RUSSIAN OFFICIAL TELLS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS THAT AID WOULD HELP POLITICAL STABILITY IN CHECHEN REPUBLIC

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
5 April 2001
Morning





Rapporteurs on Independence of Judges,
Forced Disappearances and Torture,
Special Representative for East Timor Address Commission



The Commission on Human Rights this morning heard addresses from a senior official of the Russian Federation on the situation in the Chechen Republic, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to East Timor, as well as from its Rapporteurs on the independence of judges, forced disappearances and torture.

Vladimir Kalamanov, the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation on the Protection of Human and Civil Rights in the Chechen Republic, said that violations and crimes in the Chechen Republic would not be ignored or hushed up regardless of their perpetrators, and that all those responsible would be brought to justice in accordance with the law. International humanitarian assistance did not reach Chechnya, although it had been stressed on numerous occasions that the reorientation of humanitarian aid would contribute to the political stability, social and economic rehabilitation and the return of displaced person in the Republic.

Sergio Vieira de Mello, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General to East Timor, said that the task of laying the foundation for a culture based on human rights in East Timor was daunting. It entailed looking at the past to ensure that those responsible for the abuses that marked recent history were brought to justice; the present to construct piece by piece the building blocks for a society based on the rule of law; and the future to prepare the East Timorese for their first democratic elections.

Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said that he continued to be concerned about the harassment of lawyers who were persecuted for the pursuit of their professional activities while representing their clients. Although there had been improvements in some countries with respect to this, the overall situation had not improved.

Ivan Tosevski, the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said it was crucial for the countries that had a large backlog of outstanding cases to make consistent and effective efforts to identify the fate and whereabouts of disappeared persons. Impunity continued to be the main cause of enforced disappearances and also a major obstacle in the process of clarification of cases.

Sir Nigel Rodley, the Special Rapporteur on torture, said that no area of the world could claim to be a torture-free zone. Indeed, some were torture-rife zones. With respect to undertaking a fact-finding mission to the occupied Palestinian territories, he had not received information indicating the existence of a significant incidence of torture. In light of newly provided information and the deteriorating situation there, it was his intention to address a letter to Israel requesting an invitation to visit the territories.

The Representatives of Cuba and Algeria said that they were worried that the Special Rapporteur had not tried to undertake a mission to the occupied Palestinian territory as requested by the Commission in its Special Session last November.

Representatives of Mexico, Peru, Belarus, Slovakia, Azerbaijan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea and Paraguay also took the floor.

Viet Nam exercised its right of reply.

When the Commission reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will continue its debate on civil and political rights.


Civil and Political Rights

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

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 are 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.4/2001/66) 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.4/2001/68) 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.



Statements

VLADIMIR KALAMANOV, Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation on the Protection of Human and Civil Rights in the Chechen Republic, said that in his address last year to the Commission on Human Rights, he had stressed that the President of the Russian Federation had entrusted him with very specific tasks. First of all, the population of the Chechen Republic needed to be reassured that the protection of human rights and freedoms was truly a primary goal of the leadership of the Russian Federation, that violations and crimes would not be ignored or hushed up regardless of their perpetrators, and that all those responsible would be brought to justice in accordance with the law. He had focused on the fulfilment of these tasks. There was no intention to embellish the reality. Serious problems still remained. The activities of terrorists at present were not only directed against the federal forces and representatives of the Administration of the Chechen Republic, but equally against the civilian population. Their principal objective was to spread fear among those who wished to cooperate with the authorities and re-establish normal life.

At the same time, one could notice a certain positive and constantly strengthening trend in the area of human rights protection. First of all, this work became systematic -- the foundation of a democratic society was being recreated, which was guided by the interests of the person. The statement should not be overburdened with facts, but they were inevitable. Moreover, misinformation was disseminated during this present session as if nothing was being done in the human rights area in the Chechen Republic. Today, it could be said with certainty that practical steps were being taken so as to reinstall judicial authority in the region and to create an effective judicial system there. Unfortunately, in spite of appeals and recommendations of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, international humanitarian assistance in fact did not reach Chechnya proper, although it had been stressed on numerous occasions that the reorientation of humanitarian aid from Ingushetia to the Chechen Republic would contribute to the political stability, social and economic rehabilitation and the return of displaced persons. And this was regardless of the fact that the Russian authorities together with the Administration of the Chechen Republic had guaranteed the safety of the staff of humanitarian organizations and were ready to cooperate. It seemed that there were those who did not favour the stabilization of the situation in Chechnya.

