RAPPORTEURS ON EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, ARBITRARY DETENTION ADDRESS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
4 April 2001
Afternoon




Foreign Minister of Republic of Congo Also Speaks;
Debate on Civil and Political Rights Begins



Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial executions and freedom of expression and the Chairman-Rapporteur of its Working Group on arbitrary detentions described developments over the past year as the Commission began its annual discussion on the state of civil and political rights around the world.

In addition, the Commission heard an address by Rodolphe Adada, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Congo, who reviewed, among other things, the results of a December 1999 cease-fire and truce between the Government and military factions in the country that had allowed the collection of 12,000 weapons and the integration into society of former soldiers.

Kapil Sibal, Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, said the group considered that acceptance, transparency and cooperation in the context of requests for country visits was the surest way to further the cause of human rights, mutual respect and understanding between member States and United Nations human-rights mechanisms.

Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said the situation with regard to such atrocities remained grim; that the worst violations were committed in internal conflicts between Government forces and militant groups or civilians; that firm measures must be taken to end impunity; and that too many Governments continued to condone or even justify extrajudicial killings by their security forces.


Abid Hussain, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said among other things that since the free flow of information and ideas was one of the most effective ways of contesting prejudices, the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, particularly by the media, could greatly contribute to strengthening the forces pitted against racism, discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

The Commission also heard a report from Ivan Tosevsky, member of the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, who appealed for further contributions to the Fund, as the money needed to meet various requests for aiding victims exceeded the amount that had been contributed.

The Commission also concluded its debate on economic, social and cultural rights after hearing concluding remarks from its Special Rapporteurs on toxic waste, adequate housing, and foreign debt.

Participating in the debate on civil and political rights were Representatives of Nepal, Sweden (on behalf of the European Union), Senegal, Romania, Norway, Brazil, the United States, and Albania

Speaking in right of reply were Costa Rica, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iraq, Bahrain, the Russian Federation, and Angola.

The Commission immediately reconvened at 6 p.m. for evening and night meetings scheduled to conclude at midnight to continue its discussion on civil and political rights.


Civil and Political Rights

Under this agenda item, the Commission has before it a series of documents.

There is a report (E/CN.4/2001/66) of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nigel Rodley, which reviews cases brought before him in 98 countries. Among his conclusions are that he is encouraged by enhanced recognition of the problem of impunity as a reason for the continuance of the practice of torture; that speedy establishment of the International Criminal Court in conjunction with appropriate national laws should mean all obstacles to impunity can be removed; that independent entities are essential for investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by those responsible for law enforcement; that conditions allowing the opportunity for the commission of torture should be eliminated, such as incommunicado detention, administrative detention, and lack of transparency and monitoring of police stations, detention centres, and prisons; that interrogations should only take place at official centres and that secret places of detention should be abolished by law; and that all complaints should result in inquiries and that complaints determined to be well-founded should result in compensation for victims or their relatives.

An addendum to the report (Add.1) deals with a fact-finding visit by the Special Rapporteur in response to an invitation by Azerbaijan. Among Mr. Rodley’s recommendations are that the Government should give urgent consideration to discontinuing the use of the detention centre of the Ministry of National Security, preferably for all purposes, or at least reducing its status to that of a temporary detention facility.

There is a report (E/CN.4/2001/58) of the Secretary-General on the status of the Convention against Torture listing States parties and giving the current membership of the Committee against Torture.

There is a report (E/CN.4/2001/59) of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture which, among other things, gives a needs assessment for 2001 and offers a comparison of requests received and grants awarded for the years 1993-2000.

There also is a note by the Secretariat (E/CN.4/2001/116) giving a reply by the Government of Cameroon to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture following a visit to Cameroon in 1999.

There is a report (E/CN.4/2001/65) of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, which covers situations in 41 specific countries or territories. The report concludes, among other things, that judicial accountability is becoming an issue of importance in several countries, often leading to tension between the Government and the judiciary, and that such tension needs to be addressed to provide certain parameters so that judicial independence is not undermined; that standards may need to be formulated to guide a sound system for accountability; and that some Governments are slow in their responses to communications and that some do not respond at all.

