman believed the Commission had made a difference. At the meetings, participants were not belligerent. The Chairman was delighted to see an innovation taking place yesterday when countries opened up item 3 (on the organization of work of the Commission) to address the respect of the mechanisms of the Commission. This way, if countries escaped attention under item 10 (on country situations), the Commission could address their issues under item 3.

A correspondent asked whether what the Chairman said about gender equality did not risk blunting the main thrust of the Commission, which was to turn on the heat on “wicked governments”. Nothing had been done about China, Algeria had been left adrift and the Congolese had been left in a vacuum. How did the Chairman respond to claims that the Commission was losing its momentum?

Ambassador Selebi said one of the most fundamental problems facing the Commission was the group system; something needed to be done about it. It did not matter which group, this system made people vote on group country solidarity and not on human rights issues. Some of the failures the Commission had been a result of this. Tomorrow, he intended to speak about this issue to the Commission. He was also very sorry to realize that an institution which could lead everyone out of group politics was now enmeshed in it. Wherever Pope John Paul II went, everyone spoke of human rights; yet the Holy See was a member of the Western Group. It was important that the Papacy led the world out of this group system so that countries did not vote simply on the basis of which group it belonged to. First and foremost, the Commission was about the human rights of ordinary people and not about the human rights of governments. Only when this issue had been addressed would an African country be able to vote against another African country and a European country would not be afraid to deal with the issue of paedophilia because it happened in another European country.

A correspondent said this year’s highlight in human rights work would be the Rome conference on the international criminal court. Had this Commission contributed to the possibility that an effective international criminal court would be constituted? Or would such things as the report on the death penalty in the United States, the lack of a resolution on Cuba and the personal remarks the Chairman had made regarding the American delegation have a negative effect?

The Chairman said he did not know about negative remarks he had made. He had been faced with a matter or morals and principles. A country had tabled a particular resolution and the Commission was about to take action. The country that was supposed to be targeted said let us go on, and the Chairman said, “let us act”. Then the first country said it did not want to act on the resolution. What did the Chairman say then? If South Africa had a resolution against a particular country, it would have had one year to prepare and lobby. The Chairman had been faced with a resolution where there was agreement to act on it, so the Commission had acted. Concerning the international criminal court, it was clear that when it was set up, the Commission on Human Rights would have to be different. That was why there was a need for the renewal of the Commission. Once the international criminal court was set up, the Commission would not be able to send the Special Rapporteur to the former Zaire because those crimes would be dealt with in the court. If one looked at the former Yugoslavia, the court would deal with the grave human rights violations there. The Commission must start to ask itself where it would be in all of this. The suggestion to review the mechanisms of the Commission would help everyone start thinking about this because the situation would be different in a few years.

Another correspondent asked regarding East Timor: Could the Chairman say whether action would take the form of a resolution or a Chairman's statement? Would it entail opening a monitoring office in Jakarta.

Ambassador Selebi said he had not yet been able to meet with the delegations of Indonesia and the European Union. But everytime he had wanted to put the resolution on the table, he was told those discussing it were close to reaching agreement; that would mean reaching agreement on a Chairman's text. If they were able to resolve their small differences, it would be safe to anticipate that it would be a Chairman's text. The question of whether it would entail opening a monitoring office depended on the agreement that was made; but it might very well be that, and that was the sticking point.

A correspondent said one of the main issues mentioned concerning Algeria and Afghanistan was the lack of a mechanism to deal with the issue of violence by non-State actors. How could the Commission address this?

Ambassador Selebi said he would put this question in his closing statement tomorrow. The Commission must deal with the question of how to address abuses of human rights by non-State actors. It was a phenomenon that existed. There were two bodies of opinion among the State Members of the Commission: one believed that non-State actors did not violate human rights and the other said that they did violate human rights. There was a need to breach this gap as there were abuses of human rights. The Chairman said he would suggest that during the intercessional period, State Members of the Commission and non-governmental organizations must begin to address how the Commission would deal with non-State actors who abused human rights.

