SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION CALLS FOR GREATER TOLERANCE, FEWER ALIBIS

NGOs Level Charges, Raise Issues in Discussion
on Civil and Political Rights


2 April 2004

The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief told the Commission on Human Rights this morning that many obstacles remained to realizing religious freedom and that much had to be done by States and peoples to promote knowledge of and respect for other religions.

The Special Rapporteur, Abdelfattah Amor, said education – which should serve as the means of fighting intolerance and discrimination – had not yet been completely freed from the reflexive impulse to find refuge and an easy alibi in religion. In such instances, sterile pronouncements of one’s own religious tolerance justified indifference in recognizing the rights of others. Few were the new initiatives taken up by States in response to the General Assembly’s call for adherence to agreements made at the 2001 Madrid Conference in regard to education in the fight against religious intolerance and discrimination, he said.

Romania spoke as a concerned country and Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, and Canada participated in the inter-active dialogue with the Special Rapporteur. Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan also took the floor.

The morning meeting also featured statements from a long list of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) charging violations of civil and political rights in various countries and regions, and drawing attention to problems related to conscientious objection to military service, freedom of expression, enforced or involuntary disappearances, torture, and impunity.

The Latin American Federation of Associations of Relatives of Disappeared Detainees said many of the perpetrators of past crimes during military dictatorships were not being punished. A number of the countries concerned had since turned into democracies, yet many of these criminals had been integrated into current State functions, including into diplomatic missions, and the process of investigation of past crimes was slow. Light sentences were handed down for such serious offences as disappearances if any sentences were handed down at all, the organization claimed.

Human Rights Advocates said the global war on terror had spawned a wave of harsh anti-terrorism legislation and security measures worldwide. Some of those measures violated civil liberties and procedural safeguards and had been used to silence political dissent. While recognizing the increasing devastation caused by terrorism in recent years, and the right of individual nations to strengthen their security regimes, it was critical that efforts to combat terrorism comply with obligations under international human rights law, the NGO said.

Addressing the meeting were Representatives of the following NGOs: Transnational Radical Party; War Resisters International; World Federation of Trade Unions; General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre; American Association of Jurists; Conscience and Peace Tax International; Friends World Committee for Consultation; World Union for Progressive Judaism; Colombian Commission of Jurists; All for Reparations and Emancipation; International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; Latin American Federation of Associations of Relatives of Disappeared Detainees; North-South XXI; Federation of Associations for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights; Human Rights Advocates; European Union of Public Relations; International Association against Torture; December twelfth Movement International Secretariat; Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation; Jubilee Campaign; International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education; International NGO Forum on Indonesia Development; Center for Women’s Global Leadership; International PEN; speaking on behalf of International Publishers Association; Association for World Education; International Religious Liberty Association; MADRE; National Union of Jurists of Cuba; World Federation of Democratic Youth; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development; World Peace Council; Organization for Defending Victims of Violence; Freedom House; International League for Human Rights; International Service for Human Rights; United Nations Watch; International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights; Christian Democratic International; Liberal International; Interfaith International; Human Rights Council of Australia; Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization; and International Young Catholic Students.

The Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to hear further remarks from NGOs on the topic of civil and political rights. If the speaker’s list is exhausted, debate may begin under the Commission’s agenda item on the integration of the human rights of women and the gender perspective.

Documents on Civil and Political Rights

Under this agenda item, the Commission has before it the report by Abdelfattah Amor, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religious or Belief (E/CN.4/2004/63 and Add.1 and Add.2), which describe the activities carried out since the issuance of the Special Rapporteur's last report to the Commission and include an assessment of his activities since taking up his mandate in 1993. He states that where freedom of religion or belief in general is concerned, although a progressive decline is apparent in anti-religious policies or policies for the total control of religious matters by States in the name of political ideology, it must also be acknowledged that non-State entities have also played a more important role in recent years, often in terms of failure to respect freedom of religion or belief. He stresses that extremist cannot be blamed on any one religion. He also notes that violations of freedom of religion or belief are relatively often provoked or amplified by certain media in pursuit of sensations, stereotypes and clichés.

The first Addendum to the report concerns the visit of the Special Rapporteur to Georgia, in which regard he warns against the dangers of too close relationships between the State and the Orthodox Church and the risks that one may become a tool of the other. On the subject of the serious outbreaks of religious violence against members of religious minorities, he calls on the Georgian authorities to prosecute the perpetrators without delay but also to take steps to ensure that the judicial bodies responsible for conducting proceedings against the perpetrators can operate in complete security and independence and that victims are afforded appropriate protection. He also draws the attention of the Georgian authorities to statements around religious hatred which have been aired by certain political officials and the media, and reminds them of their related obligations under international law.

In the second Addendum, concerning the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Romania, he stresses that the principles of freedom of religion or belief are difficult to reconcile with the distinction between recognized and non-recognized religions, and he recommends that the Romanian Government should abolish this distinction. He is also concerned that certain religious communities have been intimidated for taking legal steps to have property returned, and requests the Government to ensure prompt compliance with court decisions on the return of religious property.

Statements on Reports of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief

ABDELFATTAH AMOR, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, said his present report covered both visits that had been made and those that had not – notably to Israel, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Nigeria and the Russian Federation. Those States had not responded to his requests for visits. He wished to underline, however, that China had already invited him to visit for a second time, as had Iran.