Addenda (Adds. 1, 2, and 3) describe missions by the Special Rapporteur to Belarus, South Africa, and the Slovak Republic. Among his remarks on the situation in Belarus are that “the pervasive manner in which executive power has been accumulated and concentrated in the President has turned the system of government from parliamentary democracy to one of authoritarian rule. As a result, the administration of justice, together with all its institutions, namely the judiciary, the prosecution service and the legal profession, are undermined and not perceived as separate and independent”. Among the Special Rapporteur’s responses to the situation in South Africa are that “90 per cent of criminal cases are handled by magistrates at the district court and regional court level. Because of their past status under apartheid rule, their current conditions of service and their responsibilities for administrative duties, magistrates are not perceived to be independent, although there is no evidence of any interference in their adjudicative tasks”. The Special Rapporteur also recommends that a committee should be formed to address a proposal for a unified judiciary in South Africa. In the case of the Slovak Republic, the Special Rapporteur notes, among other things, that “judicial appointment, promotion and removal procedures vest too much power in the executive and legislative arms of the Government and in particular the Minister of Justice”. The report deals extensively with an effort of the Government to remove the President of the Supreme Court, an effort which was subsequently defeated in Parliament.

There is a report (E/CN.4/2001/67) of Chairperson-Rapporteur Elizabeth Odio Benito of the working group on a draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture which describes organization of the session and general discussion, including debate on an alternative draft submitted with the support of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, national mechanisms, the composition and mandate of the international mechanism, scope of prevention in the optional protocol, and principles of publicity and confidentiality.


There is a report (E/CN.4/2001/68) of the working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, which notes, among other things, that since its establishment in 1980, the group has transmitted more than 49,500 cases to Governments and that although some 3,500 cases have been clarified, around 46,000 are still outstanding; that new cases continue to be reported from as many as 29 countries; that it is crucial for countries having large backlogs of outstanding cases to make consistent and effective efforts to identify the fates and whereabouts of the disappeared persons; that full implementation of the relevant Declaration is crucial for the prevention and termination of such human-rights violations; and that impunity is one of the main causes -- probably the root cause -- of enforced disappearances and at the same time one of the major obstacles to clarifying past cases.

There is a note by the Secretariat (E/CN.4/2001/68) on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances which provides in annexes comments and information provided by nine countries; comments provided by the working group; and comments and information provided by NGOs. An addendum (Add.1) offers comments and information provided by four additional countries and by the International Labour Office.

There is a report (E/CN.4/2001/9) of Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, which concludes, among other things, that the Special Rapporteur is alarmed by the reports sent to her on a daily basis which clearly illustrate the scope and seriousness of the problem of such executions; that she is particularly disturbed by the increasing number of reports of indiscriminate killings of unarmed civilians, including women, children and elderly persons, by government-controlled security forces, paramilitary groups, or non-State actors; that it is incumbent upon States to take joint and separate action to combat these atrocities; that the Special Rapporteur continues to be frustrated in her work by the absence of concrete action in response to recommendations contained in her earlier reports; and that she regrets to note that in the current reporting period a number of Governments continued to ignore her urgent appeals in individual cases and failed to respond to letters requesting information. An addendum to the report (Add.1) summarizes cases transmitted to and replies received from 83 countries.

There is a report (E/CN.4/2001/14) of the working group on arbitrary detention, which concludes, among other things, that deprivation of liberty, in all its manifestations, required the working group to take suo motu initiatives and formulate principles and methods of work to combat arbitrariness; that the group is seriously concerned by the increasing misuse of the term “State secrets” to describe certain information the collection and dissemination of which were protected as fundamental freedoms under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a justification for the detention of persons; that the group has actually learned of cases in which persons involved in environmental protection or the defence of human rights have been tried and sentenced for having divulged “State secrets”, or even have been convicted of engaging in espionage; and that conscientious objection continues to give rise to repeated criminal prosecutions followed by deprivation of liberty. An addendum (Add.1) presents a series of opinions adopted by the working group at its 26th, 27th, and 28th sessions.

