NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS DESCRIBE ACTIVITIES AS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DEBATES EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF MECHANISMS

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
19 April 2001
Evening and Night






A series of national institutions for human rights summarized their functions and accomplishments as the Commission on Human Rights carried on tonight with its discussion of the effective functioning of mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights.

Addressing the meeting were national human rights institutions of Australia, France, Mexico, Malawi, Argentina, Philippines, Malaysia, Canada, Ghana, India, Morocco, Uganda, Northern Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Italy, Nigeria, and Indonesia.

The commissions and agencies described varying histories and levels of influence and made frequent reference to the so-called “Paris Principles” which set basic minimum standards -- including independence of other Government agencies -- for the effective operation of national human rights bodies. Several, including that of Northern Ireland, said they were dissatisfied with the powers granted them and had either undergone reform or were seeking greater authorization to investigate allegations of human-rights abuses and to gather information from State sources. Almost all the institutions said they carried out educational, training and public-information activities. A number referred to efforts to combat racism and alleviate poverty.

Countries and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also addressed matters related to effective functioning of human rights mechanisms as the meeting continued until 11:30 p.m., with many national delegations calling for less duplication and overlap in the operations of human rights treaty bodies, and for more streamlined ways for countries to submit reports to those bodies.

Speaking were Representatives of Madagascar, Poland, Senegal, South Africa, Pakistan, China, Italy, the Russian Federation, New Zealand, Ukraine, Slovenia, Liechtenstein, Cyprus, Sri Lanka, and Sudan.

The following NGOs offered statements: International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (joint statement); Friends World Committee for Consultation (joint statement); Centre for Economic and Social Rights (joint statement); Human Rights Watch; Asian Legal Resource Centre; Aliran Kesedarian Negara National Consciousness; South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre; International Human Rights Law Group; and Association for World Education.

The United Kingdom spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Friday, 20 April, to consider draft resolutions tabled under a series of agenda items.

Statements by national human rights institutions

ALICE EH-SOON TAY, of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission of Australia, said that the Commission had played an important role in facilitating the participation of civil society, providing independent perspectives and expertise on issues relating to racism, particularly in highlighting manifestations of racism that affected indigenous and minority communities; and in participating in the preparatory process of the World Conference against Racism.

In August of this year, the Australian Commission would host "Moving Forward - Reparations for the Stolen Generations", a conference on the development of reparation mechanisms for communities affected by the forced removal of children in the past. As part of its contribution to the World Conference, the Australian Commission would host a national summit on civil society and racism next month. It was important to ensure that national institutions were accorded the capacity of independent participation in all processes of the World Conference. This included the provision of speaking rights, the ability to move amendments to the declaration and programme of action, and voting rights at the World Conference

ALAIN BACQUET, of Commission Nationale des Droits de l'Homme of France, said these national institutions were original, even if it was not obvious to observers or States. They could be viewed as ordinary public bodies, but when you considered their goals and the fact that they had been given active support by the United Nations, that was not the case. The essential mission of the French Commission was to give advice and make recommendations to the Government on all questions of human rights and humanitarian intervention.

The Commission could respond at the request of the Government, but it could also take its own initiative to act. During 2000, the question of the effectiveness of respect for human rights in Europe had been investigated by the Commission. This did not allow the French Commission to forget that its mission was not only in one part of the world -- it was wherever people lived. The rights guaranteed by the European Charter on Human Rights should be for all people, not just for European citizens.

FRANCISCO OLGUIN URIBE, of Commission on Human Rights of Mexico, said Mexico was undergoing a period of democratic transition. A clear indication of this trend was the granting of full autonomy to the National Commission on Human Rights through the Constitutional reform of November 1999. However, neither the existence of an independent Commission on Human Rights nor the transition to democracy could guarantee and end to the frequent violations of human rights in Mexico.

The fight against these scourges called for a pro-active approach and continuing efforts to promote a culture of human rights. With regard to the indigenous population, the Ombudsman had expressed the conviction that the Constitutional recognition of the rights of this population would guarantee the respect for their fundamental freedoms. Another area of priority for the Commission was that relating to the human rights of migrants, given the vicious cycle of migration-racism-xenophobia. Particular concern was felt over the so-called Gatekeeper operation; over the past year, 400 migrant workers had lost their lives while trying to cross into the United States.

ALFRED DAVIS NSOPE, of Malawi Human Rights Commission, said the Commission was relatively new. It was established in 1995 under the Constitution, and started its operations in 1999. It had a broad mandate to protect and promote human rights in Malawi, and to investigate human rights violations on its own volition or upon receiving complaints from any person or body. The Commission had been investigating complaints related to human rights violations. Last year, the Commission had received 172 cases. This represented a 121 per cent increase as compared to 1999, when the Commission received only 78 cases. The cases involved, among other things, access to justice, request for assistance, and wills and inheritance rights. The increase number of complaints was not only a result of increased awareness of the existence and functions of the Commission, but also of the trust and confidence the general public had in the Commission.