His visit to Georgia had allowed him to underline the risks attendant upon a too close relationship between the State and the Orthodox Church, Mr. Amor said. The adoption of a Constitutional accord between those two entities could have important repercussions upon the treatment of religious minorities. The grave incidents to which such religious minorities had been subjected meant the State should be encouraged to pursue the perpetrators of such incidents and to take appropriate measures. In that regard the arrest of the religious extremist Basil Mkalavishvili was welcomed. The visit had also allowed him to investigate allegations of religious incitement perpetrated by certain politicians and media groups, Mr. Amor said.

During his visit to Romania, Mr. Amor said, he had found that freedom of worship and conviction did not cause problems in itself, but that issues could arise concerning the different legal status of religious and belief communities. The major problem in Romania concerned the restitution of religious property confiscated under Communist rule, particularly that of the Greek Catholic Church. Government authorities could not rest completely outside this legal process, but must provide the necessary impulse for resolving the situation. They must also implement judicial decisions on the restitution of religious property and ensure that those religious communities that had recourse to the judiciary were not subject to intimidation.

On the prevention of intolerance and religious discrimination, Mr. Amor said the difficulties encountered in making progress towards real inter-religious dialogue were great, and the path continued to be filled with obstacles that could only be overcome through real knowledge of and respect for other religions. Education – which should serve as the means of fighting intolerance and discrimination – had not yet been completely freed from the reflexive impulse to find refuge and an easy alibi in religion. In such instances, sterile pronouncements of one’s own religious tolerance justified indifference in recognizing the rights of others. Few were the new initiatives taken up by States in response to the General Assembly’s call for adherence to the agreements made at the 2001 Madrid Conference in regard to education in the fight against religious intolerance and discrimination.

Religious minorities remained vulnerable to intolerance and discrimination, he added, and women continued to be the victims of discrimination on the basis of religion, or associated traditions. Moreover, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia had taken on worrisome dimensions, and the fight against terrorism had often raised questions concerning the freedom of religion and belief. Finally, he noted that the question of religious extremism had always figured high in his mandate. Today, one heard much of the revival of Islamic extremism, but in making religious extremism synonymous with Islam, one merely proffered a vehicle to an otherwise moribund ideology. Fixing Islam as a pathology and the source of evil would lead to the legitimisation of those extremists for who Islam was more of a pretext than a reality.

PETRU DUMITRIU (Romania), speaking as a concerned country, said the mission of the Special Rapporteur to Romania, his balanced and professional report, and the recommendations it contained were appreciated. He could have received more clarity on some issues, and some priorities had consequently been changed. The Secretary of State already had offered some new information in December. The recommendations of the Special Rapporteur were being studied by competent Government bodies, and changes would undoubtedly follow.

Treatment that might look discriminatory as stipulated by the Special Rapporteur was not really discriminatory, since distinctions were not applied in order to cause discrimination. This perspective was useful when noting the proliferation in Romania of various cults and groups of a religious nature, and also when considering financial issues. The restitution of religious property had been a concern of the Romanian Government since the re-establishment of democracy. A proper legal process continued, and the Government would continue to work to remove pressure on the Orthodox Church. The Government would continue to collaborate with the Special Rapporteur.

Inter-Active Dialogue

MARY WHELAN (Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union), said the Rapporteur, in his report, had identified acts committed by non-State actors against religious minorities. Could he suggest means and ways to resolve that problem? He had also indicated that women suffered from religious persecution in many countries. What remedy could he suggest so that States could take appropriate measures to tackle this problem?

HENRI-PAUL NORMANDIN (Canada) said the Rapporteur had drawn attention to the situation of Baha'i believers in Iran in his report. He had also mentioned that they were persecuted. What measures should be taken by Iran and the international community to ensure that the freedom of religion of the Baha'i minority was fully respected?

ABDELFATTAH AMOR, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, responding to questions and comments, said it had been a privilege to work with States in this field, even when cooperation had been difficult. He also expressed his gratitude to non-governmental organizations and faith communities, which had always worked in a balanced way to ensure the development of his mandate. He expressed appreciation to Romania, noting that the return of religious property was a complex matter. But progress must be made, and Romania could be trusted to speed up the process. To Ireland, he said that religious intolerance, discrimination and violence were not always the results of State actions, but also of non-State actors, including the actions of individuals alleging themselves to be human rights defenders. States could do much, however, to ensure religious freedom, including through taking up their responsibilities to fight religious discrimination without taking general measures detrimental to that very freedom.

States also had a particular responsibility to protect the situation of women, and they could not accept discrimination or actions against women according to purportedly “traditional” practices. States must shoulder their responsibilities under international law and should pay sufficient attention to such daily attacks on individual rights. Finally, within his mandate, he had dealt often with intolerance, which occurred on a daily basis. But one could not wait to put out fires – one must address issues at their roots, through education. It was not up to any State to judge a religious or faith conviction and when a State’s law was broken, the State must take appropriate measures in response.

BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, said Mr. Amor had held his mandate for eleven years, and when examining matters relating to religious affairs in general, his name was a reference. He had maintained an exceptional balance in terms of regional balance, religious and cultural cover, and had also talked to the leaders of many religions. He had strengthened and built up the foundations of what was today a solid and functional mandate. Apart from the functions that were the hard core of his mandate, he had paid much attention to women and to the challenges of inter-cultural dialogue, and had also analyzed the impact of the events of the 11 of September on human rights in general and on religious freedom in particular. He had played a special role in designing, preparing and carrying out the Advisory Conference on Education, Religious Freedom and Belief. His conviction that education was the best way to combat religious intolerance was shared by many, and would continue to be a priority in many areas.

Statements

UMAR KHANBIEV, of Transnational Radical Party, said Russia had committed crimes against humanity and genocide against the Chechen people. Over the last few years the number of people killed, maimed and disappeared had increased by hundreds of thousands, and this was the price of the Commission’s lack of action. It was time to understand that Russia was not engaged in an “anti-terrorist campaign”, but in a colonial war and a shameful campaign of terror aimed at the physical and moral destruction of the Chechen people.

The Commission should give the highest priority to finding a political solution that could put an end to this genocidal war, one in which there would be a temporary United Nations administration which would allow Chechnya to be demilitarized and to develop democratic institutions while safeguarding the interests of both warring parties.

MICHEL MONOD, of War Resisters' International, said that despite the efforts of the Commission in recognizing the right to conscientious objection, the situation of objectors was still a matter of concern in many countries. The situation of objectors in Israel had considerably worsened over the last two years. Since the last Palestinian Intifada, 300 Israeli objectors had spent time in prison. Particularly the treatment of young draft resisters had grown worse, with repeated imprisonment and now court martial proceedings.
After having spent one year in prison under disciplinary measures, five Israeli draft resisters had been sentenced to one year of imprisonment by court martial. The Working Group on arbitrary detention had condemned such practices in its report. While Israel had recognized the right of women objectors, it continued to imprison male objectors. The situation in South Korea was far from being resolved. And the situation in China was different -- the right to conscientious objection was denied.

TERESA CASTRO ZAPATA, of World Federation of Trade Unions, said the earth’s crust had warmed and the temperature was rising, not only due to the environment but due to an increase in instability in the world. United Nations resolutions were ignored, for example in the way some countries interfered in the domestic affairs of other States. There was a lack of regard for territorial independence and the independence of States.
The United States had created a Commission for A Free Cuba that was a prime example of this. The organization had had a major role in carrying out terrorist attacks in Cuba, and this was with the encouragement of the Government of the United States. Those around the world who continued to fight for truth and justice should be supported, and the international community should not disregard attempts to curb the right to protest and should not allow terrorist activities. Terrorism was a single evil, wherever it came from.

JONATHAN GALLAGHER, of General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, said religious minorities had historically been subject to discrimination, intolerance and outright persecution. Today, religious intolerance and prejudice were once more on the rise. Among other problems, there was persecution of individuals who chose to change their religions.

Moreover, while international instruments condemned discrimination against minorities, tragically, some countries had published lists of religious groups, describing them as potentially dangerous sects. Anti-sect commissions had been established, investigative personnel trained and restrictive laws passed. Hundreds of thousands of innocent believers were now under official suspicion and treated as second-class citizens. All that violated religious freedom. The Commission, international organizations and religious organizations should encourage every nation to implement the fundamental right of religious freedom.

MARNA CARROLL, of South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, said Bangladesh was bad news for journalists. Covering crime and corruption there generally was comparable to reporting in a war zone. According to reports, journalists regularly endured vicious attacks, intimidation and repression. Alarmingly, eight had been murdered in the last seven years as a direct consequence of their writing and reporting. No one had been convicted of any of those killings.

In 2003, the situation had deteriorated to such an extent that Bangladesh was considered one of the most violent countries in the world for journalists. Complete inaction by the authorities served to strengthen the widespread violence. The media in Bangladesh were controlled by more than 21 restrictive laws, which by design curbed freedom of expression in every form.

JOSE GUILLERMO PEREZ, of American Association of Jurists, said if the trial against Saddam Hussein and his collaborators was carried out in an impartial way, then the issue of his accomplices, namely those who kept him in power for three decades, would arise. There was clear evidence that many countries, including members of the Security Council, had provided Saddam’s regime with chemicals for weapons and with other unacceptable items.

A complaint had been submitted by a British non-government organization against those who had carried out the aggression against Iraq in 2003, during which various war crimes had been committed in contravention of international law, including attacks on civilians, the killing of journalists, and the failure to assist victims. The time had come for the truth, and it would be discovered only if the trials were fair, and not carried out for the benefit of the superpowers.

DEREK BRETT, of Conscience and Peace Tax International, said the organization had submitted information on best practices for conscientious objection to military taxation for inclusion in the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, but the submission had seemingly been mislaid and Conscience and Peace Tax International had not been listed among responding non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

While many States, and even some national human rights institutions and NGOs had reported that their countries did not practice conscription, this was not true for three reasons: there were usually Constitutional provisions that allowed for conscription in times of national emergency; it was not unknown for members of the armed forces to become conscientious objectors; and few people escaped the payment of taxes that went to fund military activities. There should be overt arrangements to enable those objecting to military taxation to perform their financial duty as citizens in ways which fulfilled the spirit of the United Nations Charter.

