SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS ON INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION PRESENT REPORTS

01.04.2004

Commission also Hears from Chairperson of Working Group on Draft Instrument to Protect Persons from Enforced Disappearance


The Commission on Human Rights this morning continued with its consideration of civil and political rights, hearing addresses from the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance, and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Leandro Despouy, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said impartiality and the independence of the judiciary were not so much privileges of the judiciary themselves, but were of relevance to the human rights of those needing the judiciary and concomitantly needing justice. There was a need in many places for advice, guidance, training and technical assistance for the judiciary in order to ensure the highest level of professionalism, independence, and impartiality. He finished the presentation of his report by calling for a strengthening of the International Criminal Court.

Ireland on behalf of the European Union, Argentina and Pakistan participated in the inter-active dialogue with Mr. Despouy.

Bernard Kessedjian, Chairperson of the Working Group on a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance, said the Group had approached its mandate in terms of two methodological elements: not wasting time on useless elements, instead concentrating on the important aspects of the issue; and ensuring the universality of the future document, thus operating by consensus.

Ambeyi Ligabo, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was a significant indicator of the level of protection and respect of all other human rights in a given society; not only did it benefit a democratic environment but it also would contribute to the emergence and existence of effective democratic systems.

Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire and the Islamic Republic of Iran spoke as concerned countries. Canada, Ireland on behalf of the European Union, Switzerland, Pakistan, Cuba and Venezuela participated in the inter-active dialogue with Mr. Ligabo.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Chairperson of the session, Ambassador Mike Smith of Australia, said that in its closed meetings yesterday afternoon and last week, the Commission had examined the human rights situation in Bolivia, Djibouti, Honduras, and Uzbekistan under Economic and Social Council resolutions 1503 (XLVIII) and 2000/3. The Commission had decided to discontinue the consideration of the human rights situation in Bolivia, Djibouti and Honduras. It had decided to keep the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan under review, and to appoint an Independent Expert to report to it under the confidential procedure.

Subsequent to the interactive dialogues held with the Special Rapporteurs, the Commission resumed its general debate on civil and political rights and heard statements from China, India, Paraguay, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, Chile, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru, Nigeria, Argentina, Mauritania, Congo, and Armenia.

The Commission will reconvene this afternoon at 3 p.m. to continue its consideration of civil and political rights.

Documents on Civil and Political Rights

As the Commission continues its consideration of civil and political rights, it has before it the following reports.

The report (E/CN.4/2004/60 and Add.1) of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Leandro Despouy, which sets out the activities carried out by the previous and current Special Rapporteurs in 2003 and includes a substantial annex describing situations that have caught their attention in various countries. Its main purpose is to explain the Special Rapporteur’s view of his mission and his working methods to the Commission on Human Rights. To give an idea of the broad scope of his mandate and the issues and priorities involved, the Special Rapporteur has judged it appropriate to begin with a status report in order to identify all the topics and questions falling within his mandate that have already been considered by the Commission, and, earlier, by the Sub-Commission.

As indicated in the introduction to the chapter entitled “Substantive topics and issues identified by the Special Rapporteur”, which the Special Rapporteur suggests should be perused with particular attention to help the Commission to take stock of the work it has already done, his purpose is to present the substantive topics and issues that he will address in his future reports. He also intends to provide an opening for dialogue with all the actors concerned in order to advance the cause of justice and respect for human rights and pave the way for the strengthening of judicial institutions throughout the world.

The Addendum to the report details situations in specific countries or territories. It contains summaries of the urgent appeals and communications transmitted to Governmental authorities between 1 January and 31 December 2003, as well as replies received during the same period. In addition, it contains summaries of the press releases issued during the current reporting period. During the period under review, a total of 70 urgent appeals, communications and press releases were transmitted to 39 countries or territories. The report then details the situation with regard to the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Mexico, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, the United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe, and the Palestinian Authority.

There is also a report (E/CN.4/2004/59) of the inter-sessional open-ended Working Group to elaborate a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance. The report contains an introduction on the organization of the session, details on organization of work, and a discussion on the Chairperson’s Working Paper. This last contains information on a definition of enforced disappearance; enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity; offences and penalties; protection against impunity; prosecutions in domestic courts; international cooperation; prevention of enforced disappearances; victims of enforced disappearances; children of disappeared persons; monitoring body; final provisions; and observations on the working paper by Manfred Nowak. Further, the report contains data on future activities, including the suggestion of the Chairperson that work should continue over two more sessions, the second to be conclusive if possible, before the sixtieth session of the Commission on Human Rights. Finally, the adoption of the report is included.