The Commission had issued several public statements, commenting on different aspects of human rights affecting Malawian society. Late last year, Malawians had learned about massive corruption and fraud in the Ministry of Education. The Commission saw this act as infringing on the right to education and development as it deprived many innocent children of access to a fundamental human right. The Commission had condemned this in the strongest terms possible. It was also involved in promotional activities to increase public awareness of human rights.

EDUARDO MONDINO, of Defensor del Pueblo of Argentina, said human rights should not be fragmented. There was a far cry between theory and reality. Globalization had violated the rights of an increasing number of people. In developing countries the number of poor increased constantly. Indeed, the gap between the poor and the rich had never been so wide.

More and more Latin Americans lived below the poverty line. It had become clear that financial markets could dictate their laws to corporations and States. Today, any attempt at dissidence was condemned. The question was what level of inequality a democratic society could tolerate. In 21st century the challenge was to achieve a balance between development and democracy.

AURORA P. NAVARRETE-RECINA, of Philippine Commission on Human Rights, said the Commission had been born out of People Power I. Last January, the Filipino people had staged People Power II, which ousted President Joseph Estrada and ensconced his Constitutional successor, Gloria Arroyo, into the Presidency. The 1991 Paris Principles had given confidence to the Philippine Commission that its the Constitutional mandates were world class. Modesty aside, the Commission was above par for the minimum standards defined by the Principles. It was impossible to summarize all the roles that the Commission had been playing these past years. It followed a two-pronged approach towards the implementation of its Constitutional mandates. There were both protection and promotion programme packages. The protection programme found and applied the cure to the victims of human rights violations, while the promotion programme strived to prevent any possible violations from taking place.

Good governance could only take its roots once national and local Government executives were transformed into human rights advocates and civil society became a vigilant partner of the Government in the promotion and protection of human rights. That was why the Commission had come up with the innovative Peace and Human Rights Education Programme for Civil Servants.

TAN SRI DATUK SERI PANGLIMA SIMON SIPAUN, of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, said the Commission was one year old this month. Its main functions were to promote awareness of and provide education on human rights, to advise and assist the Government in formulating legislation and administrative directives and procedures; and to formulate recommendations to the Government with regard to accession to international human rights instruments.

Before the formation of the Commission, human rights had been practically unknown in Malaysia. However, in the short period of its existence the Commission had become a household name. This was partly due to the open inquiry initiated by the Commission into alleged police brutality in dispersing an assembly organized by opposition parties on 5 November 2000. The fact that an independent human rights Commission existed in Malaysia represented a giant step in the right direction as far as the promotion of human rights in the country was concerned.

MICHELLE FALARDEAU-RAMSAY Q. C., of Human Rights Commission of Canada, said the importance of national human rights institutions working together infurtherance of universal goals was by now self-evident. National institutions should play an important role at the World Conference against Racism. However, to date, the role that they would play was not clear. The Commission believed that national institutions should be accorded a role and status befitting their importance as tools for combatting discrimination and promoting equality. This was why the Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Conference should encourage the establishment and support of national institutions. It was all the more important that the General Assembly vote an adequate and permanent budget to the division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights which was responsible for national institutions.

Canada was a multi-racial society. But it was not immune to racism, intolerance and xenophobia. Nor was its history unblemished by these ills. In the no- too-distant past, immigrants had been refused entry because of the colour of their skin, Canadians of African descent had been forcibly segregated and Asian Canadians had been denied full citizenship. Progress had been made, but intolerance still existed in Canada. It was fair to say that never before had the rights of common people to dignity and equality had such an important role in world affairs. The challenge for national institutions was to make those rights a reality in the day-to-day lives of people everywhere.

EMILE SHORT, of Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice of Ghana, said that many countries, including Ghana, had ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, yet the provisions of the Convention continued to remain unrealized for most people, especially the poor. While recognizing the importance of civil and political rights in alleviating poverty, it was primarily through the promotion and protection of economic and social rights that human rights commissions in developing countries could contribute to the alleviation of poverty.

The Commission in Ghana, through its public education programs, had raised awareness about violations of economic, social and cultural rights which to a great extent had contributed to the impoverishment of the situation of a large segment of society. The Commission regularly advocated on behalf of the poor and marginalized groups, with a view to positively affecting Government policy decisions affecting them. Through its public education programmes, the Commission had also campaigned vigorously against ethnic prejudices, tribal discrimination and culturally based violations that had subjected some members of society to degrading and poverty stricken lifestyles. The Commission had also embarked on public education efforts to address violations of environmental rights.

J. S. VERMA, of National Human Rights Commission of India, said the success of the global effort for human rights depended, ultimately, on the observance of human rights principles at the national level. National institutions played a crucial role in harmonizing national and international standards and norms and in ensuring proper compliance with them. This was increasingly being recognized by the treaty bodies established under UN auspices. Further cooperation between the treaty bodies and the national institutions should be encouraged. It was also heartening to observe that impressive examples of cooperation between national institutions were multiplying -- on a bilateral basis, on a regional basis, and internationally. The Secretary-General's report recounted instances of such cooperation. This trend, too, deserved to be encouraged.