DATO’ PARAM CUMARASWAMY, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said that he continued to be concerned about the harassment of lawyers who were persecuted for the pursuit of their professional activities representing their clients. Although there had been improvements in some countries with respect to this, the overall situation had not improved. The Special Rapporteur had received many reports of lawyers who had received death threats, or faced other forms of harassment in connection with their representation of various clients, often belonging to minority or disadvantaged groups, in society.

The Special Rapporteur indicated that despite his 1998 report and the recommendations made therein, the situation of defence lawyers in Northern Ireland remained a concern. The situation in Zimbabwe was of particular concern, with reports of threat and harassment against members of the judiciary. The Government's refusal to provide protection for judges or to guarantee their safety represented a serious threat to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary and was seen as if it was complicit in the harassment and intimidation.


The recent brutal lynching of a judge in his own court in Guatemala was yet another severe blow to justice. The transformation of South Africa from a system of parliamentary supremacy to a situation where the constitution was supreme required the development and nurturing of a culture of independence across all sections of the justice system. In Belarus, the Government appeared to have mounted sustained attacks on members of the legal profession who pursued cases that challenged the actions of the Government, or who attempted to protect the fundamental rights of their clients. In the Slovak Republic, the judges were not fully independent in their decision making. The proposed amendments to the Acts on Courts and Judges 1991 currently before the Parliament of Czech Republic were a matter of concern. If these amendments were approved by Parliament, the Minister of Justice would be vested with considerable power over the judiciary in the Czech Republic.

IVAN TOSEVSKI, Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, said that since its establishment in 1980, the Working Group had transmitted over 49,500 cases of alleged disappearances to 76 Governments. Out of these, however, only some 3,500 cases had been clarified. Although every individual case which was clarified must be seen as a success, the fact that almost 46,000 remained outstanding was not very encouraging.

It was crucial for the countries that had a large backlog of outstanding cases to make consistent and effective efforts to identify the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared persons. Within this context, the Working Group expressed its great appreciation to the Government of Sri Lanka for its intense activity to clarify outstanding cases. Impunity continued to be the main cause of enforced disappearances and also a major obstacle in the process of clarification of cases. The full implementation of the 1992 Declaration was crucial for the prevention and termination of this very serious human rights violation. Deep concern was expressed about the harassment and even prosecution of non-governmental organizations in some countries.

SIR NIGEL RODLEY, Special Rapporteur on torture, said that in view of the forthcoming World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, the question of racism and related intolerance, which was all too relevant to his mandate, was addressed in his report. Chapter II of the report described routine issues, and also indicated the situation with regards to missions to countries. In 2000, missions were undertaken to Azerbaijan and Brazil. This year, an invitation was sought to Uzbekistan. The initial positive response received from the Permanent Representative had not yet resulted in a formal invitation. Outstanding requests to visit India, Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, Bahrain and Tunisia still had not resulted in invitations to visit these countries. With respect to undertaking a fact-finding mission to the occupied Palestinian territories, he had not received information indicating the existence of a significant incidence of torture. In the last week, a number of non-governmental organizations had supplied him with information suggesting the existence of problems within the mandate occurring in the occupied territories, and in light of the deteriorating situation there, it was his intention to address a letter to Israel requesting an invitation to visit the territories.

Replies to allegations and urgent appeals contained in the report had since been received from a number of States, namely Albania, Algeria, Australia, Bangladesh, China, France, Georgia, Indonesia, India, Iran, Cote d’Ivoire, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Nepal, Paraguay, Romania, Sudan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Zambia, as well as the Palestinian Authority. No area of the world could claim to be a torture-free zone. Indeed, some were torture-rife zones. The adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was a landmark step towards international jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. All States were urged to ratify the Statute at the earliest possible time. An addendum concerned the visit to Azerbaijan. The report stated that torture and similar ill-treatment were believed by many persons in the hands of law enforcement officials to be automatic, and that the mere threat of adverse consequences for failure to comply with investigators was assumed to mean torture. For some, the simple fact of detention had the same implication.

SERGIO VIEIRA DE MELLO, Special Representative of the Secretary-General to East Timor, said that the task of laying the foundation for a culture based on human rights in East Timor was daunting. It entailed looking at the past: ensuring that those responsible for the abuses that marked recent history were brought to justice and that parties with unresolved grievances were assisted in the difficult process of reconciliation. It involved looking at the present: constructing piece by piece the building-blocks for a society based on the rule of law. And it included looking at the future: preparing the East Timorese for their first democratic elections, working with them on fundamental issues such as the drafting of their new nation's institution, and creating strong institutions which would protect the rights of those most vulnerable in the challenging years to come.

