SUB-COMMISSION ADOPTS CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT URGING REPRIEVE OF SCHEDULED EXECUTION OF MEXICAN NATIONAL IN THE UNITED STATES

Sub-Commission on the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights
54th session
8 August 2002
Afternoon



Discusses Reports on Minorities, Indigenous Populations,
Rights of Non-Citizens



The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights adopted a Chairman's statement this afternoon appealing to authorities of the United States to do anything possible to reprieve the execution scheduled for 14 August of Javier Suarez Medina, a Mexican national, and to re-examine his case.
The statement said Mr. Suarez Medina's right to a fair trial had been seriously impaired, among other things because he had not benefited from the right to consular assistance guaranteed by the Vienna Convention on consular relations. Mr. Suarez Medina's case was tried in Texas.
A representative of Mexico expressed gratitude for the Sub-Commission's action, saying Mexico was opposed to the use of the death penalty and was committed to providing its citizens with consular assistance.
The Sub-Commission also heard presentations of reports of its Working Groups on minorities and indigenous populations, and of its Special Rapporteur on the rights of non-citizens, with the panel's Experts debating, among other things, whether a Special Rapporteur on minorities should be appointed; how the agenda of the Working Group on indigenous populations should change following establishment of the Permanent Forum on indigenous issues elsewhere in the United Nations system; and whether regional political entities such as the European Union were adding new levels of complexity to distinctions between citizenship and non-citizenship.
Sub-Commission Expert Asbjorn Eide, Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on minorities, introducing the group's report, said among other things that the group's most recent session had centered on the right to development for minorities, and the need to take the concerns of the minorities and their regions fully into account in development activities and development projects. Future meetings, he said, would have among their concerns the drafting of a code of conduct on the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities.
Expert Miguel Alfonso-Martinez, Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on indigenous populations, said the group had struggled at its session earlier this summer to redefine its role following establishment of a Permanent Forum for indigenous populations within the United Nations system and the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on indigenous rights; he said the group could play an important and complementary role and urged that it not be eliminated, as had been suggested in some quarters.
Expert David Weissbrodt, Special Rapporteur on the rights of non-citizens, remarked in introducing a progress report that since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, his survey of relevant legislation had come to be regarded with greater urgency due to some of the national measures taken against non-citizens in response to real or apparent threats of terrorism -- in fact the survey had revealed that the problems of non-citizens were much more widespread and occurred almost everywhere.
Sub-Commission Experts or Alternate Experts Abdel Sattar, Antoanella-Iulia Motoc, Yozo Yakota, Jose Bengoa, Soli Jehangir Sorabjee, Leila Zerrougui, Soo Gil Park, El Hadji Guisse, Emmanuel Decaux, and Vladimir Kartashkin addressed the meeting, as did an observer delegate of Latvia and representatives of the non-governmental organizations the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; the Indigenous World Association; and All for Reparations and Emancipation.
The Sub-Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 9 August, to continue its discussion on the prevention of discrimination.

Chairman's Statement
In a statement by the Chairman, the Sub-Commission drew urgently the attention of United States authorities to the situation of Javier Suarez Medina, a Mexican national, detained on death row for thirteen years, who was scheduled for execution by lethal injection on 14 August, in the State of Texas. The Sub-Commission stated that Mr. Suarez Medina was barely 19 years old when he was sentenced to death, and a certain number of serious attempts to interfere with his rights to a defense had occurred during the process; that particularly, United States authorities had not complied with obligations of the 1963 Vienna Convention on consular relations which guaranteed consular assistance for foreign detainees. The Sub-Commission said those obligations had been strongly recalled by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its advisory opinion on the right to information on consular assistance in the framework of the guarantees of due process of law of 1 October, 1999 and by the International Court of Justice in its judgement LaGrand (Germany vs. United States of America) of 27 June 2001. The Sub-Commission earnestly asked United States authorities to do anything to reprieve the execution of Mr. Suarez Medina and to re-examine his case in guaranteeing his right to benefit from consular assistance and his right to a fair trial.