RACHEL TAYLOR, of Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers), welcomed the continued attention to the subject of conscientious objection to military service by the Commission as well as by Governments. The Friends World Committee appreciated the analysis of information provided in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ report while regretting that the richness of that material was not reflected more fully. In particular, the report failed to take account of the many instances where de facto provisions made for alternative service even where conscientious objection was not recognized by law.

Commission resolutions clearly established that the right of objection to military service was not only for conscripts at the time of call-up but based on the freedoms of thought, conscience and religion, and applied equally to those who volunteered to serve in the armed forces and to those who were serving as conscripts. Many States, both with all volunteer forces and with mixed conscript and volunteer forces, recognized that principle and applied it in practice.

DAVID LITTMAN, of World Union for Progressive Judaism, said the organization’s appeal for the immediate liberation of 503 African slaves from Sudan taken hostage by militia forces had been heard, and 374 slaves had reached the town of Warawar in southern Sudan, which was controlled by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army.

The late High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, had last year denounced the global terrorist plague, which could kill anyone at any time – as had been later seen. Among other concerns, the addition of two paragraphs to the draft text on combating defamation of religions put forward by the Rabbi Francois Garai was supported. The Iranian Government was called on to end its silence about 12 missing Jews secretly incarcerated more than a decade ago upon their attempt to leave the country. Freeing of those prisoners would be welcomed.

ANDRES SANCHEZ, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, said the importance of the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression could not be disregarded, for in it there was concern for the negative effects that policies and moves against terrorism could have on freedom of information. The Special Rapporteur had issued an urgent appeal to the Government of Colombia on this topic, but the Government had continued with a project which accentuated anti-terrorist measures which had always had negative effects on human rights, such as murder, impunity, and connivance between military and paramilitary forces. The Special Rapporteur noted that there was a sinister link between those accused of corruption and others in power.

Within the context of legitimate efforts to combat terrorism, respect for humanitarian rules contributed towards enhancing and strengthening democracy. The Special Rapporteur should issue an annual report on this issue and intervene where there were manifest violations of human rights.

ARIF AAJAKIA, of All For Reparations and Emancipation, said the worst form of human exploitation was organized religious intolerance, which was the keystone upon which rested the whole infrastructure of any system of human exploitation. A prime factor in the rise of extremism today was the failure of many Governments in the Muslim world to address the overwhelming challenges of development arising from rapid social, demographic and economic change, because of despotic rule, lack of genuine democracy and “Middle Class Order.”

The main factor in the rise of extremist groups related to a crisis within Islam – the decline of the established tradition of ijtihad, interpretation of the Koran by Muslim clerics to apply Koranic law to changing circumstances – which had led to rigid and narrow interpretations of religious precepts. To deal with this crisis, Muslim societies must grapple with complicated questions of why they failed to build stable religious and other institutions capable of helping their own people. Individuals joined extremist groups to achieve specific political goals, or for a variety of financial, spiritual and emotional incentives or rewards.

ANTOINE MADELIN, of International Federation of Human Rights, said there were problems with civil and political rights in Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Morocco, Iraq, Peru and Tunisia, and the Commission should do something in each case, as should national Governments.

All States should ratify the status of the International Criminal Court and should oppose any attempt aimed at guaranteeing nationals of non-Member States impunity for human rights violations. The proposal to create a post of Special Rapporteur on impunity was a good one and should be supported.

NILA HEREDIA,of Latin American Federation of Associations of Relatives of Disappeared Detainees, said the organization welcomed the progress made by the inter-sessional Working Group on the drafting of an international instrument on the protection of persons from forced or involuntary disappearances, and welcomed the work done on guidelines to compensate the families of disappeared detainees. It was hoped that the final version of the draft international instrument would be concluded and would be submitted to the Commission at its next session.

Except for a very few States, many of the States involved in such situations had returned to democracy. However, the perpetrators of past crimes during military dictatorships were not being punished. Many of these criminals rather had been integrated into current State functions, including into diplomatic missions. The process of investigation was slow, and light sentences were handed down if any were handed down at all. The judiciary was in favour of former dictators who had tortured and committed crimes against humanity. About 130,000 persons had been victims of genocide at the hands of such persons. The Chilean law of impunity concerning past crimes committed by military dictators was not acceptable and should be rejected.

RAFAELLA DE LA TORRE LAIMEZ, of North-South XXI, said Equatorial Guinea had been under consideration and subject to reports by the Commission for over 23 years. All experts agreed that human rights were being systematically violated in the country, yet the Commission had agreed to end the monitoring of human rights there.

Since that Commission decision, the Government had made no attempt nor shown any willingness to strengthen democratic institutions or respect human rights. Today, more than ever, it was a country like a prison, in which laws, rights and standards were disregarded. There was forced detention, torture, intimidation, repression, murder, impunity -- all practices equated with a dictatorial regime. There was a single-party Government that engaged in utter repression of other parties. There was no legal security for citizens. The State had driven the population into poverty, and human rights and the economy were disregarded.

MIKEL MANCISIDOR, of Federation of Associations for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights, said the report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture on his visit to Spain was welcomed. His experience, knowledge and commitment to human rights were a guarantee of good work. Torture in Spain was not systematic, but it was more frequent than desirable, and there were insufficient legal provisions against it.