In India, on the strong recommendation of the Indian Commission, the Government signed the Convention against Torture in 1997. It was a matter of deep regret to the Commission that the Government had not yet ratified the Convention, despite having been urged to do so. The Commission nevertheless hoped that appropriate steps would be taken in this respect without further delay. India also was not yet a signatory either to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees or the 1967 Protocol on the same subject. The Commission had urged the country to draft and adopt national legislation to deal with refugee questions in a manner that was consistent with internationally recognized principles.

G. ABDERRATAK, of Consultative Council on Human Rights of Morocco, said the Council had recently undergone substantial reform. Over the past year the Council had addressed the complex question of forced disappearances and arbitrary detentions and had taken measures to prevent human rights violations and to enhance international cooperation. In 1998, the Council asked his Majesty the King to review the question of forced disappearances and had recommended that the heirs of the victims be compensated. The Council had received more than 500 applications for compensation. Priority was being given to the most serious cases.

The Council had also reviewed several hundred complaints of human rights violations and had examined bills relating to fundamental freedoms. The Council contributed to the promotion of a culture of human rights by holding round tables and training programmes, among other things. The Council remained convinced that international cooperation in the field of human rights was the necessary for guaranteeing the universality of those rights.

MARGARET SEKAGGYA, of Human Rights Commission of Uganda, said in October 2000, the Commission had launched its three-year corporate plan, which emphasized four priority areas which should move the commission towards further consolidating its status in light of its Constitutional mandate and the expectations of the people of Uganda. Its priorities were to establish a regional presence, to deal more effectively with important human rights issues, to effectively communicate, and to improve the Commission's management and human-resource capacity. The Commission had played a major role in civic education, as the public decided on whether referenda should be a Constitutional requirement. Last month, during the presidential election, the Commission had designed a special media strategy in which it urged the people to observe peace and tolerance as they went to the polls. And the commission had adopted a pro-active method for dealing with security organs as key players in the protection and promotion of human rights by emphasizing jointly planned human rights education and training among the security organs.

The Commission looked back at the last four years as formative years, in which there had been many challenges. But it also recognized that it had come to be appreciated by the Ugandan people as a viable institution. The Government had been supportive through consistent funding, and the international community had been tremendous in supplementing Government funding of the Commission.

BRICE DICKSON, of Human Rights Commission of Northern Ireland, said the Commission had not been able to be as effective as it would have liked because of shortcomings in the statutory provisions governing it. A report to the United Kingdom Government on the effectiveness of the Commission during its first two years had made 25 recommendations for improvements to those provisions to bring them more in line with the United Nations' own "Paris Principles". The three most significant were that the Commission be given the power to compel the production of evidence during the course of its investigations; that the Commission be given the power to intervene in court cases in order to make the court aware of relevant human rights standards; and that the Commission be given sufficient resources. The Commission was awaiting the Government's response to its recommendations.

The Commission had been obstructed in its work by refusals on the part of Government departments, the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and other public authorities to disclose information to it about alleged human rights abuses. As a result, the Commission had found it difficult to pursue many issues, including the investigation of killings perpetrated by the security forces and by paramilitary organizations prior to the peace settlement in Northern Ireland in 1998.

BARNEY PITYANA, of South African Human Rights Commission, said seven years into the democratic transition of the country that had brought hopes of peace and stability and the promise of "human dignity, the achievement of equality and social justice," enshrined in the Constitution, South Africa was engaged in efforts at nation-building and national reconciliation. Racism continued to permeate every aspect of society, in direct and indirect, institutional and systemic ways. Racism undermined the enjoyment of equality and human dignity, especially for the most vulnerable citizens. Continuing racism threatened to subvert democracy and to undermine the credibility of the Constitution. The Commission was elaborating a National Strategy against Racism which it was hoped would bind all South Africans in common and sustained action against racism.

The challenge of racism, important as it might be given the history of South Africa, could not be isolated from other forms of inequality in the country. Some 10 per cent of the population lived with one form of disability or another. They faced not only societal prejudice and stigmatization, but also their own efforts at self-development and at the assertion of their human dignity were frustrated by an environment of silence or ignorance or shame. Through a National Commissioner on the Rights of People with Disability, the Commission had established a focal point for such citizens. The Commission was engaged with other agencies and disability activists in civil society in raising the visibility of the disabled, helping to develop a more caring and understanding environment for them, and encouraging disabled people to be more assertive about their rights.

CHRIS LAWRENCE, of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, said the Commission had always conformed with the Paris Principles. It was to be noted, however, that the Paris Principles were but a minimum standard and there was a need to further develop and improve upon them. The Commission was therefore currently engaged, with other national institutions, in a project to establish a set of best-practice principles for national institutions. At home, the Commission continually upheld international human rights instruments in public debate and in submissions to Parliament. New Zealand's record in ratifying and complying with those instruments while not perfect, was very good.

National institutions should commit themselves to effective strategic planning and their work should be systematically evaluated. The New Zealand Commission was committed to contributing to the success of the forthcoming World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa. The Commission added its voice to those which had already called for recognition, in Durban, of an independent and important role for national institutions.

