SUB-COMMISSION CONTINUES CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES CONCERNING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, RULE OF LAW AND DEMOCRACY

Sub-Commission on Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights
54th session
5 August 2002
Morning



Expert Reports on the Activities and Accountabilities of Armed Forces,
United Nations Civilian Police, International Civil Servants
and Experts in Peace Support Operations



The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this morning continued its consideration of issues concerning the administration of justice, rule of law and democracy, hearing Expert Francoise Jane Hampson present a progress report on her working paper on the scope of the activities and accountabilities of armed forces, United Nations civilian police, international civil servants and experts taking part in peace support operations.
Ms. Hampson requested guidance from the Sub-Commission on which operations were to be covered. She asked if operations covered should be confined to United Nations-mandated operations involving a United Nations force or should also include United Nations-mandated operations not involving a United Nations force and/or operations which some argued did not have a United Nations mandate.
Ms. Hampson also asked whether the study should examine the discharge of any human rights mandate given to the mission. It had been suggested that a distinction must be drawn between acts of individuals and/or contingents which were in conflict with human rights standards and the implementation of a human rights mandate. Concerning prostitution and trafficking in women, guidance was requested on whether the study should also include an examination of the responsibility of mission personnel to protect women from risks at the hands of third parties.
Experts agreed that the scope of activities and accountabilities of armed forces and United Nations personnel was an extremely complex question that required clear definitions and distinctions. Expert Soo Gil Park said the study must include all operations in the broadest sense -
with the objective to find remedies for victims of human rights abuses. He reminded the Sub-Commission of the incidents involving United Nations peace-keeping operations personnel in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, noting that the UNHCR and Save the Children study on these incidents of sexual violence and exploitation had concluded that peace-keepers had abused their positions of power.
Sub-Commission Expert Asbjorn Eide said all UN personnel should respect human rights and should be held accountable if they violated them. But the scope for protecting human rights depended very much on the mandate of the specific mission and on the situation on the ground. For example, in some cases it appeared that accountability would lie with the States in which the violations occurred. There were also matters of jurisdiction; for example, for serious violations, such as crimes against humanity, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court could come into play.
Expert Vladimir Kartashkin questioned why Ms. Hampson raised only the issue of prostitution and trafficking in women. Responsibility for violations of human rights must be comprehensive and must cover any violations of the rights of individuals. There had to be differentiation, too, between violations by a UN contingent itself, and violations carried out by a third party. In the latter case, the UN contingent should nonetheless strive to ensure that such violations were stopped.
Sub-Commission Experts Antoanella-Iulia Motoc, Yozo Yokota, Kalliopi Koufa, Halima Embarek Warzazi, David Weissbrodt, El Hadji Guisse and Miguel Alfonso Martinez also spoke this morning.
Non-governmental organizations participating in the debate highlighted human rights violations concerning the administration of justice in several countries; stressed the need for transparency in the International Criminal Court; and called for the Sub-Commission to take action to ensure fair trials and the respect for civil and political rights.
The following non-governmental organizations took the floor: Dominicans for Justice and Peace on behalf of Franciscans International and Pax Christi International; the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions; the International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International Association of Democratic Lawyers; the Movement Against Racism and for Friendships among Peoples; and the Indian Movement-Tupaj Amaru.
The Chairperson briefly re-opened agenda item 2 - on violations of human rights anywhere in the world - to allow Morocco to exercise its right of reply.
The Sub-Commission will reconvene this afternoon at 3 p.m. to continue its consideration of its agenda item on the administration of justice, rule of law and democracy.

Administration of Justice
Before the Sub-Commission there is a note on "work in progress" from Expert Francoise Jane Hampson (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/6) on her working paper on the scope of the activities and accountability of armed forces, United Nations civilian police, international civil servants and experts taking part in peace support operations, remarking that most of the information needed for the paper has been gathered but seeking guidance from the Sub-Commission on the United Nations operations to be covered; whether the study should examine the discharge of any human rights mandate given to a mission; and whether it should cover issues surrounding prostitution and trafficking in women. She concludes by noting that the working paper will be drafted in light of the guidance provided by the Sub-Commission and will be submitted at the next session.