There is a report (E/CN.4/2001/60) of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on various matters, including preparations for the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. The report also discusses the various treaty bodies and addresses special procedures.


There is a note by the Secretariat (E/CN.4.2001/61) on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

There is a report (E/CN.4/2001/63) submitted by Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion, that provides a general survey of the situation in the field; it reports discriminatory or intolerant policies, legislation and State practices, and even indifference on the part of the State institutions that is prejudicial to minorities, be they of the "major religions" or other religious and faith-base communities. It also refers to direct or indirect restrictions on displays of religion or belief, and manifestations of rejection, such as fear of Islam.

There is a report (E/CN.4/2001/64) of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Abid Hussain, who examines situations in 60 countries. He notes with satisfaction a growing tide in favour of human rights, and says that almost all Governments seem to be upholding the sanctity of the principles of freedom of opinion and expression. But at the same time, he notes, there are innumerable cases of great violations of rights to free expression. An addendum (Add.1) summarizes the findings of the Special Rapporteur following a visit to Albania.

There is a note verbale (E/CN.4/2001/11) from the Permanent Mission of Thailand on the topic of information on assistance to families of individuals affected by demonstrations during 17-21 May 1992; a letter from the Permanent Representative of Tunisia (E/CN.4/2001/4) replying to a report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression on a mission to Tunisia in 1999; a letter from the Permanent Representative of Turkey (E/CN.4/2001/137) responding to an opinion of the Working Group on arbitrary detention relating to the case of Adbullah Ocalan; a letter from the Permanent Representative of Albania (E/CN.4/2001/138) responding to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression on a visit to Albania; and a letter from the Permanent Representative of China (E/CN.4/2001/149) responding to information contained in documents related to the Tibet Autonomous Region distributed by some NGOs.


Statements

FATMA ZOHRA OUHACHI VESELY, Special Rapporteur on illicit movement and dumping of toxic wastes, in her concluding remarks, said she wished to praise the ombudsman of Costa Rica and thank Cuba, Algeria and the African countries for cooperating with her and assisting her in carrying out her mandate. She also thanked human rights advocates. She had listened with great concern to the appeal of the inhabitants of a community in Paraguay who suffered from the illicit dumping of waste by Delta & Pine company in their community.

MILOON KOTHARI, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, responding to the debate under agenda item 10, said he welcomed the intervention of the delegations of Honduras and Nicaragua on the issue of natural disasters which had affected the housing of so many people. He intended to follow the situation. The impact of globalization was also one to be thoroughly studied and he would take that into consideration in his future work. He welcomed the suggestions made by a number of delegations on the subject of adequate housing.

FANTU CHERU, Special Rapporteur on structural adjustment policies and foreign debt, in his concluding remarks, said he disagreed with his colleague from the World Bank with regard to the HIPC initiative. The whole debt issue had to go beyond the HIPC initiative. Countries experiencing the AIDS pandemic, countries coming out of crises, and countries which were the victims of natural disasters deserved special attention from the international community. The development process could not start without an adequate allocation of resources. He hoped the next G-7 summit would come up with some bolder initiatives.

KAPIL SIBAL, Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, presenting the group’s report (E/CN.4/2001/14) said that during the year 2000, the Working Group had continued to develop its follow-up procedure and had sought to engage in continuous dialogue with those countries visited by the Group, and to which it had recommended changes in domestic legislation governing detention. The Group had requested the Governments of States parties to provide follow-up information on the recommendations resulting from the Working Group's visits. A visit to Bahrain had been scheduled to take place in October 2001. A visit to Australia had also been agreed to in principle and the Government of Belarus had invited the Working Group to visit during the year 2001.