FOUAD SHEHAB, of the Consultative Council - Human Rights Committee of Bahrain, said citizens had been in close contact with the Council, which he chaired. The Council had received a number of complaints in the past and had sought solutions to all of them. Recent reform had been beneficial to human rights improvements in Bahrain. The Committee, though young and without experience, had a realized a number of accomplishments. It had also established contacts with other Arab nations' human rights establishments in order to improve overall human rights conditions. The Committee was not only working for the citizens of Bahrain but protected other nationals living in the country.

The Committee had been endeavouring to create a peaceful situation in the country and had been collaborating with the Head of the State in the ongoing effort for the return of political dissidents. The political reform which had taken place in the country recently had also allowed the release of political prisoners. The Committee had been instrumental in the reform process which had helped establish peace and reconciliation.

FRANK ORTON, Human Rights Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said the adoption of the Paris Principles had triggered the establishment of human rights institutions around the world. It also had triggered a most impressive activity on the part of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. However, 10 years after the Paris Principles were adopted, the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in this field were not reflected in the regular budget of the Office.

The Commission was urged to request the Secretary-General to ensure that a National Institutions Unit was included in the regular budget of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as from the next budget year.

LUIGI CITARELLA, of the National Committee for Human Rights of Italy, said the Committee was initially instituted in 1976 within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was originally designed to create a structure that could make in possible for Italy to meet its reporting obligations, in particular those deriving from the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Committee had begun with a limited scope and a different structure than it had today. At present, it represented a permanent source of reference for all activities carried out by the United Nations. It also carried out important work to assure the compliance of Italy with international human rights instruments, both legally binding instruments and other relevant international acts such as resolutions and recommendations.

Besides the task of overall coordination in reporting, the Committee adopted recommendations to the Government on specific themes, and carried out specific studies on different aspects of human rights. One of the most important steps that had led to progress and the evolution of the activities of the Committee had been a decision taken by the Parliament to grant to the Committee sufficient financial means.

UCHE OMO, of National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria, said the mandate of the Commission was, inter alia, to monitor and investigate all alleged cases of human rights violations in Nigeria and to make appropriate recommendations to the Federal Government for prosecution and such other actions as it deemed expedient in each circumstance; to assist victims of human rights violations and seek appropriate redress and remedies of their behalf; and to make public regular reports on the state of human rights protection in Nigeria. The Commission faced numerous challenges at its inception, especially on issues of credibility, since it had been established during the military regime. A New Governing Council of the Commission had been constituted by the new democratic Government of Nigeria in June 2000.

Though the Commission had recorded appreciable successes in discharging its mandate, it was under no illusion as to the enormity of the hurdles before it. In a society such as Nigeria’s, with a high rate of illiteracy, scarce resources and diverse cultural, historical and other primordial variables, the challenges were daunting. The democratization process, the positive posture of the present administration towards poverty eradication and elimination of corruption, the gradual but sure reforms in various aspects of society and Government agencies, were positive indicators.

ALBERT HASIBUAN, of the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights, said that it had been one year that Indonesia had had relatively democratic Government in its fundamental transition from authoritarian to representative and pluralist democracy. In the meanwhile, the country had made progress in developing some legal basis in mechanism for redressing human rights violations. There had been, for example, the enactment of a law concerning human rights tribunals, especially for genocide and crimes against humanity. In addition, a draft law on a truth and reconciliation commission was now being finalized. Civil society had made a large contribution in the drafting process of the law on the human rights tribunals, in particular the provisions for an ad hoc tribunal to examine past violations.

Over the last year, the promotion and protection on human rights in Indonesia had been confronted with various difficult conditions such as threats against freedom from fear and communal conflicts in some provinces. Indonesia was now entering a new era in the promotion and protection of human rights. The country's Constitution had recently been amended, with the adoption of a provision on human rights. It was the view of the National Commission that promotion and protection of of human rights should be an integral part of reform towards a more democratic system in Indonesia.

General debate on effective functioning of human rights mechanisms

H. RAHANTANIRINA (Madagascar) said the creation of a National Commission on Human Rights was evidence of the political will of the Government of Madagascar to stand by its commitment to democracy. Created in 1996, the Commission was an independent body headed by an imminent personality. The Commission was made up of 25 members. The Commission organized meetings, oversaw the work of subcommissions and held general assembly sessions. It also carried out training and public awareness programmes in all provinces and participated in the technical cooperation programme of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Since its inception, the National Commission had held four general assembly sessions and adopted resolutions relating to the promotion and protection of human rights and to regional and international cooperation. Its programme of action for the year 2001 included, inter alia, the strengthening of functional relations with human rights NGOs, workshops on human rights problems in Madagascar, re-editing of a book on human rights; and the holding of seminars on human rights.


ROMAN WIERUSZEWSKI (Poland) said the achievements of the United Nations human rights treaty system could not be measured only by the number of ratifications. The international community was aware that despite the fact that from the legal point of view the universal human rights system was applicable to every child, women and man in the world in reality in many aspects it remained a dead letter. The Commission during its last several sessions had devoted a lot of attention to the need to make the system more effective. However, there was a need to strengthen efforts and to be more imaginative in making proposals.