There is also a report (E/CN.4/2004/62 and Add.1, Add.2 and Add.3) of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Ambeyi Ligabo, which defines the terms of reference and methods of work of the Special Rapporteur; describes his activities during the past year; and contains a discussion of issues relevant to the mandate, including the right to access to information, the right to access to information for the purposes of education on, and prevention of, HIV/AIDS, and the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the context of counter-terrorism measures. While positive measures were being taken in certain countries in favour of a greater protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, numerous negative trends and violation patterns remain substantially active and unchanged. In particular, ongoing attacks against journalists and media workers are of concern and an in-depth study on the security of journalists in conflict zones was recommended to be undertaken.

The Special Rapporteur also expresses his concern about the concentration of large media groups in the hands of a few economic corporations and encourages Governments to ensure a pluralistic approach to the exercise of the freedom of opinion and expression, accessible to all actors in civil society. Finally, reiterating that violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression occurred in all regions and countries, he said Governments should consider the possibility of seeking technical assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner in order to eliminate the causes of human rights violations.

The first Addendum to the report is not immediately available.

The second Addendum to the report concerns the Special Rapporteur's mission to Iran, in the context of which he notes the willingness for reform among civil society, members of Parliament and at the highest levels of Government, but also notes that a major impediment to reform consists of various institutional locks on governmental, parliamentary and judicial processes resulting from the control exercised thereon by un-elected institutions and bodies that were not accountable to the people. It is his view that those institutions and bodies hamper reforms at the legislative level and in the functioning of the institutions. In regard of the legal framework, many of the limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression did not conform to the permissible restrictions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Authorities were urged to review legal texts to bring them into line with international human rights norms and standards. Moreover, the use of Revolutionary Courts to try opinion-related offences clearly has a negative impact on the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, nor should the Prevention Restraints Acts apply in relation to press offences, as they could not be defined as serious crimes.

The Special Rapporteur recommends the adoption of a national Charter of Human Rights, and sees an urgent need to define more clearly the contents of Islamic principles in the law. He also underlines that the climate of fear induced by the systematic repression of people expressing critical views against authorized political and religious doctrine and the functioning of the institutions coupled with severe and disproportionate sentences imposed lead to self-censorship. Complete amnesty should be granted to all prisoners prosecuted or sentenced for press- and opinion-related offences. As a first step for the implementation of his recommendations, the authorities should seek technical cooperation in the area of the administration of justice, in particular with respect to the training of judges and law enforcement officials.

The third Addendum is a preliminary report on the visit of the Special Rapporteur to Côte d'Ivoire, in which context he notes that throughout his visit he had the opportunity to ascertain that free circulation of balanced opinions and ideas remains difficult because of a number of preoccupying factors and circumstances. While consistent signs of movement in the political and military stalemate appeared in December 2003, violence, uncertainty and fear seemed to dominate various aspects of ordinary life. The overwhelming presence of military forces and police checkpoints were additional negative elements. This tense atmosphere impinged on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and negated efforts towards reconciliation and peace. The fight against impunity should be one of the main priorities of the political agenda, and the Government should re-establish governance and the rule of law in full. He also felt that all parties should commit themselves to an independent and inclusive media commission; the replacement of radio and television installations destroyed during the conflict would be an essential element for the reestablishment of countrywide circulation of information.

The fourth Addendum concerns the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Colombia and notes that while the Special Rapporteur would orally report on his findings during the Commission’s sixtieth session, the full report will be published as a document of the sixty-first session.

Statements on Reports of Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers

LEANDRO DESPOUY, Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, said he would indicate the work he would carry out in the future, thus showing the priorities and the framework of his work. He would give a brief overview of work already done, in order to give this a context. The Commission had established the mandate due to the concern for the frequency of attacks on judges and lawyers and the violations of guarantees for their protection. The mandate was part of the UN’s mechanisms for protecting all persons subjected to detention or imprisonment. The independence of the judiciary was threatened in many countries, but based on the last 10 years of work of the Commission, it was clear that a structural approach was being taken for this issue. The previous Special Rapporteur had advanced the idea that general practice of the administration of justice in an independent and impartial manner was accepted by States as an issue of law. The rule of law involved judicial supervision or its equivalent, in the context of the Constitution. Judges functioned as protectors of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Consequently, impartiality and the independence of the judiciary were not so much privileges, but human rights of those needing the judiciary. One should thus consider the true functioning of the judiciary, since there were various cultural and other reasons which could impede the delivering of justice, for example for those who had difficulty in reaching justice, such as the disabled or the extremely poor. There is a need in many places for advice, guidance, training and technical assistance for the judiciary in order to ensure the highest level of professionalism, independence, and impartiality.