Statements on the Chairman's Statement
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Sub-Commission Expert, said he had joined the consensus for this Chairperson's statement due to the particular seriousness of the situation, especially since the United States authorities had in this instance gone against the Vienna Convention. At least, in a situation as this, relating to the death penalty, the person in question must be allowed to meet with representatives of his country.
A Representative of Mexico said this matter was of utmost importance for Mexico. Mexico gave great importance to the abolition of the death penalty. The Government was grateful for the Chairman's statement. Mexico was dedicated to providing consular assistance to all Mexicans in need of it, and especially to those facing capital punishment; the Mexican Government believed in the right to consular assistance. Consular assistance, as had been noted, was among the basic rights to mount a fair legal defense. It was a minimum guarantee that allowed foreigners to prepare an adequate defense and to receive a fair trial. The right to information on consular assistance was important. Mexico, moreover, rejected the use of capital punishment; this pending execution could have serious consequences, among other things because the Vienna Convention was not being abided by.

Prevention of Discrimination
Before the Sub-Commission under this agenda item is a report of the Working Group on Minorities on its eighth session (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/19). The report contains sections which review the promotion and practical realization of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities; examines possible solutions to problems involving minorities, including the promotion of mutual understanding between and among minorities and Governments; and recommends future measures for the promotion and protection of minority groups. The report concludes that it is recommended to the Commission on Human Rights that it explore the possibilities of establishing a special procedure mechanism on the rights of persons belonging to minorities, such as a special rapporteur or special representative. The report states that special efforts must be taken by Governments to ensure that minorities that were subjected to manifestations of hatred or xenophobia are given full protection of the police and other security forces. The Working Group also recommends that the Office of the High Commissioner organizes seminars on minority approaches, both in the Asian context and in the Baltic and CIS countries, and follow-up seminars on Afro-descendants in the Americas, and seminars on multiculturalism in Africa. The Working Group also recommends that States take all necessary steps to remedy the consequences of the past exclusion of Afro-descendant people from political and developmental processes. It is also suggests that a voluntary trust fund be established to facilitate the participation of minority representatives and experts from developing countries in the Working Group and other activities relating to the protection of minorities.
The Sub-Commission also has before it a progress report on the rights of non-citizens (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/25) by Special Rapporteur David Weissbrodt. The report contains sections on general international principles as to the rights of non-citizens; exceptions to the general approach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the position of the non-citizen under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; differential treatment among non-citizens; and citizenship regulations that discriminate. The report makes tentative recommendations which state that continued discriminatory treatment of non-citizens demonstrated the need for clear, comprehensive standards governing the rights of non-citizens and their implementation by States. It would be desirable for the treaty bodies jointly to prepare general comments and recommendations that would establish a consistent, structured approach to the protection of the rights of non-citizens. There are three addendums to the report, one on United Nations activities (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/25/Add.1) and one on regional activities (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/25/Add.2) and the last on examples of practices with regard to non-citizens (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/25/Add.3).

Statements on Prevention of Discrimination
ASBJORN EIDE, Sub-Commission Expert and Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on minorities, said that during the discussion on the situation facing minorities, the Working Group had discussed the issues of recognition and treatment of minorities in many parts of the world, with extremely useful contributions by minorities and Governments. A second major theme of this session had centered on the issue of the right to development for minorities, and the need to take the concerns of the minorities and their regions fully into account in development activities and development projects. This was undoubtedly an issue to take into account also in future Social Forum sessions. The Working Group had decided that during the next sessions, the main aim would be drafting of a code of conduct on the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities; and studying in greater depth the development and minorities issue. The Working Group would seek to further develop its contacts with the national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights to encourage them to broaden the scope of their work to include minority rights issues.
The Working Group recommended that the Sub-Commission recommend to the Commission on Human Rights that it explore in due time the possibilities of establishing a special procedure mechanism on the rights of persons belonging to minorities, such as a special rapporteur. The mandate could include monitoring the implementation of the Declaration, facilitating the provision of technical cooperation on issues relating to conflict prevention, and assisting the Working Group in drawing up a code of conduct. The Working Group also recommended that the Office of the High Commissioner organize a seminar on minority approaches and consider holding a special meeting of the Working Group to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration.