With regard to the reporting procedure, statistics were really alarming. An average of 70 per cent of States parties to every treaty had overdue reports. In fact, almost all States parties were in arrears in submitting their reports. One hundred and ten States had five or more overdue reports. During recent years, a serious effort had been made to address those problems. Treaty bodies were constantly reviewing their practices, upgrading rules of procedure and guidelines for reporting. But they were confronted with a lack of political will to respect reporting obligations. Systems of individual communications also required serious consideration. At the moment, about 100 States parties accepted these systems. Interestingly enough, 30 per cent of those States had never been subject to any complaints.

DIEGANE SAMBE THIOUNE (Senegal) said the Constitution of Senegal adopted in 2001 stipulated clearly the country’s adherence to international instruments, notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on all the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on Human Rights. The emphasis given by the Constitution to these instruments was evidence of the importance the authorities attached to human rights.

The Senegalese Delegation on Human Rights and Peace was a newly created institution charged with receiving individual complaints relating to human rights violations; promoting a culture of peace, and compiling periodic reports to treaty bodies. The Interministerial Commission on Human Rights and Peace was tasked with coordinating Government action in the field. It also examined allegations of human rights violations. The Institute for Human Rights and Peace was responsible, among other things, for teaching human rights, researching and documenting information on human rights and organizing national and international seminars on human rights.

PITSO MONTWEDI (South Africa) said that as recent beneficiaries of the international community's insistence that human rights were the rights of all people everywhere, South Africans were justly proud for their freedom at last, and had determined to be participants in the United Nations Treaty Monitoring System as a State party. South Africa was committed to the positive shaping of the international human rights agenda and was appreciative of international efforts to make human rights a reality for all. Its democracy was relatively young, resulting from non-racial elections of 1994. However, its struggle for freedom and democracy was very long and very old indeed. South Africa's past colonial domination, segregation and apartheid had left it with an indelible legacy of racism, inequality, unequal income distribution, poverty and underdevelopment. As it continued to grapple with those challenges, it would remain unwavering in its placement of human dignity at the centre of its development policies.

The delegation of South Africa believed that one of the effective methods of dealing with violations of human rights was by empowering treaty monitoring bodies to render better service to States parties and other members of the UN. The work of those bodies could be made easier by withdrawing the number of reservations to the treaties which so many States parties had entered.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said Pakistan recommended that Professor Bayefsky's report should be sent for comments to all treaty monitoring bodies. A critical point of the report was that the assumption of such obligations by States was voluntary, and the voluntariness of the treaty system should not be put into question. The report did not appear to give due attention to the problems faced by State parties, but it did recognize the problems caused by multiple and overlapping reporting requirements.


Coordination between treaty bodies and other UN organs should be strengthened to avoid duplication. Specific difficulties faced by developing countries in preparing exhaustive reports should be taken into account; technical assistance should be made available for countries that required financial support and other assistance in preparing their reports. Treaty bodies should take full account of the level of economic development and the religious and cultural backgrounds of States in examining reports; equitable geographical representation in the membership of treaty bodies should be ensured; the methodology of preparing reports should be improved and guidelines established for various treaty bodies; and treaty monitoring bodies should not become courts of law and pass harsh judgements on States parties but assist countries in meeting their obligations in a cooperative manner.

REN YISHENG (China) said the Chinese Government attached great importance to the significant role of the international human rights instruments in promoting and protecting human rights. Last February, the Chinese Government had ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and it was a major step with far-reaching significance taken by China. It fully demonstrated China's consistent and principled position to vigorously promote and protect human rights and to actively carry out international cooperation in that field. It also demonstrated China's determination and confidence to guarantee the full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by its citizens. China now had acceded to 18 international human rights instruments. In addition, China had signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. At the same time, China was taking an active part in the drafting and elaboration of new international human rights instruments.

The Chinese Government believed that the provisions on the reporting and consideration procedures contained in international instrument on human rights were conducive to the effective implementation of those instruments. Provisions of international instruments on human rights should be put into practice by the contracting parties through various administrative, legislative and other measures.

CLAUDIO MORENO (Italy) said Italy was aware of the need to change the operations of the treaty bodies, but such changes should not infringe on the effectiveness or freedom and independence of such bodies, or serve to reduce protections of human rights. The duty of all States to cooperate with mechanisms and treaty bodies was paramount to any exercise to promote human rights; the universality of human rights should be kept in mind -- these mechanisms concerned international standards and were not meant as affronts, and countries should take criticism from the treaty bodies as an intent to help them.

Improvements in working methods, additional funding, and elimination of overlap and duplication were certainly goals worth pursuing, but such steps should come from the initiative of the bodies themselves. Obviously there was no argument that more resources were needed; the question was how to increase funding. Mechanisms and committees should coordinate their activities to avoid waste and duplication and also avoid a practice very irritating to States -- asking for information on the same subject on occasions that were close together; better planning could avoid this problem.

GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV (Russian Federation) said the mandates of the various treaty bodies and other human rights mechanisms were not identical and coordination among the bodies was essential. Such coordination could avoid duplication of effort. Efforts should be made to improve reporting procedures. The periodicity of presentation of reports had to be considered. The submission of reports and the period of submission varied from one treaty to another. Dialogues between States and the treaty monitoring bodies should be of higher quality.