The report contains the work of the previous Special Rapporteur, and the work of the current one. No field missions have been undertaken due to the change of the Special Rapporteur, although there have been open invitations from several countries, which is encouraging. The report thus contains communications with various Governments, and underscores to what extent it is important to detect and point out structural impediments to the functioning of the judiciary. Impunity, as a result of political impediment, is a violation of human rights, and is a widespread phenomenon, and, like corruption, will be a focus for future reports. All matters involving discriminatory practices within the judiciary affecting courts and practices will be examined, including discrimination for religious communities, women and children, and the disabled. The report includes recommendations, and it is important to continue to strengthen the International Criminal Court in order that it may continue its work in the most effective manner.

Inter-Active Dialogue

JOHN BIGGAR (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, noted the difficulty experienced by the Special Rapporteur in his recent takeover of the mandate, as evidenced by the lack of country visits. Could the Special Rapporteur give more details on future country visits planned for 2004? The Special Rapporteur was also asked for his opinion on how the protective rule of the State could be strengthened in terms of transnational organized crime, which was now practiced mainly by non-State actors. A third topic on which comment was requested was how to ensure additional protection for vulnerable groups.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate upon his view of the lessons to be learned from country visits. The Special Rapporteur was also asked whether he felt he had sufficient authority under his existing mandate to address the question of access to all aspects of the judicial process.

IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Pakistan) said that some of the most glaring examples of violations of human rights resulted from ignorance of the law and it was requested that the Special Rapporteur address the implications of draconian security laws on human rights.

LEANDRO DESPOUY, Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, said that with respect to Ireland’s question on country visits, the fact was that he had been informed that invitations were slow to come in. However, he had received sufficient invitations for visits in 2004 and 2005. He intended to visit this year countries in Central Asia, including Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. He also intended to visit Kenya, Paraguay and Brazil next year. With regard to access to justice on equal terms, his mandate had evolved towards a structural approach of the functioning of the judiciary to the extent that it was relevant to human rights. Specific circumstances would be paid attention to, notably those in which people did not have access to justice, and information would be sought on this, with recommendations made to the Commission. This approach would be consolidated within the authority and priorities of the Special Rapporteur.

Many countries were emerging from traumatic circumstances, and others were moving towards democracy, and all the efforts of the United Nations would be required to help them. As for the International Criminal Court, work would be required to promote it by the Special Rapporteur. There was a trend away from using judges and lawyers and towards special courts that were a flagrant violation of human rights, and this was a negative development which was important to avert, and it would receive special attention. The task the Special Rapporteur was taking on for the future would include guidelines relating to the participation of all actors, so that his work would have an impact on human rights around the world.

Introduction of Report of the Chairperson of the Working Group on a Draft Legally Binding Instrument for the Protection of Persons from Enforced Disappearance

BERNARD KESSEDJIAN, Chairperson of the Working Group on a Draft Legally Binding Normative Instrument for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, said that the Working Group had held two meetings since the fifty-ninth session of the Commission, which had allowed it to make significant progress in carrying out its mandate to elaborate the legally binding normative instrument. All understood how important it was to elaborate such a document, as enforced disappearances constituted an abominable practice that could be witnessed on all continents. Praising the regional groups for their participation in the process, he said there had been no less than 40 written proposals presented during the January 2004 session of the Working Group. Non-governmental organizations had also participated in the process.

The Working Group had approached its mandate in terms of two methodological elements: not wasting time on useless elements, instead concentrating on the important aspects of the issue; and ensuring the universality of the future document, thus operating by consensus. Among the important, but difficult, questions that remained to be addressed were: the responsibility of non-State actors; the characterization of enforced disappearances as a crime against humanity; and ensuring the balance between the right to privacy and the right to information. On the issue of reparations, he said the Group was moving towards consensus that no national decision must be allowed to deprive victims of right to compensation. Finally, in regard of the constitution of the monitoring body, things were more difficult as the Working Group must try to keep it from being unwieldy yet enable it to serve as an early warning device. Moreover, the difficult question of individual complaints must also be addressed.

Expressing the hope that the Group’s work would continue at the same rate, he said this would allow the Group to present its text during next year’s session of the Commission on Human Rights. And while it was not sure that this was possible, one gained nothing through procrastination, but owed it to the families of the victims to proceed as quickly as possible.

Statements on the Reports of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

AMBEYI LIGABO, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, introducing his report (E/CN.4/2004/62/Add 1 to 4)), said that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was a significant indicator of the level of protection and respect of all other human rights in a given society; not only did it benefit a democratic environment but it also would contribute to the emergence and existence of effective democratic systems. In spite of some progress, the situation globally remained grim: violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression might occur in all regions and countries, whatever their system, and might have various forms and shape. Numerous trends and violation patterns remained substantially active and unchanged. He remained extremely concerned about the fact that the attacks against journalists, media workers, trade unions and, in general, against all those who dared express their different opinion, continued to occur in many countries. Most of the time, perpetrators of those crimes were not punished.