Finally, the Working Group recommended that States took all necessary steps to remedy the consequences of the past exclusion of Afro-descendant people from political and developmental processes; and the establishment of a voluntary trust fund to facilitate the participation of minority representatives and experts from developing countries in the Working Group and other activities relating to the protection of minorities.
ABDEL SATTAR, Sub-Commission Expert, said the report of the Working Group on minorities was impressive; the group did indeed deepen understanding of minorities in various parts of the world. He approved of the decision to draft a code of conduct on how to implement the relevant Declaration on minority rights. Equally meritorious was the conclusion of the Working Group that it should develop contacts with national human rights groups that were committed to protecting minorities; it was apparent, unfortunately, that Governments were not always good sources of information on their treatment of minorities. The group's caution about proposed country visits was understandable, but the idea was a sound one, and could help Governments fulfil their human rights obligations. Appointment of a Special Rapporteur to monitor the situation of minorities was also a good idea.
Mr. Sattar said he was concerned, however, that the report's summary on the contribution of NGOs of information on the situation in Gujarat gave the reader no idea of the magnitude of the terrible events; it did not even note that according to official figures some 900 innocent men, women and children were killed, and that there had been extensive rape, arson, and destruction of homes and businesses. Meanwhile wordy summaries of statements were given about a number of other situations elsewhere around the world where not a single casualty was alleged. No differentiation was made from historical points of view, or between serious and less-serious violations of the rights of minorities.
ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC, Sub-Commission Expert, said the Working Group gave an example to all of the Sub-Commission on how one should work in the future. The issue of quality of reports was an issue at the moment, and the Working Group had taken an important and visionary move in this context. The rights of minorities did not receive enough attention by the international community. It was a significant initiative, she said. Perhaps, a particular focus could be paid to minority women since they often suffered from double discrimination. It was time to make a more detailed study of the Declaration since there had been several legal developments in the last few years.
YOZO YOKOTA, Sub-Commission Expert, said it was important to focus on the right of minorities to development and to their full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. He approved of the way the Working Group was approaching the delicate and difficult matter of the rights of minority groups as compared to the rights of individuals who were members of minorities. He was curious that the title of the Working Group paper included reference to indigenous peoples; he wondered why the indigenous peoples' aspect had been included in the report, and if the Working Group on indigenous peoples, of which he was a member, perhaps should coordinate its activities with those of the Working Group on minorities. As for the proposed code of conduct, for whom was it being drafted? Who would such a code be for?
JOSE BENGOA, Sub-Commission Expert, reminded the Sub-Commission of the meeting held on minority issues recently in Honduras. It was the very first meeting on this issue that had been held in Latin America and it had been very well-attended, including with several representatives of Afro-descents. It was important to have regional bodies present at meetings, Mr. Bengoa stressed. In this meeting the follow-up to Durban had been discussed. There had also been an important discussion as to whether one could apply the concept of minority to people of Afro-descent. It had been stressed that usually Afro-descendant were in a minority in terms of "haves and have-nots". Specific action by the Honduran Government deserved congratulations since after the holding of the meeting, they had ratified relevant international instruments concerning minorities. The issues of minorities was important in Latin America, since minorities, indigenous peoples and people of Afro-descent had suffered very much in the region, particularly in situations of conflict as witnessed in Colombia. With the recent presidential election in Colombia, it was hoped that peace would be found at last.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said he shared the high evaluation of this report, and thought it reflected the contributions of the Chairman, who had many valuable ideas; as the years passed, the functioning of the group became more and more successful. If the recommendations of the group were implemented, it would have a positive effect on the well-being of minorities. It bothered him that the report was unduly short because of the arbitrary limit on the length of Sub-Commission documents; because of that limit some important information had been left out. The first invited visit of the group to a country -- to Mauritius -- was not summarized in the report, for example. He also was surprised that some representatives of countries taking part in the Working Group sessions sometimes spoke in disagreement on the question of whether or not there was discrimination on their territories, after claims to that effect had been made. It might be a better response to invite the Working Group to visit to determine the reality of the situation there. The Working Group had to reach its conclusions based on the information it was given. If there were complaints about the Working Group's conclusions, perhaps those complaining should submit credible information that could be included in the group's deliberations; then differences of opinion could be reflected objectively.