The application of the special procedures was another method of monitoring the implementation of human rights conventions. However, some of the monitoring committees had been surpassing their mandates. In addition, there had been selectivity in the application of special procedures. National judicial and legal procedures should be given priority in dealing with cases of human rights violations; and such procedures should encouraged.


IAN HILL (New Zealand), speaking on behalf of several other countries, said significant improvements were possible to the treaty-body system through some practical informal measures. Reducing the reporting burden on States parties through streamlining periodic reporting requirements and reducing duplication was important; so were intensified efforts by treaty bodies to improve the professionalism and efficiency of their working methods. Treaty bodies should be ensured adequate resources and have the necessary administrative support. Expanding and coordinating technical assistance to ensure that States parties understood fully their obligations and how to meet them would be useful. And there should be greater cooperation among treaty bodies and other parts of the UN system to identify overlapping areas of concern and opportunities for enhancing complementarity and information sharing. More thorough reform was an important and challenging task and should be approached gradually and consensually. New Zealand was part of a range of States engaging informally to address the problems facing treaty bodies.

Regarding Cuba's draft resolution recommending the establishment of regional distribution quotas for treaty bodies, New Zealand and associated countries supported the desirability of regional balance but considered it not useful for the Commission to make recommendations on this issue, which was the prerogative of States parties.

MYKHAILO SKURATOVSKYI (Ukraine) said universal ratification of the six core UN human rights instruments would establish the best possible foundation for international endeavours to promote respect for human rights. Ukraine strongly supported the activities of the High Commissioner for Human Rights aimed at achieving that goal by the year 2003. The goal was ambitious but realistic -- that had been proven by the steady progress in the field. Ratification of human right treaties called for further efforts to ensure that internationally recognized standards contained therein were entirely observed at the national level. While pursuing the domestic policy of ensuring the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in Ukraine, allocating substantial funds for those proposes, the Government also expected to pay similar attention to the needs of more than 12 million ethnic Ukrainians residing in more than 50 countries. Unfortunately, in some of those countries, the status of Ukrainian minorities was not adequately secured.

In addition to domestic policies, the channel of bilateral cooperation also could be very helpful and instrumental in dealing with the issue of minority rights. Ukraine had concluded bilateral treaties with some countries on protecting the rights of minorities. In addition, the recently created Consultative Council of the Crimean Tartars under the President of Ukraine would contribute to the process of the elimination of existing obstacles on that issue.

GREGOR ZORE (Slovenia) said the contemporary concept of human rights and fundamental freedoms had, for some time, greatly influenced the contents of many covenants and charters at the national and international level. National Constitutions, as a rule, embodied the catalogue of fundamental human rights. Internationally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights served as an inspiration for further codification of human rights. National governments were primarily entrusted with the task of putting human rights provisions into practice, mostly by ensuring that human rights norms were properly applied by the State administration and the judiciary. Even before independence, Slovenia introduced an effective and independent mechanism to monitor respect for human rights in 1988 by establishing the Council for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Its positive experience led to the establishment of the Human Rights Ombudsman seven years ago.

The structure and the powers of the Slovenian Ombudsman were based on the Scandinavian model. In pursuing his functions, the Ombudsman had access to all information, documents and premises of Wtate bodies. In a short period of time since independence, Slovenia had had to establish a number of mechanisms in order to fulfill reporting obligations under UN Covenants and Conventions for the protection of human rights. In the very near future, it was going to present its remaining initial reports to relevant treaty bodies and then it would continue to submit regularly other periodic reports.


ALICIA LANGLE-SCHLEGEL (Liechtenstein) said the universal ratification of the main international treaties for the promotion and protection of human rights remained a top priority of the United Nations. Over 80 per cent of States had ratified four or more of the six core treaties, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights was committed to promote universal ratification by 2003. The enormously expanding participation in the human rights treaty system during recent years had given reason to hope that that goal would be achieved within the set time frame. With its ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination one year ago, Liechtenstein had ratified all core treaties on human rights. It also remained committed to the early ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, which enabled yet another treaty body to consider communications submitted by individuals claiming a violation of their human rights.

Coordination and consolidation were the key words in the process of increasing the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms. A more adequate procedure as well as a closer cooperation between States parties and treaty bodies would improve the results of the whole review process. In addition, only the application of equal standards under all treaty bodies was in line with a universal approach to the protection of human rights.

HELENA MINA (Cyprus) said a network of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights had been established in Cyprus, following proposals contained in various UN documents. The Institution of the Ombudsman was established in 1991 and its mandate included the investigation of complaints filed by individuals against the authorities. A recent amendment to the Ombudsman's Act provided the Ombudsman with the authority to take up investigations on an ex officio basis. Moreover, one of the main responsibilities of the Ombudsman was to investigate complaints from foreigners, migrant workers and other non-citizens.

The National Institution for the Protection of Human Rights had been established in 1998. It was an independent body with the task of monitoring respect for human rights. It had broad representation, consisting of not only members of the Government but also members of NGOs. States should demonstrate the necessary political will and spirit of cooperation if human rights were to be promoted and protected globally.