The legitimate effort to prevent and eliminate terrorism might restrict the basic right to information. He expressed concern about the concentration of large media groups, dominant in a given market, in the hands of a few business corporations. Reversing that phenomenon would allow the emergence of a more pluralistic approach to information and would contribute to more efficient service to customers. He invited Governments to ensure that the exercise of the freedom of opinion and expression through the media was open and accessible to various actors, the civil society, local communities and minorities, vulnerable groups, in addition to economic and political groups. He also encouraged and supported the development of initiatives aimed at monitoring the implementation of the right to information.

Concerning his mission to Iran, Mr. Ligabo said he had noted willingness in many parts of the Iranian society for reform and progress in the promotion and protection of human rights. The situation of the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression had deteriorated, and he had recommended that all prisoners under criminal prosecution or having been sentenced to prison terms for press- and opinion-related offences should be granted full amnesty.

In Côte d’Ivoire, he had noted that most people he had met, regardless of their political orientation, had great expectations for reconciliation and peace. The fight against impunity should be one of the main priorities in the political agenda. Finally, he had strongly appealed to the Government and opposition parties to find a peaceful solution to the conflict.

And in Colombia, various top Government leaders and officials had been willing to discuss openly issues related to violations of human rights. The killing of several journalists had traumatized their colleagues. He urged the Government to consider the fight against impunity as a major priority.

CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia), speaking as a concerned country, said that based only on the press release issued by the Special Rapporteur following his visit to that country, as the report would be issued later, the delegation would only refer to that. She noted the term used by the Special Rapporteur that Colombia was a country of great tradition. Colombia had always cherished freedom of expression and the freedom of letters. Many renowned writers like Gabriel Garcia Marquez had started as journalists, and had always enjoyed freedom, other than a short glitch of four years in which democracy was limited. The media enjoyed freedom in Colombia, and reflected the diversity and pluralism of that country. Drug trafficking and illegal armed groups had brought death and affected freedom of expression, and journalists, reporters, interviewers and other communicators who had laid their life on the line in order to keep the public aware had been victims of this, but violence against the civil population had declined markedly due to an increase of control over the territory of the democratic authorities.

The report of the Special Rapporteur would be considered in 2005, and he was thanked for his interest and industry and trusted that his work in Colombia, a threatened democracy where the Government was part of the solution, would send a message to the armed groups of hope and peace.

CHRISTIAN-CLAUDE BEKE DASSYS (Côte d’Ivoire), speaking as a concerned country, said that freedom of opinion and expression were guaranteed by the Constitution of the country. For the press, apart from the legal framework governing the profession, other instruments had been created – by journalists themselves – to govern how they carried out their profession, including the National Press Commission. That was an independent authority charged with ensuring respect by journalists for their obligations and distributing national press identification cards.

As noted by the Special Rapporteur himself, underqualified journalists and their partisan commentaries could often be found at the origin of conflicts in developing countries, he said. Yet, the President of Côte d’Ivoire had undertaken a commitment never to punish journalists through the penal process as a result of failings in their work, and a law depenalizing such failings was before the Parliament. As could be attested, political will, the juridical framework and the existence of instruments protecting and promoting human rights had enabled the country to guarantee freedom of opinion and expression through the outbreak of the recent crisis. Cases raised since that time were the result of the crisis.

ALI A. MOJTAHED SHABESTARI (Islamic Republic of Iran), speaking as a concerned country, said the visit of the Special Rapporteur represented one of the first steps of the practical and comprehensive cooperation of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the United Nations human rights mechanisms. His impartial attitude was appreciated. The Government of Iran was pleased to enter in a meaningful and constructive dialogue with the special procedures of the Commission, and had invested enormously in the process of cooperation; the process should succeed. The report of the Special Rapporteur contained several positive and negative elements - Iran was happy about positive ones, and thanked the Special Rapporteur for drawing attention to the areas where action was needed. Naturally, not all assertions by the Special Rapporteur were subscribed to, but the whole exercise represented a stimulus for a process of exchanges that were necessary for Iran to take effective local measures, and for the Special Rapporteur to get more acquainted with the dynamics of Iranian society on the most controversial issue: freedom of expression and opinion.

Since there had been no opportunity the day before to speak as a concerned country following the report of the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, Iran wished to briefly report that measures and decisions had been taken based on the report of the Working Group. Finally, it was the belief of Iran that cooperation and dialogue were instrumental for the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide.