The report was in line with those of other organizations on the matter, including the European Committee dedicated to preventing torture. In this case the violation of international treaties was clear. There also were procedural shortcomings in the prosecution of such offenses in Spain. The Spanish Government should take the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur into account.

JEANNA STEELE, of Human Rights Advocates, said the global war on terror had spawned a wave of harsh anti-terrorism legislation and security measures worldwide. Some of those measures violated civil liberties and procedural safeguards and had been used to silence political dissent. While recognizing the increasing devastation caused by terrorism and the right of individual nations to strengthen their security regimes, it was critical that efforts to combat terrorism comply with obligations under international human rights law. The torture treaty absolutely prohibited not only torture itself but also sending any person to a country where there was a substantial basis for believing that he would be tortured. That prohibition was not excusable during a state of war, public emergency or any other exceptional circumstance.

Recently, a Syrian-born Canadian travelling through the United States on his way home to Canada from Tunisia had been detained on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist organization. He asked to be deported to Canada, where he was a citizen, but was instead sent to Syria. He spent 10 months in prison there without charges and was physically tortured. At the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, allegations of beatings, humiliation and interrogation for 12 hours at a time had been made by detainees imprisoned as suspected terrorists.

MOHD ZIA MUSTAFA, of European Union for Public Relations, said among the major issues engaging the international human rights community today was the question of the response of States to the growing menace of international terrorism. It had been rightly argued that measures taken by States under the rubric of counter-terrorism should not derogate from their obligations to uphold core human rights values and norms.

At the same time, the international community should also fashion an appropriate response to the violation of basic human rights, including the right to life, without which all other rights were meaningless, by non-State actors such as terrorist groups which often acted as surrogates for States seeking to evade responsibility for their actions.

ROGER WAREHAM, of International Association Against Torture, said effectiveness in the area of civil and political rights had been undermined by the same double standard applied in most other areas of human rights addressed by the Commission. The disturbing global trend of infringement of civil and political rights could be seen most clearly in the United States. The independence of the judiciary had been under attack and civil liberties had been infringed upon, as the Patriot Act clearly demonstrated. There was also racism in the United States criminal justice system.

Undeclared political prisoners were being held and, through its widespread use of the death penalty, the United States continued to lead the world in the State-sanctioned murder of convicted felons. Those de jure murders had their complement in the summary executions of primarily black and Latino males by various arms of law enforcement around the country. Such perpetrators invariably received impunity for their crimes. Other countries in which the situation was worrisome were Chile and Spain. The double standard that only saw human rights violations in developing countries, but remained blind to those in the developed world, flew in the face of the Vienna Declaration and undermined the credibility of the Commission.

MARIA DEL CARMEN, of December Twelfth Movement International Secretariat, said the Western countries had long considered civil and political rights first among equals in the human rights pantheon. The country from which many members of the Secretariat came, the United States, paraded itself like one of the peacocks outside the Palais; it considered itself the ultimate model of civil and political rights. However, the history of the United States, from yesterday's chattel slavery to today's victims of racism and national oppression, had exposed the lie of that country’s observance of civil and political rights.

In every sphere -- independence of the judiciary, administration of justice, impunity, torture, extrajudicial and summary executions -- there was a gap as long as the Nile between what was on paper and what was practiced. The United States was holding political prisoners inside its prisons. Those prisoners were not the prisoners of war who had been detained since the 11 September event, but those who were in prison for their uncompromising commitment to freeing the masses from racism, national oppression and wage slavery.

EMILIE KAO, of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said the Commission should pay attention to the ban on religious symbols that would take effect in French schools this autumn, and which impermissibly discriminated against religion. The French Government could not prohibit legitimate activities just because they were undertaken for a religious purpose. This rule would codify religious prejudice and violate freedom of religion and the right to equal protection.

In Europe, there was fear that immigration and the introduction of different religious beliefs would compromise dearly held ideas of identity. Unfortunately, a symbolic ban on headscarves would not address or resolve this concern.

BILAL AHMAD KHAN, of Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation, said the protection of civil and political rights formed the bedrock of the human rights regime, while the protection against torture and arbitrary detention, disappearances and summary executions, and fostering of freedom of expression and independence of the judiciary served to ensure their complete protection.

Jammu and Kashmir had faced turmoil for the past thirteen years – foreign mercenaries and terrorist groups had indulged in abductions, kidnappings and executions of innocent civilians and in intimidation of the press. And while Pakistan had launched an offensive to expel terrorists from Waziristan, it had shown no compunction about pushing them into Jammu and Kashmir. While the leaders of Pakistan and India had initiated a new peace process, the vested interests which thrived on violence and terrorism were creating roadblocks to the peace process. The international community must impress upon Pakistan the importance of peace in the sub-continent and must stress that Pakistan end the infiltration of foreign mercenaries.

ANNIGJE BUWALDA, of Jubilee Campaign, said there was a persistent pattern of arrests, beatings, torture, and imprisonment of religious minorities in China. Rather than upholding its claims of religious tolerance and freedom contained within its Constitution, China had been acting contrary to its obligations to uphold the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion and belief enshrined in United Nations declarations and conventions.