YASANTHA KODAGODA (Sri Lanka) said the country had become a party to no less than 14 international human rights instruments in order to safeguard citizens' fundamental freedoms and human rights. It was significant that most such accessions had taken place during the last decade, at a time when Sri Lanka was rocked by a violent and ruthless terrorist campaign. Since the country became a republic in 1972, the core human rights recognized by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and other international human right instruments had been enshrined in the Constitution. At the enactment of the Second Republic in 1978, those fundamental rights were made justiciable, and the Supreme Court was vested with jurisdiction to entertain petitions alleging violations and imminent violations of fundamental rights.

Sri Lanka had no objection to informed and constructive criticisms with regard to methods of the Government pertaining to the protection and promotion of human rights. Assistance and support received from some institutions and organizations involved in human rights issues had in fact helped the country in many ways. However, the Commission and the international community should guard against those who used human rights allegations for political advantage, and only wished to bring disrepute to the people and Government of Sri Lanka.

CHRISTOPHER. L. JADA (Sudan) said the Government had decided to establish an independent national institution to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. The resulting council provided advice to various State agencies and acted as a link between agencies that dealt with human rights. It was protecting the most fragile strata of society. Its members had extensive experience. It helped the State adopt a new Constitution in 1998 that included special freedoms and public protection. It also aided in drafting laws on the Constitutional Court, the press, security, and on reform of the Criminal Code.

On a regular basis, it reviewed the situation of arrests, forwarding recommendations. It helped promote awareness of human rights, and organized conferences for the police services and the armed forces. This has had a positive effect.

ATSUKO TANAKA, of the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, in a joint statement, recalled that last year the Commission had taken the decision to defer consideration of the questions relating to treaty bodies to its fifty-eight session in 2002. The process leading to the World Conference against Racism, however, had focused attention on the important role which was or could be played by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

Central to the strengthening of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination was the ability to secure universal ratification, and, crucially, to a declaration under article 14 by States parties that had not already done so, that they recognized the competence of the Committee to consider communications. Equally important was the need to enhance the participation of NGOs in the work of CERD. The recent launching by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the Plan of Action for the year 2000-2004 on strengthening three treaty bodies, including CERD, was welcomed.

RACHEL BRETT, of Friends World Committee for Consultation, in a joint statement, said that since the 1980s, the Commission had established a number of thematic human rights mechanisms. These consisted of Special Rapporteurs, Special Representatives, Working Groups and Independent Experts, who were charged with considering a specific human rights issue in relation to all countries in the world. As part of their work, the special procedures visited countries to examine at first hand the situation in relation to the issues in their mandates, and reported to the Commission on these visits.

Since all the special procedures were established by resolution of the Commission, in which member States could participate, and since country missions were part of the established methods of work, States should do their best to facilitate such visits. Issuing a standing invitation to visit was a simple and effective way of doing this. This would demonstrate State commitment to cooperation with these procedures as well as enhance the efficiency of the process by reducing delays and decreasing administrative burdens on all parties. Further, it would de-politicize the process of country visits by shifting the focus away from questions of access to questions of substance, and would enable the procedures to plan and prioritize visits more effectively, knowing that the invitation already existed and remained open.

LAMBERT CAROLINE, of Center for Economic and Social Rights, in a joint statement, said that in this session of the Commission a deliberate, organized and concerted effort was being made by participating States to weaken or abandon a wide spectrum of hard-won principles and mechanisms and to redefine or narrow the scope of human rights. This assault on the content and meaning of rights was being waged by Governments of both developed and developing countries for their own reasons, and in the context of their own definitions of self-interest or political imperatives of whatever character. The right to non-discrimination itself had been challenged, even though non-discrimination was a principle enshrined in the UN Charter.

In addition, economic, social and cultural rights -- notably the rights to food, education and housing -- had been challenged, both in terms of their justiciability and in terms of their content. It was painfully apparent from the statements of Governments at this Commission that there was also a systematic attempt being made to weaken the terms of reference and narrow the range of issues that thematic Special Rapporteurs, Experts and Working Groups could address. This was apparent in the assertions by States of the primacy of national jurisdictions over international action with regard to the mandates on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the right to housing, enforced disappearances, the right to development, torture, education and violence against women. The Commission was called upon to support fully the system of special procedures, to uphold international human rights law, standards and norms, and to respect the mandates of all Special Rapporteurs, Experts and Working Groups of the Commission.


BINAIFER NOWROJEE, of Human Rights Watch, said that for several years it had considered the strengthening of the UN human rights machinery a top concern. It welcomed the issuance of 33 standing invitations to special procedures to make country visits. But while welcoming the invitations, it also wished to highlight another recent negative trend -- that UN member States were increasingly electing abusive Governments to serve on the Commission, including Governments that refused visits by Commission monitors. Algeria, for instance, had never permitted a visit by a Commission rapporteur. The most egregious was Sudan. When a Special Rapporteur denounced its violations of religious freedom, it called him an "enemy of Islam" -- comments that many took to be a virtual fatwa. Sudan was rewarded for this rejectionism by being named deputy chair of the Commission.