The Group considered that acceptance, transparency and cooperation in the context of requests for country visits was the surest way to further the cause of human rights, mutual respect and understanding between member States and United Nations human rights mechanisms. In addition, the Group was seized of a complaint questioning the validity of detention pursuant to an order of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The complaint also alleged that the procedure before the Tribunal was incompatible with articles 9, paragraphs 1 to 3, and 5, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Group had considered that the matter related purely to a legal interpretation of the norms on international law.

ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions,(document E/CN.4/2001/9) said she regretted to report that the situation remained grim. There was little cause for optimism, as past situations of armed conflict and political violence persisted. The worst forms of violations were committed in internal conflicts between Government forces and militant groups or civilians. Firm measures must be taken to end impunity. Too many Governments continued to condone or even justify extrajudicial killings by their security forces. Over the last year, thousands of unarmed civilians, including many women and children, had been killed in conflict situations. Civilians had also lost their lives as a result of excessive use of force by law-enforcement agents. Tragically, the list of examples was long.

Of particular concern were situations in the occupied Palestinian territories, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Congo, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua, the Special Rapporteur said. In Chechnya, Government forces were reported to have committed grave human rights violations, including deliberate and targeted extrajudicial executions of unarmed civilians. There were alarming reports of extensive civilian casualties and fatalities as a result of widespread and indiscriminate bombing and shelling by Government forces of civilian settlements and urban centres.

In Afghanistan, reports indicated that in recent months hundreds of people had been killed by Taliban forces, the Special Rapporteur said. In Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua, street children were murdered or disappeared with impunity. The majority of these acts were attributed to private vigilante groups or off-duty police and military personnel. In Indonesia, violence had escalated in various locations, including Irian Jaya, Aceh and West Timor. In Congo, there were numerous reports of extrajudicial killings. Of particular concern were reports that 12 women accused of witchcraft had been buried alive by Government soldiers.

RODOLPHE ADADA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Congo, said that while it was widely acknowledged that significant progress had been made in protecting and promoting human rights, the fact nevertheless remained that much was still to be done. The year 2001 was marked by the preparation for the World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa. Congo was pleased at the choice of South Africa to hold this conference and hoped the meeting would find the ways and means to eradicate the scourge of racism. A lucid look at the past was necessary. Africa had enormously suffered from racism, especially during the slave trade years and the years of colonialism.

Another important challenge the Commission had to meet was implementation of the right to development. The right to development was universal and inalienable. It was an integral part of fundamental rights and constituted a sine qua non for the effective enjoyment of all other rights. It was undeniable that extreme poverty and misery made impossible the effective exercise of human rights and constituted a negation of human dignity.

In December 1999, in an effort to put an end to violence, the Government and military factions in the Congo had concluded a cease-fire and truce agreements. Those accords had allowed for the collection of 12,000 weapons and for the integration into society of former soldiers. The Government had also launched a national dialogue for peace involving all political parties, trade unions, civil associations and ordinary citizens. In its concern to improve living conditions, the Government had adopted in 2000 a plan that reconciled development imperatives with the establishment of a state of law. Among other things, special attention had been accorded to the training, employment and integration of young people.

ABID HUSSAIN, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said the freedom was fundamental to all other rights. If it was taken away, a man lost the very quality which made it possible for other people to treat him as an equal fellow being. It was the right that was invoked to defend personal freedoms, autonomy and identity. There were a disturbingly large number of complaints concerning journalists and other media professionals, writers, political actors and other individuals being deprived of their right to freedom of opinion and expression. With more than 1,700 allegations received this year, it was clear that too many women and men continued to suffer intimidation, harassment, arbitrary detention and physical harm as a result of the exercise of their right to freedom of opinion and expression.