SOLI JEHANGIR SORABJEE, Sub-Commission Expert, said there was a necessity to widely publicize the declaration on the rights of minorities. He suggested that a small booklet be published on this topic to spread the knowledge. It was also suggested that the tenth anniversary be celebrated widely.
LEILA ZERROUGUI, Sub-Commission Expert, said she also was a member of the Working Group, and the truth was that the extraordinary work carried out by the group was nowhere near reflected in the report. Much of that work was very constructive but was carried out in private -- it was practical, specific, and helpful. Mr. Eide's personality and effectiveness pervaded the whole process, and was a major reason why the group was so successful.
SOO GIL PARK, Sub-Commission Expert, said reading the important document before the Sub-Commission, he wanted to add his support for the work of the Working Group. As several colleagues had said, the Working Group on minorities presented more than an example in showing how a working group on thematic issues should function. Among the important tasks to be carried out, he was pleased to support the drafting of a code of conduct on the implementation of the Declaration as well as the suggestion of the booklet on the issues to deciminate information on the rights of minorities. With regard to the recommendations of the Working Group to organize a seminar on the rights of minorities in Asia, States must take steps to right wrongdoings of the past as part of the Durban follow-up.
JEAN JACQUES KJRKYACHARIAN, of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said he did not understand very well what was meant by "development" of minorities; to him it seemed absurd. Perhaps it would be better to say "economic, social and cultural development". What was meant by "development" of minorities?
RONALD BARNES, of the Indigenous World Association, wished to clarify the definition of minority people. Indigenous people did not want Governments to decide who they were, that was part of their self-determination. Indigenous peoples, although in small numbers, were indigenous to the land and not a minority of the land. The idea of minority in that context was not the same as that of indigenous peoples. In this way, he questioned why the issue of the definition of indigenous people would arise.
SILIS MUHAMMED ABUBAKR, of AFRECURE - All for Reparations and Emancipation, said the Sub-Commission had passed two resolutions of concern to his organization. These resolutions concerned how the Sub-Commission could usefully address the issue of slavery. The Sub-Commission had also decided to deal with the legacy of the slave trade in the Americas. The protection offered to minorities under article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights did not apply to the descendants of slaves in America. They had been denied their culture, history and language - a total destruction of their essence. Mr. Bengoa had been asked to write a paper on minorities and this paper had been tremendously important to descendants of slaves since it was the beginning of the recognition of their situation. The Working Group had also listened to their issues and situation in Durban during the World Conference against Racism, as well as in La Ceiba, Honduras. Who had the minority of power and wealth, he asked. In that respect, the minority was usually Afro-descendants. They had recognized themselves and had decided that they wished to be recognized by the United Nations as "Afro-descendant minorities". The Sub-Commission was asked to acknowledge this decision also. He recognized that as minorities there was not full equality before the law, due to the total destruction of their identity. He believed that the reinstatement of "Afro-descendant minorities" to the human family could take place with the continued effort of the Sub-Commission and the Working Group on minorities.
JANIS KARKLINS (Latvia), said Latvia disagreed with the part of the report of the Working Group that referred to the holding of seminars, including in the Baltic region. Latvia did not approve of references there to "former Soviet States" and considered that framework to be something of the past. Latvia did not object to holding seminars on minorities, and in fact had held such seminars.
EL HADJI GUISSE, Sub-Commission Expert, said considerable work had been completed within the framework of the Working Group. However, as had been pointed out, there was a possibility of confusion between minorities and indigenous peoples. If indigenous peoples were linked to the land, they could not be categorised with minorities, which had a different relationship to the land. It could lead to serious confusion in terms of the protection of these groups of individuals and a confusion of the expected outcome of the work. Indigenous peoples were different from minorities and this must be recognized in the work of the respective Working Groups in order to avoid confusion.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Sub-Commission Expert, said a long time ago the United Nations had made an essential differentiation between "minorities" and "indigenous peoples". Also it had asked former Sub-Commission Expert Erica-Irene A. Daes, along with Mr. Eide, to draw up definitions of the two terms. Such a clear understanding was needed, and should take into account the frameworks set up not only by the Working Groups on minorities and indigenous peoples but should be more broadly and carefully considered. "Indigenous" was not an indigenous term; it was a term invented by the colonizer to identify people who had been subjugated and invaded and were in a position of dependency. In any case it was not a good idea to think about indigenous peoples while excluding others -- work on the matter should be carried out in a joint manner between the Working Groups on minorities and indigenous populations; it was necessary, in fact, to listen to everyone.