The reality for religious minorities in China was a well-founded fear of escalating Government efforts to expunge the leadership of unregistered house churches, intimidate believers who merely sought to meet and pray together in private homes, and shut down private workshops. The Jubilee Campaign called upon all members of the Commission to urge China to uphold the freedoms of thought, conscience and belief.

JEAN-DAVID PONCI, of International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education, said ignorance was a characteristic feature of most situations in which religious intolerance occurred. That was why inter-religious and intercultural dialogue was so important. The ground rules that allowed intercultural dialogue to bear fruit included allowing individuals to say what they thought about themselves; ensuring respect for the opinions, traditions and values of others; and establishing agreement on a shared heritage of human rights and human dignity.
Confronting religions with concurrent – and sometimes antagonistic – world views constituted a challenge, and people could not live constantly in such a milieu. Therefore, one should not interpret an individual’s attachment to convictions as being closed off to other points of view.

DEWI RATNAWULAN, of International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, said the problem of impunity and interference in the judicial system by the Government still persisted in Indonesia. Reform efforts to transfer control over judicial administration from the executive branch to the Supreme Court were proceeding too slowly. The executive branch had been too willing to compromise with the remnants of the old, authoritarian regime for the sake of political position.

These situations had been described in the report of the former Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. The Indonesian Government had rejected the findings of the report. The Commission should urge the Indonesian Government to stop the cycle of impunity and executive interference in the judiciary, and to launch prompt and impartial investigations into all gross violations of human rights in order to bring the perpetrators to justice.

RAQUEL CABALLERO, of Centre for Women's Global Leadership, said there were human rights abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Paraguay. As in many other countries, in Paraguay a sexual orientation that differed from the heterosexual norm was stigmatized as an illness, and as deviant behaviour. Such was the concept that still prevailed in the country.

That prejudice had concrete effects: it prevented lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender populations from enjoying their rights. This discrimination was reflected in the law, in institutional regulations, and in mechanisms that generated violations of their human rights. Even thought homosexuality was not explicitly illegal in Paraguay, there were legal restrictions that impeded the freed exercise of rights among men and women who did not place themselves under the heterosexual norm.

ELISABETH MIDDLETON, of International PEN, speaking on behalf of International Publishers Association, in a joint statement with International Publishers’ Association, said that today there were no writers in prison in Turkey solely for what they had written, a situation that was much welcomed. However, there remained the persistent problem of continuing trials faced by publishers of books that fell foul of Turkish laws that continued to be applied against publications, leading to the confiscation of books and to the banning of books.

Whatever the outcome of the trials, the very fact that publishers had been subjected to a series of long, time-consuming and expensive court hearings was in itself a form of harassment and punishment for daring to produce works on sensitive issues. The Turkish authorities should once again review all legislation that allowed for penalizing those who wrote on or published about issues that were not in accord with the view of those in authority. Turkey should remove from Turkish law all remaining impediments to the practice of the right of freedom of expression.

DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, said Professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim, unjustly jailed for three years in Egypt, was finally acquitted a year ago, and this was a great victory for democracy in Egypt and the Middle East, for minorities, for freedom of expression, and for NGOs in general. The iniquity of Egypt’s State of Emergency regulations, which allowed justice by military tribunals without appeal, had prompted perseverance in cases of gross injustice.

Grave injustices had been done, and these cases should be reviewed and the Chairperson of the Working Group against discrimination should examine religious discrimination within the framework of the group’s mandate. The Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers should impress upon the Egyptian Government the gravity of its refusal to remedy the situation.

GIANFRANCO ROSSI, of International Religious Liberty Association, said that the Commission should consider the need to denounce the extreme form of religious intolerance that was the application of the death penalty against those changing their religion. States such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and others had legislation forbidding individuals to change religions – and condemning them to death for doing so. The application of the death penalty on Islamic apostates led to extremism and terrorism – it had served as the justification for the murder of 100,000 people, considered apostates for their refusal to support the establishment of an Islamic Sharia State by Algerian fundamentalists. The Commission must denounce this root cause of Islamic terrorism, this religious absurdity that violated the most sacred right to life.

JELENA POSTIC, of MADRE, said although attempts were being made to promote gender equality of women and men, freedom of expression of one’s gender was being denied on an everyday basis. People who expressed their gender in different ways from what were believed to be appropriate gender norms for men and women were suffering from overt discrimination and hate crimes all over the world. The concept of gender equality should be understood to encompass gender identity and gender expression. Official prejudice against people who broke gender roles meant that crimes against them went unpunished. All countries should address issues concerning denial of freedom of expression of people’s gender identity and gender expression, and Governments should recognize and remedy human rights violations on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

IVONNE PEREZ GUTTIEREZ, of the National Union of Jurists of Cuba, said that the Union expressed indignation against those who expressed concern against civil and political rights in the developing countries. The double standards were cited with regard to prisoners in the Naval Base of Guantanamo Bay where 600 individuals had been arbitrarily detained without any charge. They were held incommunicado and were subjected to cruel acts of torture. The international community should express its indignation against such practices. Another campaign of defamation concerned persons imprisoned in Cuba. Those imprisoned individuals had committed crimes and were sentenced accordingly after they were tried by the judiciary. All those individuals had been assisted with lawyers and had availed themselves to the appeal system. Only one person who had committed serious crimes against state security had been sentenced to death after being defended by a lawyer.