Inter-Active Dialogue

HENRI-PAUL NORMANDIN (Canada) noted the Special Rapporteur’s decision to highlight the tragic and unacceptable death of a Canadian journalist in Iran, as well as the decision by the Government of that country to facilitate the Special Rapporteur’s visit, but said that such visits did not serve as ends in themselves, but should lead to processes of substantive and lasting change. Noting that the Special Rapporteur’s report on Iran had highlighted the potential for reprisals against members of the Majlis who had been critical of the establishment, he said that many in the international community had expressed serious concern about the decision to disqualify large numbers of candidates from seeking office. What specific measures could be taken to prevent such blatant violations of the right to freedom of opinion?

A second question concerned the prohibition on members of the Bahai community in Iran to express their religious identity. The delegate asked what response Iranian authorities had made to the concerns expressed thereon in the Special Rapporteur’s report and what assurances of remedial action had been received with respect to the Bahais’ ability to freely express themselves as members of a community.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said she would also like to hear the views of the Special Rapporteur on what measures should be taken to ensure the safety of journalists reporting on conflicts. Moreover, if the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS had been facilitated by the unwillingness of some Governments to support education on the disease and its prevention, what could be done to help Governments realize that preventive education and information should be a priority? Finally, the Special Rapporteur had mentioned the importance of creating adequately resourced independent administrative bodies to guarantee the right to information. He was asked to elaborate on how he could help countries to build up such administrative bodies.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate upon the impact of information technology on the freedom of expression in his next report.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan) said that he shared the concern of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of journalists and other media workers who put themselves in harm’s way to bring stories of conflict to the world, and therefore, supported the proposal for an in-depth investigation of their activities, particularly in situations of occupation. However, it was felt that there should also be some discussion of the responsibilities borne by journalists to act truthfully and ethically.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) noted the Special Rapporteur’s analysis of the concentration of private media sources and recommended he undertake an examination of the impact of information flows arising from that concentration. Most of the information arose in the North and flowed South and Cuba felt that the Special Rapporteur should study the impact that had. It was felt that Mr. Ligabo was the most appropriate individual to carry out this mandate, especially in terms of the impact upon developing countries. Further attention should also be devoted to the case of Iraq and the limitations placed upon journalists in that country, not just in terms of access, but also of their physical safety.

FERMIN TORO JIMENE (Venezuela) said he wished to express solidarity with the concerns expressed on the need for a thorough analysis of the responsibility born by “social communicators” – i.e. journalists – and, therefore, there was a need to discuss that issue in greater length in future reports. His own country had had unpleasant experience of late with the repercussions of a lack of such responsibility.

AMBEYI LIGABO, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, responding to the comments, said that with regard to a question raised by Canada concerning his interaction with the authorities of Iran, that based on his recommendations, the authorities had indicated that they would proceed to come out with some procedures in order to increase the parameters of freedom of opinion in the country. Concerning the question raised by the Representative of Ireland, on behalf of the European Union, he said that many victims of HIV/AIDS were discriminated against in many countries, and that the Commission should find a solution to this issue. To the other questions, he said that in his current report, he had emphasized a corresponding responsibility of journalists and correspondents in the exercise of their profession. In Côte d'Ivoire, for example, he had witnessed the activities of certain journalists who used their position to disseminate hatred. On the concentration of the ownership of the media, he said it was a concern to him. The concentration of the ownership of the media in Latin America, for instance, was a problem. Journalists were vulnerable to attacks by certain illegal paramilitary or drug dealing groups.


General Debate on Civil and Political Rights

DU ZHONGXING (China) said it was natural and necessary that the world’s nearly 200 countries, with their different histories and different social, political and legal systems, should take different courses in realizing civil and political rights. It was a gradual process, and had to be carried out at the same level as economic, social, and cultural rights were realized – it could not exceed the level of a country’s overall social development. No country was perfect, and each should look at the successes achieved by others in an attempt to improve its own performance.

China had sought all along to promote and safeguard civil and political rights, and had done a great deal while coping with the difficulties of being a developing country with a large population, great regional disparities, and a comparatively low level of economic development and education. The United States, meanwhile, saw itself as a model for protecting human rights and often said so before the Commission; yet it had a high rate of private ownership of guns, rampant violent crime, police brutality, poor prison conditions, and numerous threats to public and individual safety. Furthermore, its anti-terrorism legislation had flouted international human rights standards at home and in Iraq. It was to be hoped that the US Government would recognize its own deficiencies rather than criticizing other countries.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said democracy was an article of faith for over 1 billion Indians. No country should accept a lesser system. Civil and political rights represented the cornerstone of the international edifice of human rights. The extent of civil and political rights enjoyed by the citizens of a State defined the essence of a society, impacting as it did on virtually every aspect of life. The enjoyment, or denial of these rights shaped the way people thought, their attitudes, the way they related to each other, and their entire value system. More than anything else, civil and political rights shaped a nation. There was no implicit trade-off between civil and political rights on one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. On the contrary, democracy, and the values and principles that went with it, were not an obstacle to the fight against poverty and the development of the country, but were the only durable and sustainable framework within which the welfare of the people could be ensured.