The United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) had established a court system that dealt with both current crimes and the human rights violations committed in the recent past. So far, twenty indictments had been issued by a special panel to prosecute those responsible for serious crimes. Two indictments for crimes against humanity had been issued and hearing of these cases would commence in May. Despite the progress, UNTAET faced significant hurdles in bringing those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in East Timor to justice. One of the major human rights issues that UNTAET was as yet unable to solve was the continuing plight of the 60-100,000 East Timorese refugees who were still in West Timor. There were continuing reports that East Timorese refugees were subjected to intimidation by members of the militia and that they were denied many of their fundamental rights and freedoms. While a new economy was taking form, economic and social rights were still lacking in a number of respects. Unemployment, for example, contributed to some recent incidents of social unrest.

The processes of registration for political parties, as well as civil and electoral registration, had commenced. Through careful preparation and through maintaining an excellent and close working relationship with political leaders, UNTAET would take a proactive approach in order to ensure that the first elections were free, fair and peaceful. East Timor was a new nation, coming to terms for the first time in its history with the fact that it was no longer under the control of outside forces. The liberation brought with it a heady responsibility on the part of the political leadership not to abuse their new-found freedoms.

MARICLAIRE ACOSTA (Mexico), on behalf of GRULAC, said that in the past some countries in Latin America had witnessed forced disappearances of thousands of people. This violation of the most basic of human rights had caused negative effects that were still being felt. The fate of numerous disappeared persons remained unknown and many families seemed to have been separated for ever. States had to establish various mechanisms to address just claims that had been tabled. Given the priority accorded to the issue of forced disappearances, the region had adopted pioneering texts to prevent forced disappearances and to punish this crime within a multilateral framework, notably the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearances, adopted on 9 June 1994. The phenomenon of forced disappearances was not limited to a certain geographical region, nor did it cease to exist. The GRULAC group had supported initiatives on forced disappearances by the General Assembly and other multilateral fora. It welcomed the project on an international covenant on the protection of all persons against forced disappearances. The fight against torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment was also a major concern for the countries of the region.

HERNAN COUTURIER (Peru) said it unequivocally supported all human rights, and that would be clear in the next few days through the presidential election. The country's approach centered around protection and promotion of human rights, as well as prevention of human rights abuses because they were all important to human development. Peru observed strictly the provisions of the international instruments it signed. It endorsed cooperation on a global scale -- it participated in the fight against poverty, the protection of women, and the protection of the most vulnerable citizens. Peru supported GRULAC's proposal of an inter-sessional Working Group on forced disappearances. It was a matter of urgency. There was a need between Government, civilized society and the international community. Peru was aware of the tireless efforts which non-governmental organizations and international human rights bodies had made in the name of respect for human rights at the international level.

VLADIMIR MALEVICH (Belarus) said his country favoured constructive cooperation with the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations. Unlike other countries, Belarus did not hesitate to invite the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers to visit the country last year, and it made all information available to him. The Special Rapporteur was able to choose the people he spoke to from a wide field of professions.

Unfortunately, many facts had been ignored which had made it impossible for him to avail himself of the positive steps taken by the Government. The Belarus Parliament was a member of the most representative parliamentary association -- the International Parliamentary Union. Unfortunately, conclusions often did not correspond with each other. It was alleged that there had been pressure on judges during the national referendum, but that the judges did not change their view. This allegation had come from one person who was not reappointed to the court. Belarus believed that the alleged persecution of lawyers referred to by the Special Rapporteur was not founded well. The Special Rapporteur said he had learned of threats made to notaries -- but the report did say what the threats were, or to whom. He had had the opportunity to get the relevant information. He apparently did not feel it was necessary to refer to the Parliamentary elections in 2000, nor to the new Criminal Code and Procedure Code, which had had a direct effect on the judiciary. Belarus had already ratified the six main international human rights documents, and it had become a party to the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

DANIEL LIPSIC (Slovak Republic) said that after his country had begun to build an independent judiciary in 1989, it had become one of the basic principles of the rule of law, and belonged to the utmost priorities of the present Government. Last year, the National Council of the Slovak Republic -- the Parliament -- had adopted an Act on Judges which strengthened the position of judicial self-government vis-a-vis the Ministry of Justice. The long-awaited amendment to the Constitution was passed by the Parliament, and would come into effect on 1 July. The President of the Supreme Court would be the head of this new body.