During a trip to Albania last year, he had been told with confidence that despite a difficult period of rapid political and economic transition, concern for freedom of opinion and expression was widely apparent. Nevertheless, these freedoms remained in their infancy and the Government should continue to expand its efforts to guarantee and promote this right. During the course of this year, Mr. Hussain said, trips would be made to Egypt, Argentina and Peru. Since the free flow of information and ideas was one of the most effective ways of contesting prejudices, the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, particularly by the media, would greatly contribute to strengthening the forces that were pitted against racism, discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. This right had been abused at times for purposes of advocating national, racial or narrow religious hatred, but these shortcomings should not be made an excuse to overlook its positive potential. It was necessary to consider the right within the strict parameters of international standards concerning freedom of opinion and expression. Apprehensions should not be stirred up to cast a cloud over the vast achievements of free expression.

One of the most recent challenges raised in the context of his mandate was the question of HIV/AIDS in relation to access to information, the Special Rapporteur said. To enable him report more extensively on this issue next year, all Governments, NGOs and other specialized agencies were invited to provide him with information related to the issue.

IVAN TOSEVSKI, of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, said the Board of Trustees of the Fund made recommendations for grants only on the basis of contributions officially registered by the United Nations Treasurer as available in the Fund on the eve of the session. Voluntary contributions paid later could only be taken into consideration at the next session. There were 180 requests received this year to finance medical, psychological, economic, social, legal, humanitarian and other forms of assistance to victims of torture and members of their families. These requests amounted to about $11 million. However, contributions paid to the Fund by 29 governments, two individuals and two organizations totalled about $1 million.

As of today, pledges had been made for about $2 million by the Governments of Algeria, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Denmark, Italy, Monaco, the Netherlands, Tunisia, Turkey and the United Kingdom. And today, the Secretariat learned that the United States pledged to pay $5 million. The Board of Trustees would highly appreciate it if these pledges and additional contributions from other regular donors could be paid before 30 April, as the board, at its annual session, would only be able to consider contributions paid and duly registered by the UN Treasurer.

NABIN BAHADUR SHRESTHA (Nepal) said being a least-developed country, Nepal was today facing an enormous challenge in maintaining its best efforts for strengthening the democratic system and promoting economic development of the country at the same time by protecting the rights and interests of its citizens. As acknowledged in the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the problem of the Nepal Communist Party was posing a threat to the very survival of democracy in the country. The Party had created an obstruction to the full enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. So far, 1,593 people, including many civilians, political activists and other members of civil society had been killed by the Party.

The Government of Nepal had given a high priority to the resolving the problems created by the Party. It continued to make efforts to find a political solution by means of negotiation and had called upon the Party to come to the negotiating table within the constitutional process by renouncing terrorist activities. While noting the concern expressed by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Nepal, it was the position of the Government that every effort would be made to improve the protection and promotion of human rights in the country.

LARS RONNAS (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union and the countries associated with it, said that countless human beings continued to fall victim to violations of human rights despite the adoption by many countries of the relevant international humanitarian instruments. There was an urgent need to ensure the implementation of the existing standards set to protect civil and political rights of all persons without distinction of any kind. With regard to the right to life, the EU regretted that the Governments of Algeria, Bahrain, India, Israel, Cote d'Ivoire, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Sierra Leone and Uganda had failed to respond to outstanding requests by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions to visit their countries.

No one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. There could be no complacency in the fight against torture; it was a matter of priority for the Union's human rights policy; and it attached great importance to the global need to take further steps in the continued struggle against that abhorrent practice. The Union called on all Governments to consider, where they had not done so, acceding to the Convention against Torture and other relevant instruments. The European Union believed that there was a clear connection between the occurrence of torture and ill-treatment and the problem of arbitrary detention. While the basic standards under which Governments might detain those within their jurisdiction were quite clear, the frequent use of arbitrary arrest or detention continued in many countries. In addition, the Union condemned all forms of discrimination and intolerance based on religion or belief. In several of the reports of the Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups, the fight against impunity was mentioned as being of a crucial importance. The international community should persistently continue its efforts to eradicate the practice of impunity which stood in the way of the realization of human rights.