Ensuring the security of its people was the first responsibility of a Government. Faced with the growing threat of terrorism, most countries, including India, had been forced to enact special legislation to tackle terrorists. It was of course important to strike a balance between the imperative of dealing with, and putting an end to, terrorism on the one hand, and safeguarding human rights on the other. In tackling terrorism, effective domestic measures should be supplemented by sustained international cooperation, particularly through a strong and effective legal regime.

FRANCISCO BARREIRO PERROTTA (Paraguay) said the promotion and defense of civil and political rights had been an important concern for all democratic Governments of Paraguay, which attached importance to democracy and the rule of law, since this allowed all fundamental freedoms and promoted respect for human rights. In 15 years of democracy, major achievements had been made in advancing democracy and the rights of the citizen. Freedom of the press had been consolidated, and there was a Constitution and legislation that enshrined the principles and rules of international humanitarian conventions and instruments. With respect to the rule of law and the defense of civil and political rights, these were required for the protection of democracy, and there was a clear interdependence between democracy and human rights. Significant progress had been made in exposing human rights violations that took place during the dictatorship, and these had been criminalized and were not subject to any statutes of limitation, and they were judged in an impartial manner. Truth and justice unfailingly required reparation and compensation, and an Act on this would shortly be implemented. Dialogue between Governments was an effective means of shedding light on human rights violations that often had an international scope. The investigation, sanction and punishment of human rights violations should be a priority for the Commission.

VOLODYMYR BELASHOV(Ukraine) said the enjoyment of civil and political rights was crucial to people’s ability to participate in society and live in dignity. The promotion of democracy was the best way to protect human rights, and Ukraine was convinced that any gross violations of universally recognized international standards in the field of human rights and humanitarian law should not be merely condemned by the international community. Persons responsible for such violations should be punished according to the appropriate norms of international law and domestic legislation. However, the enforcement of political and civil rights should go hand in hand with observance of the principles of rule of law and democracy, good governance, fighting against need, poverty, diseases, and organized crime.

Being committed to the principles of the rule of law and human rights and pursuant to its international obligations, Ukraine was consistently reforming the judicial system, law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in order to promote an independent judiciary and legal profession in full conformity with international human rights standards. Ukraine also attached great importance to freedom of expression, unrestricted functioning of the mass media, protection and the social security of journalists, and realised that a free, independent and objective media sector had a vital importance for the entire democratisation process of Ukrainian society. Peace and development could not be achieved without respect for human rights, economic, social and cultural, civil and political. Equity and order required the rule of law, democracy and scrupulous observance of international standards on human rights. The rule of law was the most effective tool to fight criminality and terrorism, and the best guarantee of safety, security and freedom for all.

ROMAN ROMANOV (Russian Federation) said that ensuring the effective protection of human rights and freedoms was one of the priorities of both the domestic and foreign policy of his country. Much improvement in the legal framework, including the provision of effective legal defence, had been accomplished and continued to be pursued. The Russian Federation also continued to cooperate with the monitoring and reporting bodies of the United Nations in terms of its obligations to respect civil and political rights, including through working with the Working Group on the drafting of a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances. However, worldwide cultural, ethnic and religious diversity meant that it was impossible to formulate a uniform recipe for democracy and, worse, that trying to export democracy by force should not occur. Instead, the international community must offer support to those countries making steps toward democracy. Finally, he said, a situation of deep concern with respect the whole range of human rights concerned the legacy of the NATO bombings in the territory of the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Today it remained difficult to envisage a solution to the situation in Kosovo that would guarantee the rights of all. When NATO had taken on responsibility for running the region, the stabilization force had promised to restore normalcy. Instead, acts of medieval violence, continued instability and acts of ethnic cleansing continued to occur.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said that his delegation assigned particular importance to civil and political rights and to the work in favour of their protection and promotion as carried out by the Commission and its special mechanisms, treaty bodies and the Office of the High Commissioner. The Government of Chile had extended its cooperation to the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances. Although it was a difficult task, the Chilean society had recognized the necessity of finding out the truth, of doing justice to the victims and offering compensation. Aware of the traumatic and painful experience the abhorrent crime of enforced disappearance might inflict upon whatever society, Chile actively participated in the elaboration of an international legally binding instrument against enforced disappearances that would contribute to efficiently preventing those grave crimes. It was of crucial importance that the said instrument included enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity and, accordingly, prohibited amnesty and formalized the imprescriptibly of that type of crime. Rejecting impunity would be a fundamental pillar of the preventive character and the efficiency of that new international instrument.