The Government of the Slovak Republic appreciated the mission of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers to Slovakia which took place in November. The Special Rapporteur had noted as untenable the Government's contention that the office of the President was distinct from his office as a judge, and as such the constitutional prerequisites for the removal of a judge did not apply to the removal of the same person as President of the court. With all due respect to the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, that was not the case according to the Slovak constitutional system. The position of the judge and the position of the President of the court were constitutionally and legally distinct positions. All international documents relating to the independence of the judiciary took into regard the office of a judge, not the position of President or Vice-President of a court, and therefore the effort of the Government to recall the President of the court solely from the office of President of the Supreme Court -- not his judicial office -- could not be regarded as a breach of the principles of judicial independence.

TOFIG MUSAYEV (Azerbaijan) said that the democratic development of Azerbaijan was irreversible, and a firm basis had been established for implementation of the principle of the rule of law. At the same time the necessary measures had been taken to overcome the remaining problems. In this regard, the Government was cooperating closely with international institutions and non-governmental organizations. In November 1999, the Committee against Torture had noted with satisfaction the ongoing efforts of Azerbaijan to establish a legal framework based on universal human values to safeguard fundamental human rights.

A number of measures had been implemented following the recommendations of the Committee against Torture, including the setting up of a Working Group to examine the recommendation of the Committee and ensure the investigation of all allegations on breaches in this particular sphere. A consequence of reforms in the penitentiary system was the declaration on transparency of the places of detention. The Working Group had noted that the mission of the Special Rapporteur had coincided with the process of the intensive judicial legal reforms in Azerbaijan. That was why some progressive measures the Government had undertook after the visit were not reflected in the report.

PERLA CARVALHO (Mexico) said the achievement of civil and political rights had been one of the basic demands of Mexican society. Democracy took its sustenance from the respect for human rights, and that was why Mexico attached priority to the promotion and protection of human rights. The Minister of Foreign Affairs had referred in his statement to the Commission to Mexico's commitment to ensuring human rights for all. Representatives of non-governmental organizations had participated in the drafting of the National Development Plan. The Plan intended to define a new national programme for human rights in the country.

Mexico should revise its national legislation to incorporate the international instruments. The coordination of actions to ensure compliance, and ensure the follow-up of recommendations of the committees of the treaty bodies was a special part of the mandate of the Office of the Ambassador of Human Rights, which was established by the President. The Special Rapporteurs on the independence of the judiciary, violence against women, and on migrants would be visiting the country this year. There recommendations would be most useful in trying to improve the situation of human rights in the field. They would examine what was required to turn recommendations into real action. Mexico was genuinely interested in protecting civil and political rights throughout the world. Democracy was a fundamental value throughout the world.

CHUNG EUI-YONG (the Republic of Korea) said that in spite of tireless efforts, the current human rights situation on the ground remained grim. Gross human rights violations such as enforced and involuntary disappearances, arbitrary detentions and torture still prevailed in many parts of the world. Special mechanisms had transmitted a staggering number of cases to Governments on urgent appeals. This was undeniable proof that the situation remained bleak and that more progress needed to be made. Torture was one of the most abhorrent human rights violations.

The rehabilitation and compensation of victims of torture was a vital issue that deserved the Commission's attention. Eradicating impunity was crucial. While national authorities had primary responsibility over the prosecution of human rights violators, the international community should make it unequivocally clear that perpetrators of gross human rights violations were subject to punishment without fail. In this regard, the Republic of Korea welcomed the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

LUIS MARIA RAMIREZ BOETTNER (Paraguay), on behalf of MERCOSUR, said it was the tenth anniversary of the Treaty of Asuncion which had created MERCOSUR. The MERCOSUR members maintained a community based on the defence of democracy, and fully respected human rights and fundamental freedoms. This was one of the most important elements of MERCOSUR. A legal international instrument was adopted by the countries of MERCOSUR in July 1998. It established a system of consultation and measures to be taken if there was any breakdown of democracy in any of the six countries. Without democracy, there could be no regional cooperation and there would be no full enjoyment of human rights.


Right of Reply

A Representative of Viet Nam, exercising a right of reply, said the United States had no right to criticize the human rights situation in other countries. Millions of Vietnamese people were killed from the war which the United States had waged in his country, and it was still recovering from that today. There was freedom of religion in Viet Nam, contrary to what the United States said yesterday. There was no harassment of religious groups, despite what the United States had charged.



* *** *