A correspondent asked for the Chairman's opinion about a statement made yesterday by Nancy Rubin, the head of the the United States delegation concerning the Cuban question. Did he agree with her charges that South Africa's delegation turned its back on human rights violations in Cuba by voting against the resolution?

Mr. Selebi said he would address the question as a South African and not as the Chairman. South Africa looked at that resolution and its continuous ritualistic existence as a politicization of a bilateral matter which had developed to a point where it had become internationalized. He was not saying there were no violations of human rights, but he was saying that the resolution concerned a bilateral matter that had been fought through the United Nations. It was wrong to bring bilateral questions into this multilateral forum. Yesterday another bilateral question had been raised between Uganda and Sudan. The Chairman said he did everything within his power to move the two countries away from this but he had failed. South Africa thought that certain things had happened in Cuba, in particular in the last year. The visit of the Pope was significant, it had said something and had achieved a movement which had resulted in the release of a number of people. In that kind of a situation, if the bilateral factors were taken away, the Commission would be able to address the question of human rights without its politicization, because at the end of the day the question was about removing a particular Government from power. It a situation concerned human rights, South Africa was not afraid to vote against Congo or Nigeria or anyone. But if it was politicized, South Africa would not want to do that.

How would the mechanism mentioned earlier by the Chairman work when a country, like Israel, refused to allow the Special Rapporteur to investigate? a correspondent asked. Ambassador Selebi said that from time to time, member States of the Commission said things like, “We were not here when this mechanism was enacted”, or, “We were not consulted”. These might be good excuses to avoid dealing with the mechanisms of the Commission. To address this, the Commission was having a review of its mechanisms. This would create an informal discussion and a consultative situation where pressure was put on everyone when questions were asked like why a Special Rapporteur was not allowed to visit a country. At the end of this process, everyone would agree that the mechanisms had been strengthened and reviewed and everyone must respect them. He might be an idealist, and some countries would still not accept to receive Special Rapporteurs, but the majority of them would be pushed in that direction. Once one country had been moved, the Commission would have made a difference and he had no doubt this could be done.

A correspondent said she had heard the Chairman was upset about the speech of the Nigerian Foreign Minister, who had warned Nigerian human rights organizations that they should prepare themselves for the consequences of what they had said at the Commission.

Ambassador Selebi said the Chairman of the Commission had a responsibility to say at the end of the session that he hoped that all the non-governmental organizations which participated would be able to return to their countries without being harassed or threatened, and that all Member States which had taken part in the decision on human rights defenders would make sure they did not experience what had happened in Colombia. The Chairman was ready to make that kind of a statement, but as to whether in reality those words would mean anything, he was not sure. However, when the Bureau heard of anything happening to those people, it would come back and ask why it had happened. He was a human rights defender himself: when he left his adolescence and home at the age of 16 to engage in the struggle he knew that there was a price to be paid for whatever he said. The price had meant going to prison a number of times and being threatened; human rights defenders understood that in order to make this difference, everyone had to pay some price. If there was anything he as Chairman could do to make a difference, he would do it.

A correspondent recalled that the Chairman said he did not agree with the question of groups. Was that also valid concerning the presidency of the Commission, which rotated among the different groups?

The Chairman said he was afraid to answer the question about the chairmanship of the Commission because he would be misunderstood. Human rights were about the rights of ordinary people, and he could not understand how, for example, all of Europe could have one particular stance or position on the question of human rights in a specific situation; it was impossible. Maybe the group system had been of use in the past, but when translated to the questions of human rights, it was a hindrance as far as he was concerned. But it was also a reality in the United Nations system, born out of certain necessities at some point. Group systems needed to be dealt with, but he was not sure the Commission would succeed. However, by raising the issue, people would look at it again. The group system was meant to capture votes and was not about human rights. He would answer the question on the chairmanship if asked again tomorrow.