In order to further strengthen the combat against impunity at different levels, Chile considered it necessary to give concrete expression to the principle that all victims of human rights violations should receive fair reparation. A draft resolution aimed at the expeditious finalization of the "Basic Principles and Guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law" would be presented during the present session.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan) said that institutionalizing civil and political rights was a gradual and evolutionary process. No State could claim to have achieved the highest attainable standard in that regard. Nevertheless, Pakistan was determinedly moving towards the consolidation of those rights. Given the consistent mismanagement of the country under successive regimes over a decade, the present Government had set an ambitious agenda in seven key areas, including restoration of true and genuine democracy and full respect for civil and political rights. As a result of those efforts over the last four years, key institutions in the country had been revitalized. A democratic dispensation was fully operational. The Parliament had unprecedented representation of women and minorities elected. Empowerment at the grass root levels had been realized through the establishment of local councils across the country with mandatory one-third representation of women and reserved quotas for minorities.

Police reform was another major initiative of the Government, which sought to transform the police into a professional, accountable and people-friendly institution. In order to create human rights awareness in the police, judiciary and other administrative branches of the Government, Pakistan had developed training modules with the cooperation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Freedom of opinion and expression had been expanded to include the electronic media. Several private media channels were today operating in full freedom and beaming their broadcasts to every nook and corner. The situation of civil and political rights in Pakistan should be understood in the context of its security environment that should include the fallout from the Afghan war. Extremist forces were bent upon destabilizing the polity through sectarian killings, sabotage and targeting of minorities.

EDDI HARIYADHI (Indonesia) said that the challenge posed by the promotion and protection of civil and political rights applied to all countries. Full respect for human rights was the ideal of all humanity, regardless of culture, religion or geography. Although States had primary domestic responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights, the importance of genuine and constructive cooperation in a wider, international setting could never be over-emphasized. It was his delegation's conviction that the Commission and all its mechanisms and procedures should continually strive towards that end. In working together with States towards achieving the highest human rights standards worldwide, they should be guided by the principles of cooperation and impartiality.

In the national context, it was only through the existence of a comprehensive and effective national legislative and institutional framework that the enjoyment of full civil and political rights could be realized. On that basis, over the years, the Government of Indonesia had constantly focused its promotion and protection of civil and political rights in a manner consistent with the current reform and democratisation process affecting all layers of society. The current legal and institutional reform had indeed paved the way for the further realization of the protection of civil and political rights in the country.

ARTURO HERNANDEZ (Mexico) said yesterday the International Court of Justice had issued its ruling in a case brought by Mexico against the United States, and this was linked to the right of consular assistance to 52 Mexican nationals sentenced to death in that country. It had been determined that 51 of these persons had had their rights violated, and this should be remedied by effective judicial mechanisms. This had an important effect on standard setting for the individual, as it determined that rights should be respected by all States, with the concomitant broadening of the judicial rights of each person. Full observance of due legal process implied a need for States to respect the will of the Courts. The decision of the International Court of Justice would be carried out in Mexico in the context of those foreign nationals facing the death penalty, and Mexico hoped the United States would do the same. Guaranteeing full enjoyment of all human rights in Mexico was a priority, and democracy was an inclusive system, for which all would work. The Government had sought to strengthen democracy by promoting solid institutions for the protection of human rights, and was mindful that full enjoyment of civil and political rights could only be achieved by comprehensive justice, with no policy of impunity. In this process, international cooperation was a key element. Mexico was convinced that the United Nations mechanisms should have a preventive function, as well as act in response to violations of human rights.

JUAN PABLO VEGAS TORRES (Peru) said that after two years of work, the Commission on Truth and Reconciliation had handed over in August 2003 its final report on the significant human rights violations that had occurred over two decades. The report reflected 17,000 statements by witnesses, gathered in public hearings throughout the country. Among other conclusions of note, more than twice the number of individuals had disappeared than had been originally thought. Furthermore, the activities of the Shining Path had been extensive and the State had had to mobilize its security services to deal with them. Now the State had embarked upon a process of ending impunity and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was dealing with the question of compensation, guided by the draft guidelines established by the Commission itself. It was to be hoped that violations such as had occurred in Peru would not ever be witnessed in that country – or anywhere in the world – again. The State was committed to building a democracy upon which the people could count, but this was no easy undertaking. It called for leadership, patience and a gradual strengthening of institutional capacity and must be supported internationally. For that reason, Peru welcomed the decision to establish a community of democracies. In conclusion, he also expressed appreciation for the efforts of the community of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society in strengthening the agenda and activities of the Commission on Human Rights. The fundamental role played by NGOs must be continued.