RAUL VAN TROI NAVARRO MARTINEZ, of World Federation of Democratic Youth, said that all persons were entitled to be publicly tried in an open trial, a right which had been enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, Governments continued to ignore this right when it served their purposes and thousands of youth had been unjustly jailed for defending their economic, social and cultural rights. Five youth were being held in the United States for fighting against terrorism and defending the people of Cuba and North America. They should be shown justice and provided with an independent and impartial trial. They were innocent and should be given liberty and returned to the bosoms of their families immediately. The Commission had the obligation not to permit violations of the civil and political rights of youth worldwide. The youth, their countries and history needed to know how the Commission would act.

YAP SWEE SENG, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, said there were increasing human rights violations in Asia perpetrated directly and indirectly under the pretext of fighting terrorism. There was concern that fundamental freedoms such as legitimate forms of protest could be misconstrued as terrorist acts under loose legal definitions. Many of the new anti-terrorism laws and measures ran directly in contrast to international human rights standards, and they gave vast powers to Governments to subject suspects to arrests, extended detentions and severe torture. They also gave Governments almost unchecked powers to encroach on the privacy of the citizen. The war against terrorism had been exploited by Governments in Asia who did not address the legitimate root causes that gave rise to liberation and self-determination movements. It was imperative to link upholding of human rights to the fight against terrorism, and the Commission should appoint a Special Rapporteur to monitor the impact of such anti-terrorism laws and measures on human rights worldwide.

ABBAS BUTT, of World Peace Council, requested the Commission to intervene and ask the relevant authorities to stop their abuse of human rights against people in Jammu and Kashmir, who were forcibly divided in 1947 between India and Pakistan. Despite the UN Charter and the work of the Commission, there were millions of people who were denied their basic human rights, and suffering took place every day. Citizens of Kashmir were among those unfortunate people who also suffered every day. They were forcibly divided and deprived of their basic human rights, and that abuse took many forms and shapes. It would be wrong to say that people suffered only on the Indian side of Kashmir, the factual position was that people suffered on both sides. Where India and Pakistan were to be blamed for what they were doing to the people of Kashmir, one needed to examine the role of the Kashmiri leadership and see if they had helped to alleviate the misery of the people or if they had helped to add to the problems of the ordinary citizens.

ARASH GUITOO, of Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, said that freedom of expression was basic and that concern over the disfigurement of the truth and the extension of false ideas constituted recognition that truth preceded freedom of expression. However, there were internationally recognized circumstances under which the freedom of expression could be limited, including for the maintenance of public order and safety. In Iran, there existed a strong consensus that the aforementioned principles should be realized as Iranian values and the Iranian Government was encouraged to clarify its laws on the freedom of the press and political freedom as much as possible, so that interpretations of limitations on the freedom of expression would not be misunderstood. It should be remembered that freedom of expression was nothing without the freedom of opposition, however, if the opposition crossed the red line, punishment should be proportionate. Iran was also called upon to pay serious attention to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and to make amendments to remove all existing ambiguities from legislation.

RAMON COLAS, of Freedom House, said in Cuba, 2003 had been one of the most repressive years in decades. But Cubans were not alone in their struggle with ruthless dictators. This also took place in Turkmenistan, where the President enjoyed virtually absolute power over all branches and levels of Government, and the elections were neither free nor fair. There was also concern about the growing numbers of victims in Chechnya, where one of the world’s bloodiest conflicts was dragging on towards its second decade. In Saudi Arabia, Viet Nam and China, systematic violations of freedom of religion and expression continued to take place. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights should exercise his authority and stop the world’s worst dictators from imprisoning, silencing, and killing those who struggled for human rights and democracy.

PETER ZALMAYER, of the International League for Human Rights, said he wished to express concern about the perilous state of religious freedom, expression and association in Turkmenistan today. All faiths other than Sunni Islam and the Russian Orthodox Church had been outlawed since 1997 and convoluted registration laws had been designed deliberately to prevent religious minorities from gaining legal status and the right to gather and worship without fear of harassment and intimidation. Unregistered religious minority groups were forced to meet in secrecy. Moreover, to further his cult of personality, President Niyazov had attempted to place his spiritual guide “Rukhnama” – the principle text used by schoolchildren – alongside the Koran and Bible. The President had recently announced that citizens would be able to leave the country freely and that freedom of religion would be guaranteed. It remained to be seen whether those decrees would constitute a significant turning point. The Commission should urge Turkmenistan to abide by international standards of freedom of religion.

JULIETTE DE RIVERO, of International Service for Human Rights, said terrorism claimed many victims, both directly and indirectly, and some were the victims of the measures taken in response to terrorism. The human rights of such persons were violated in the name
of the struggle against terrorism. The legitimacy of responses to terrorism had concerned the Commission for some years, but the problem had not been resolved. Some States had discovered in the global struggle against terrorism a new disguise for longstanding and continuing practices of human rights violations. Terrorism was a grave evil and a crime against humanity, but not all that was done in the name of counter-terrorism could be justified or approved. There was an urgent need for a new special procedure to monitor and report on the effects of counter-terrorism on human rights.