IBOU N'DIAYE (Senegal) said his country had ratified the Convention against Torture before the Convention entered into force on 26 June 1987, thereby demonstrating its commitment to promoting universal respect for and effective exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Article 7 of the new Constitution of Senegal set out the principle according to which the human person was sacred and inviolable. The State had the obligation to respect and protect the human person. Every human had the right to life, liberty, security, free development of his or her personality, bodily integrity and especially the right to protection against physical mutilation.

Senegalese legislation sought to circumscribe the condition of arrest and detention of persons within limits compatible with the protection and strengthening of individual freedoms. Every suspected or arrested person benefitted from the presumption of innocence. One of the most important innovations with regard to the penal procedure in Senegal was the presence of a lawyer during detention and the possibility given to any arrested person, his or her lawyer or even any other person outside the family of the detainee to ask for a medical examination of the detainee.

ANDA CRISTINA FILIP (Romania) said the Commission should reflect the changes that were taking place throughout the world, take stock of lessons learned and do its utmost in order to promote, maintain and consolidate democratization trends. A democratic way of life, one that imbued all institutions, mechanisms, and mentalities of all actors in the society was a profound synthesis of the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights the international community was striving for. In recent years, democracy had made considerable advances as many nations had asserted their freedom and recognized democracy as the form of governance that best met their aspirations. Establishing and strengthening democracy was an outgoing process that demanded continuous effort.

An additional challenge to the international community came from the all-encompassing process of globalization and interdependence that required that required fast adaption to emerging new realities. Human development implied, in the era of the global economy, comprehensive education, from the technological dimension to a new self-awareness of human dignity and uniqueness. A qualitative shift in the involvement of major actors was also required, and one should know it was necessary to reconsider continually the role and responsibilities of the civil society. Democracy had to be continually reinvented and protected.

SVERRE BERGH JOHANSEN (Norway) said that a great number of States had now signed or ratified the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court, and the 60 ratifications needed for the Court to enter into force would probably be obtained soon. When established, the Court would contribute to combatting impunity, and would significantly enhance deterrence against the most heinous international crimes. Norway stressed the need for full cooperation with all international human rights mechanisms. Reports and observations of these mechanisms were fundamental tools for assess situations in countries and studying relevant themes in human rights.

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the UN Committee against Torture had criticized Norwegian practice on several points, notably as regards the use of remand in custody. The criticisms had applied, inter alia, to the application of restrictions such as a ban on letters and visitors, and the fact that remand prisoners had been held in police custody for relatively long periods. In consideration of the criticisms, Norway had taken several steps to improve the situation.

FREDERICO S. DUQUE ESTRADA MEYER (Brazil) said his delegation had spoken before the Commission on 5 April 2000 about the rise of political parties which promoted racist and xenophobic ideas in their political platforms. In order to combat such phenomena, Brazil believed that democratic regimes should be strengthened. The human rights of their populations should also be protected and promoted. The Commission should play an important role in the forthcoming World Conference against Racism and Racial Discrimination; and should take a firm stand in reaffirming democratic principles. The Brazilian delegation was ready to discuss the latest versions of the draft final declaration of the Conference.

The Government of Brazil had decided to launch a national campaign against acts of torture aimed at the protection and promotion of the human rights of citizens in the country. Torture in Brazil had been a chronic problem and unfortunately had taken on a social dimension -- it affected the most vulnerable segments of the society. The campaign was aimed at creating a hotline through which victims could denounce their torturers. The campaign would also incite public debate on the issue and to seek methods for eliminating the practice of torture in the country.

DAVID A. SCHWARZ (The United States) said some nations -- including some members of the Commission -- were using the language of human rights to deny individual freedom rather than to protect it. They asserted the supremacy of their "rights" to justify the denial of freedom or to trump universal human rights. Examples abounded of this perversion of law. The United States asserted the freedom of conscience, belief and religion. Democracies tended to flourish where religious freedom was protected. The converse was also true: where there was no religious freedom, democracies often perished, or never took root. Today, this freedom was under continuous and unrelenting assault.