The Working Group on minorities had carried out very valuable work, and the idea that it should do more detailed work in the future was a good one. He congratulated the group on what it had accomplished.
ASBJORN EIDE , Sub-Commission Expert, said in response to comments made that he himself had pointed out that there was a considerable difference between minorities and indigenous peoples. However, in some parts of the world, the question was more complicated. Indeed, work on this issue was needed, particularly in Africa and Asia, settings which were different from European history and definitions, and the America's history and definitions. Concerning Mr. Sattar's comments, it was a major event to have an Asian seminar which would deal with the recognition of minorities in theory and practice. Concerning the compressed nature of the events in Gujurat, Mr. Eide explained that due to new length restrictions, no more space was available in the report.
It was true that work needed to focus more on minorities and their economic, social and cultural rights as well as the gender question. The duty holders that the Working Group was addressing in its code of conduct were Governments but also other actors such as international agencies and international corporations. These were only a few examples on how a code of conduct could be useful. To conclude, Mr. Eide said that there was very important work developing on Afro-descendant minorities, including in La Ceiba.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Sub-Commission Expert and Chairman-Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission's Working Group on indigenous populations, introduced the group's report, saying that the work of the group this year had not begun easily. First, Erica-Irene A. Daes was no longer Chairwoman, leaving an enormous void that somehow had to be filled. After the meeting of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the rights of the indigenous there had been concern that the Working Group would see a fall-off in interest, but instead there had been for the first time attendance of more than 1,000 people.
It also had been necessary to define anew the role of the Working Group following the establishment of the Permanent Forum. The survival of the Working Group was necessary as a viable body, with a mandate that had by no means come to an end. The group was changing gears, so to speak; the challenge was that it had to carry out its mandate without infringing on the competence either of the Permanent Forum or the new Special Rapporteur. In the end, these bodies were complementary bodies that did not exclude one another. The elimination of the Working Group, advocated by some, would be a sad loss for indigenous peoples and the world. Already the group had determined the themes of forthcoming sessions for the next three years. He called on the Sub-Commission to assert to those higher up that the Working Group should continue to exist.
Among the group's recommendations were that Mrs. Daes, the former Chairwoman, be considered an honorary member of the Working Group.
EL HADJI GUISSE, Sub-Commission Expert, said he was a member of the Working Group on indigenous peoples and would like to express his satisfaction with the manner in which Mr. Alfonso Martinez had chaired the Group, which had consisted of the largest ever number of participants. It was added that it was on the basis of a general agreement that the Working Group had planned to make Mrs. Daes an honorary member of the Working Group, given the important work she had achieved on this issue.
DAVID WEISSBRODT, Sub-Commission Expert and Special Rapporteur on the rights of non-citizens, introducing his progress report on the rights of non-citizens, said that international human rights law was grounded upon the premise that all persons, by virtue of their humanity had fundamental rights. In keeping with this principle, both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights set forth rights that belonged to all persons, regardless of citizenship status, and permitted few distinctions between the rights of citizens and the rights of non-citizens. States were drawing distinctions among non-citizens on the basis of nationality, particularly within the context of supranational economic or political unions. A review of the sparse jurisprudence addressing these nationality-based distinctions suggested two principles. First, States enjoyed greater discretion in establishing citizenship requirements than in regulating entry and residence, provided that no particular nationality was singled out for discriminatory treatment. Second, States might extend reciprocal nationality-based immigration and residence preferences if necessitated by membership in a transnational legal or political order such as the European Union. International human rights law generally required States to treat citizens and non-citizens similarly. Exceptions to non-discrimination principles were narrow and must be strictly construed.