JONATHAN GOLDBERG, of United Nations Watch, said the Commission had failed to live up to its mandate and did not hold notorious offenders of civil and political rights to account. For example, the gross violations committed by China, Iran and Zimbabwe were of no mystery to anyone, but what was a mystery was why the Commission so often granted them carte blanche. If the Commission were to be true to the United Nations Charter, which sought to affirm faith in fundamental human rights, it could no longer give sanctuary to those who would deny it. It ought to shelter the victims, not the perpetrators.

WILLY FAUTRE, of International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, said that Armenia continued to imprison 16 Jehovah's Witness believers for refusing military service, despite its commitment to free all imprisoned conscientious objectors. His group urged Armenia to release all objectors to military service and to provide for an alternative civilian service. In Uzbekistan, freedom of peaceful assembly had frequently been violated although it was guaranteed by the Constitution. People attending peaceful religious meetings in private homes were on several occasions taken to the police stations. In Turkey, a law had been prohibiting any activity of foreign clerics for 70 years. In Eritrea, more than 300 Evangelicals were currently imprisoned. Eritrea's 12 independent Pentecostal and charismatic churches were closed by government order. Their 20,000 or more members continued to gather secretly in small groups in private homes.

AHMED LAKHRIF, of Christian Democratic International, said people faced with violations of their civil and political rights and facing totalitarian regimes deserved recognition. Given the worsening human rights situation in the camps in Tinduf in southern Algeria and in Morocco, there was a need to firmly condemn violations of human rights and the present situation of civilians in them. The resolution of this tragic situation required intervention from the international community and the freedom of movement of those in the camps should be allowed. Moroccan prisoners held in Tinduf should be immediately released, as they suffered from moral and physical torture, and the authorities should pay attention to the international community which had called for a remedy to the situation, since it was a grave violation of human rights. Algeria should step up its negotiations with Morocco in order to resolve the situation peacefully.

JANET RIVERO, of Liberal International, said that in the year since the Cuban Government had carried out its massive crackdown, the number of political prisoners in Cuba had increased. The prisoners were the victims of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, including being held in isolation in inhuman conditions. Human rights activists had also been imprisoned since 2002 under arbitrary detention. Repression of the freedom of expression continued and dozens of activists and their family members had been subjected to repression. The Cuban Government was not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, despite numerous Commission recommendations to ratify it. Yet, the Cuban people had a right to their rights and the international community had a responsibility to break the silence and ask all countries and democratic institutions to support the Cuban people’s struggle for human rights.

MEHRAN BALUCH, of Interfaith International, said that the people of Baluchistan in Pakistan had been waging their struggle for their civil and political rights. The Punjab ruling class had found ways and means of subjecting the people of Baluchistan to blatant denial and violation of their civil and political rights. In the process, the ruling Punjab cliques had been unleashing incredible atrocities on the people, labelling them traitors and enemies. There were innumerable cases of incarceration, torture, disappearances and killings of the innocent people of Baluchistan in order to stop their unrelenting struggle for the right to self-determination. In order to strengthen their stranglehold on the people, the Punjab rulers had been quick in making slogans in their attempt to mislead the people.

HOWARD GLENN, of the Human Rights Council of Australia, said that the last time he had attended a United Nations meeting had been the second special session of the General Assembly on disarmament in 1988. At that time, States had rightly been concerned by the prospect of global annihilation; however, today’s threat was not global annihilation but targeted murder and mayhem. States, State-supported organizations and criminals continued to deliver violence to innocent victims for warped political ends. The violence affected more than lives – it affected values too. Just as progress in the protection of human rights had been necessary when the world had been threatened with global destruction, so it was necessary to make progress despite terrorism. In his own country, the threat of terrorist attack had been used for political advantage by ugly forces. Hundreds, including children, remained in long-term detention, justified as collateral from the war on terror. New counter-terrorism laws rolled back civil and political rights in their aim to create a public view that sinister forces could only be countered by sinister force. There must be some new human rights machinery to monitor State action within the campaign against terrorism.

MASOONA ALI, of Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization, said the Commission should pay attention to the grave and systematic violation of the civil and political rights of the 2 million people of Balawaristan (Pakistan Occupied Gilgit Baltistan). Successive Governments of Pakistan had ignored judicial pronouncements to the effect that the people of this land should enjoy their fundamental rights, including the right to be governed by their chosen representatives. Basic political freedoms and the rule of law were non-existent. Religious discrimination had been institutionalized, and Pakistan had followed a systematic practice of demographic aggression. The Government of Pakistan should implement the decisions of its own judicial organs and the recommendations of various international agencies so that the people of Balawaristan could exercise their right to self-determination and enjoy their civil and political rights.

ALEXANDRE OWONA, of International Young Catholic Students, said that he wished to draw attention to the massive violations of human rights suffered by the people in the Tindouf camps of Algeria. Women, children and men detained in those camps were tortured, judged and executed in a summary manner. There was not even accurate knowledge of the number of people in those camps. Every action was controlled by the POLISARIO, which among its other actions had conducted the forced deportation of children by the thousands to Cuba for indoctrination and to keep their parents from leaving the camps. The perpetrators of these acts continued to enjoy impunity. It was time for the Commission to put an end to the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of those in the Tindouf camps, to allow for the visit of a Special Rapporteur to the camps and to conduct a census on the number and opinions of the camps’ residents, among other actions.