In China, people who practised Buddhism, Christianity or Islam outside Government sanctioned organizations, or who engaged in certain kinds of spiritual pursuits were arrested. Some were beaten, tortured, or imprisoned in so called re-education-through-labour camps. The Government of Sudan was trying forcibly to impose its own interpretation of Islamic law on its diverse population, thus contributing to a civil war that had caused 2 million deaths and twice as many internally displaced persons. The Government of Viet Nam restricted freedom of religion. Recently, it had intensified its attempts to harass and repress groups of dissident Buddhists. The Government of Laos had not protected the religious freedom of the country's Protestant minority. The Iraqi regime had murdered clerics, desecrated mosques and holy sites, and imprisoned, persecuted and killed tens of thousands of Shi'ites and members of other religious groups. In North Korea, genuine religious freedom did not exist.

KSENOFON KRISAFI (Albania) said the situation of freedom of expression in the country had been improved over the past four years. The Government had taken measures to promote the mass media and other means through which people could express their opinions. The Albanian Government had restructured judiciary power in order to fight any violation of human rights and had implemented measures to strengthen the democratic institutions which were intended to protect human rights. In addition, new laws had been promulgated with a view to guaranteeing the fundamental freedoms and the human rights of citizens. At present, there were no journalists imprisoned in the country. The Government had no monopoly on the mass media. There were at present a number of newspapers, weekly magazines and radio broadcasts which freely expressed ideas.

Despite the political problems in the neighbouring States, the Government of Albania had continued to maintain the status quo in its application of the principles of the right to the freedom of movement. In addition, the Government had taken measures to ensure that national minorities enjoyed the same rights as rest of the population.


Rights of reply

A Representative of Costa Rica, speaking in right of reply, said the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings had made a reference to the execution of street children in Costa Rica. Costa Rica protested this error, editorial or otherwise. This error was inadmissible. It was not known how it had occurred. Costa Rica was truly committed to human rights. It did not have civil wars. It did not have any wars. It had not had an army for 50 years. And it did not execute street children. The Rapporteur had promised to amend the report.

A Representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speaking in right of reply and referring to a statement by the United States delegation, said that delegation was pointing accusing fingers while it was the United States which was the most notorious violator of human rights in the world. For example, it had discriminately destroyed places of worship during the Korean war.

A Representative of Iraq, in a right of reply, said it was strange and odd that the United States of America should take on the role of protector of human rights across the world at a time when it was violating human rights. Could what happened in Viet Nam be forgotten? Could what the US did in Iraq be forgotten -- using weapons of mass destruction and weapons made of depleted uranium? US planes bombarded the people of Iraq daily and indiscriminately. The United States had used its veto to prevent independent experts from going to Palestine to investigate practices by the Israelis against unarmed Palestinians. Was this not a crime? The last person lecture on human rights was the representative of the United States.


A Representative of Bahrain, in a right of reply, said a statement by the European Union had contended that Bahrain did not reply to a request for a visit by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions; however, Bahrain’s achievements in the field of human rights had been noted with admiration by number of persons. Bahrain had made available a detailed report on the situation of human rights in the country and the representative of the EU could refer to it.

A Representative of the Russian Federation, exercising the right of rely, said Russia was bewildered and displeased by the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings. The impression it left was that the Special Rapporteur used very specific sources of information that gave a distorted and unrealistic picture of the situation. There was no indication that the Government had provided information to virtually all requests of the Special Rapporteur. There was not a single word about the barbarian fighters of the Chechen Republic and their hostage taking throughout the Russian Federation. It was as if the Special Rapporteur simply was not following what was going on.

A Representative of Angola, speaking in right of reply and referring to the statement of the European Union, said the EU should withdraw its allegation against Angola. It was an unfounded allegation coming from a friendly country, in this case Sweden speaking on behalf of the EU. The Angolan Government had been investigating certain allegations submitted by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and would make the results public. However, the vast geographical and demographic conditions of the country might not permit the Government to come out with prompt responses.



* *** *