Since September 11, his survey had come to be regarded with greater urgency due to some of the national measures taken against non-citizens in response to real or apparent threats of terrorism. The survey had revealed that the problems of non-citizens were much more widespread and occurred almost everywhere. One of the problems faced in the survey related to the availability of information regarding the status and treatment of undocumented non-citizens and irregular migrants. In many cases, their very existence might not be recognized by States. Without documentation they often could not obtain basic government services, including health care, and in some cases education. The actual problems facing undocumented non-citizens were not adequately represented in the information received and thus were generally not reflected in the report.
Another methodological problem of this survey had been the challenge posed by trying to collect data regarding actual State practices in a comprehensive and reliable manner, while relying upon English-language media and materials. Additional responses to his questionnaire from States would be highly appreciated in this connection. To conclude Mr. Weissbrodt stressed that continued discriminatory treatment of non-citizens demonstrated the need for clear, comprehensive standards governing the rights of non-citizens and their implementation by States. Problems relating to the treatment of non-citizens arose under each of the international human rights instruments. As a consequence, treaty bodies must work together to establish a consistent, structured approach to the protection of the rights of non-citizens.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, said the question of citizenship was interesting in terms of such regional integration entities as the European Union; at this point one had a kind of European citizenship. If Europeans had exclusive rights, however, that raised uncomfortable questions for non-Europeans in Europe. Further there were long-term residents, who had some privileges and a kind of de facto nationality; in many cases these groups had few remaining ties to their former homelands. But the problem was not so much between European and non-European citizens, but between "nationals" and "foreigners."
Then there was the matter of fundamental human rights. In terms of political rights, there were differences between countries of Europe over who could vote in which elections; in some countries foreigners could vote in European elections but not in local elections. And there were questions about the rights of asylum seekers who were waiting to receive papers, and those of clandestine immigrants -- between the documented and the undocumented. The right of access to education was imperative at the social level, as was the right to health; how could those rights be guaranteed without having proper status provided? How could a legal personality be provided without giving a proper status to such individuals? Adding to the problem was the fear of undocumented immigrants of being discovered and denounced.
The network of national institutions that protected human rights had increased in recent years, and might play a role in fostering non-citizens' rights. Perhaps the Rapporteur should take into account the work such groups had done on the matter, and perhaps these institutions could help distribute Mr. Weissbrodt's questionnaires and requests for information.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said the questions considered in Mr. Weissbrodt's report were sensitive and therefore it was necessary to consider the wording in the report. A certain number of rights had been listed in the report. It would have been more sensible to list the exceptions. It had been stated that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights could be interpreted as preventing any discrimination. However, not only could the Covenant prevent discrimination - it should do so. At times, the wording of the report called into question the general positive note of the report. It seemed that the problems of non-citizens must be broadened to include the situation after 11 September. After this date, a large number of measures had been taken which affected non-citizens. However, it would have been useful to give concrete examples of these measures.
Quoting a few lines from the New York Times and International Herald Tribune, Mr. Kartashkin raised issues concerning people in ex-USSR countries who did not have their full civil and political rights. It had been stated in the newspapers that one could not only import citizens - but also patriots. Mr. Weissbrodt was asked what he thought of the countries that would join the European Union shortly, would they become immediate citizens of all European Union countries?
JANIS KARKLINS (Latvia) said that for historical reasons, the country paid particular attention to the rights of non-citizens. It did not consider that some statements in the Special Rapporteur's report referred to Latvia. Latvia had been an independent country before the Soviet era; it had been one of the founding members of the League of Nations. History had been unkind to Latvia, as a result of the predations of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. It had been illegally occupied and had suffered occupation for more than 50 years. Some Governments had never recognized this occupation or Latvia's supposed inclusion in the Soviet Union, and had maintained diplomatic relations with the country throughout the period of occupation. Latvia preferred not to see countries singled out in thematic discussions in the Sub-Commission. If that had to happen, the facts should be accurate. As for requirements for treatment of non-citizens, one could claim that Latvia had met all of them.



* *** *