Human Rights Watch recognized the potential of national commissions for preventing and ending State abuses. The activities of the more promising commissions were proof of the positive potential of these bodies. The Ghanaian, South African and Ugandan commissioners stood out as people of integrity who had spoken out strongly when confronted with Government abuses. However, many commissions failed to denounce abuses. That was the case in Cameroon, Chad, Kenya, Liberia and the Sudan. In some places, such as Algeria, Togo and Tunisia, commissioners downplayed their Governments' abuses. Greater efforts should be made to ensure that weak or compliant commissions took up their responsibilities and put the people and the victims first.

PARINYA BOONRIDRERTHAIKUL, of Asian Legal Resource Centre, said the increasing number of national human rights commissions in Asia was a positive development despite the many disappointments they had caused thus far. The national human rights commissions of Thailand, for example, had attracted a great deal of attention because of its clear mandate and promised independence. However, the actual selection procedure had been disappointing as only some of the members had been selected and thus the official functioning of that body had not yet begun.

The problem common to all commissions related to the matter of investigating human rights violations. The lack of a proper understanding of that function remained an obstacle to their capacity to ensure an effective remedy for violations. A mandate of national human rights commissions that was rarely exercised was the power to make recommendations to Governments regarding measures which should be taken to ensure that national laws and administrative practices were in accordance with international human rights norms.

DEBORAH CHRISTINE STOTHARD, of Aliran, said that while the commitment of various Governments to establishing human rights agencies was to be applauded in principle, most human rights defenders could not help but feel some degree of skepticism. Given their track records, there was cause to think that some of these initiatives were more motivated by a need to keep up with the Joneses than a commitment to promote and defend human rights. The emphasis on form instead of content, and more importantly, effectiveness, made these institutions vulnerable to contempt and ridicule. In Burma, a human rights committee was established a year ago by the regime in preparation for the establishment of a national human rights institution. Amazingly, the membership of the Committee read like a "Who's Who" of human rights violators in that country.

In Malaysia, whose human rights commission received hundreds of complaints, the commission had not been able to investigate or respond to most of them. The commission had only managed to carry out one public inquiry -- into allegations of serious police brutality in relation to a public assembly last November. Were these institutions to support human rights, or to support human rights violators? Were they human rights commissions or human rights omissions?

RAVI NAIR, of South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, said that national human rights institutions were considered to be effective mechanisms for the protection and promotion of human rights. In the Asia-Pacific region, those institutions had been established in many countries, including India. The Bijibehera, Jammu and Kashmir killings took place on 22 October 1993 when India's Border Security Force personnel opened fire indiscriminately on a crowd of peaceful demonstrators, killing 31 individuals and injuring 75 others, according to official figures. The Indian Human Rights Commission intervened and made specific recommendations pertaining to the killings. However, no judgment had been passed so far and the Commission had no information on the issue.

In another case, the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre had approached the Indian Commission about the abduction and subsequent extrajudicial killing of a Kashmiri human rights defender in March 1996. The Government of India had ostensibly not been able to track down one of its army officers who was allegedly responsible for the killing.

SPEEDY RICE, of International Human Rights Law Group, said the United States should be held to strict human rights standards, and the work of the Commission's Special Rapporteurs was making such scrutiny possible. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions had worked closely with American NGOs to intervene in several egregious death penalty cases. In December 2000, there was to be the first federal Government execution since 1963. Intervention in this case by the Special Rapporteur and the High Commissioner for Human Rights herself, added momentum to domestic advocacy efforts, and President Clinton ultimately issued a stay of execution pending the outcome of a Department of Justice review of the impact of race and geography in the administration of the federal death penalty.

More recently, the Special Rapporteur had intervened in a clemency proceeding in Nevada of a mentally retarded African-American who was given a death sentence by an all-white jury. The timely intervention by the Special Rapporteur in this case appeared to have factored into the decision of the Parole Board to stay the execution pending further study. The work of the Commission, the High Commissioner and the Special Rapporteur gave hope that the full enjoyment of individual human rights would one day become the accepted norm in the U.S. and around the world.

DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, said it would be appropriate for the Ambassador of Iran to say whether the testimony of a non-Muslim had any validity in regard to a Muslim during a trial held in an Islamic court where the Shari'a law requirements were applied. However, members and observers would be justified in concluding that a refusal by the Iranian delegation to confirm a fundamental fact with an unambiguous "yes" would signify to all that there was no universality of justice in Iran. This explained why the High Commissioner was unable to obtain a satisfactory answer to the request made to her in a February letter.

The Association for World Education called on the Commission to adopt a resolution on the full and effective implementation of UN human rights instruments -- and also for the treaty bodies to take urgent action on this matter.

Right of reply

A Representative of the United Kingdom, speaking in right of reply, said the UK welcomed the role played by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and remained committed to fostering the Commission's operations. But the UK could not accept the assertion of the Representative of the Commission that the UK had obstructed the activities of the Human Rights Commission. No document had been withheld from the Commission without a reason, and those reasons had always been spelled out to the Commission, and the reasons were good ones. The UK Government was currently considering the Commission's recommendations on how to reform the Commission's powers. Calls by the Commission for inquiries into two murders were best met by independent police investigations now under way; however, further steps were not ruled out once the current investigations had run their course.




* *** *