JOSEPH UBAKA AYALOGU (Nigeria) said Nigeria continued to develop its nascent democracy and in line with this disposition believed that every human being was entitled to an environment which allowed all people to freely pursue their civil and political rights. Nigerians also firmly believed in an international social order in which all rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could be fully realized. With this in view, the Government of Nigeria had undertaken various measures including judicial reforms, steps to ensure broad participatory democracy, enhancement of freedom of the press and public opinion and creation of the necessary enabling environment for all sections of the population to have full enjoyment of their civil and political rights. The HIV/AIDS pandemic continued to ravage the African continent, affecting mostly the productive segment of the population. To combat the epidemic, Nigeria had embarked on a major national programme of action. Nigeria was working seriously towards building its democracy and was committed to good governance and zero tolerance of corruption. Nigeria was a country of hope, where all sorts of different people came together and got along, and reaffirmed their deep commitment to the struggle for freedom and the respect for human civil and political rights.

ALFREDO VICENTE CHIARADIA (Argentina) said that since the restoration of democracy in 1983, his country had ensured that the constant promotion of human rights had become a State policy through the adoption of laws and the incorporation of international treaties within its domestic legislation. After the present Government started its work in 2003, it had adopted norms that allowed the trial and extradition of persons who committed human rights violations; and also had restricted the interference of the executive in the work of the judiciary. The legislative body had adopted a law declaring all laws on amnesty as null and void. That law had permitted the Government to intensify the fight against impunity for crimes of human rights violations. Following the cancellation of the law, past cases of pre-trial detentions, disappearances and torture had been investigated. With regard to children, the cases of 320 children who had been victims of forced disappearance had been documented, while 77 had been discovered, thanks to the movement of mothers of the victims. National archives had been created to register the human rights violations. A national museum had also been set up in the clandestine detention centre of the past regime. Argentina had participated actively in the work of the Working Group on enforced disappearances.

MOHAMED SALECK OULD MOHAMED LEMINE (Mauritania) said a limiting concept of human rights had for a long time kept their area of impact limited to only civil and political rights, thus masking the fact that the ideal of the free human being could only be realized if conditions allowed each person to enjoy their economic, social and cultural rights together with civil and political rights. The limits of this concept had been recognized, and the indivisible and interdependent nature of all human rights had been reaffirmed by international judicial instruments and by numerous declarations and resolutions. A wide consensus existed on the need to promote the entirety of human rights and to give them equal attention. As a developing country, Mauritania was conscious that economic and social progress was the major challenge facing it, however, it gave great importance to the promotion and protection of civil and political rights. The Government worked to ensure that the conditions existed allowing each citizen to enjoy their rights and to flourish in the context of the mechanisms that protected the person and his possessions. The Government of Mauritania was convinced that the exercise of all civil and political rights contributed to the blossoming of the citizen and the improvement of the national conscience, a necessary condition for economic and social development.

ROGER JULIEN MENGA (Congo) said civil and political rights were a essential link in the chain of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights, were an important and unavoidable category of human rights without which a full and secure life was impossible in society. These rights gave their holders freedom or autonomy, equality and security, thus contributing to the dignity and value of the human person. These were inalienable and undeniable rights that Governments had to respect, and this was why Congo attached capital importance to the promotion and protection of these rights. It also believed that the preservation of freedom of expression and opinion was a fundamental priority as it contributed to the reinforcing of democracy and the rule of law, and played a determining role in the eradication of certain scourges such as HIV/AIDS.

ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia) said that, in spite of shortfalls and setbacks, the country would in no way be distracted from the chosen path of translating values of respect for human rights into action and practice. The Armenian case offered an example of the benefits of engagement and interaction with the international community – accountability to a wider audience that the national population reinforced the seriousness of purpose in delivering results. Among the reports whose conclusions his State had endorsed was that of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of the judiciary, as well as those contained in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner on the interdependence between democracy and human rights and in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

The Government had recognized and accepted the international community’s criticism of the shortcomings of last year’s election season and had been encouraged to further reform the electoral processes in compliance with international norms and to put that process into a strict time framework for implementation. Furthermore, Armenia had been engaged for several years in substantive legislative work to finalize the new law on military service and to resolve previous legal constraints in accommodating objections to military service on grounds of conscience or religion. Finally, he wished to draw attention to the instance of an Armenian military officer attending a language training course in a third country who had been axed to death by a member of Azerbaijan’s military. One might have considered it the act of a deranged person, except that his society chose to elevate a murderer to the status of a hero.