Statements on the Administration of Justice, Rule of Law and Democracy
FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said that concerning her paper for this year on the scope of the activities and the accountability of armed forces, United Nations civilian police, international civil servants and experts taking part in peace support operations, she needed guidance from the Sub-Commission on three issues. The first issue concerned which operations were to be covered - whether they should be confined to United Nations-mandated operations involving a United Nations force or whether they should also include United Nations-mandated operations not involving a United Nations force and/or operations which some argued did not have a United Nations mandate. Her preference was the latter.
The second issue was more of a clarification, Ms. Hampson said, questioning whether the study should examine the discharge of any human rights mandate given to the mission. It had been suggested that a distinction must be drawn between acts of individuals and/or contingents which were in conflict with human rights standards and the implementation of a human rights mandate.
The third issue concerned prostitution and trafficking in women. Resorting to the use of prostitutes did not appear, in and of itself, to be in conflict with human rights standards, whether or not it was in breach of military discipline or other internal rules applicable to a force. Where the prostitute was not acting voluntarily, whether or not as a result of trafficking, the individual client might be knowingly having sexual relations with a person who was being held in a form of slavery or forced labour. In such a situation, it might be possible to argue that the individual client and the contingent to which he belonged did have some legal responsibility for exploiting a situation for which they might not be responsible. To what extent did they have a responsibility to protect those under their effective control from the risk of serious human rights violations at the hand of third parties? She stressed that guidance would be appreciated as to whether the study should also include an examination of the responsibility of mission personnel to protect women from such risks at the hands of third parties and, if so, whether the study should include the positive obligation to protect the rights of those under the effective control of international personnel, even when the risk came from third parties.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said the questions raised by Ms. Hampson concerned complex and difficult issues. He agreed that her investigations should to a large extent be based on the UN mandates involved. But what legal framework should be respected by any such operation? What legal norms should be respected? He agreed with Ms. Hampson's proposal that responsibilities of UN contingents should be clarified. As far as the third question was concerned, he wanted to ask Ms. Hampson why she raised only the issue of prostitution and trafficking in women. He thought responsibility for violations of human rights should be comprehensive and should cover any violations of the rights of individuals. There had to be differentiation, too, between violations by a UN contingent itself, and violations carried out by a third party. In the latter case, the UN contingent should nonetheless strive to ensure that such violations were stopped.
SOO GIL PARK, Sub-Commission Expert, said that Ms. Hampson's working paper provided an opportunity for all to understand the complex issues related to the scope of the activities and accountabilities of armed forces. Many people had heard of illegal actions carried out by members of peace-keeping operations and armed forces. In Mozambique in 1992, United Nations peace-keepers had recruited and sexually exploited women. Another case of concern was the result of the UNHCR study on Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone on sexual violence and exploitation. The study concluded that peace-keepers had abused their positions of power. There was a need to define the scope of responsibility in these situations. Mr. Park believed the study must include all operations in the broadest sense since the objective was to find the remedies for victims of the United Nations personnel. Issues surrounding prostitution and trafficking must be included in the study. Would the study touch upon the responsibility of human rights organizations, he asked.
Mr. Park concluded by mentioning the immunity given to United Nations personnel and various other provisions. It was pointed out that even when looking at the immunity clauses, the exact scope and limitations seemed difficult to establish. It was also necessary to distinguish between peace-keeping operations and enforcement operations. The packages mentioned by Ms. Hampson were an interesting idea, he said and suggested that the Security Council consider this idea.
ASBJORN EIDE, Sub-Commission Expert, said this study was important but would be difficult to carry out. He agreed on the choice of scope of the study; but he had trouble understanding the second question -- he hoped Ms. Hampson could explain it more fully. On the third matter, he thought she should cover other human rights abuses in addition to prostitution and trafficking in women. There were obligations to respect human rights, and there were obligations to protect human rights; all UN personnel should respect human rights and be held accountable if they violated them. But the scope for protecting human rights depended very much on the mandate of the specific mission and on the situation on the ground. What would accountability amount to in situations of violations? In some cases it appeared that accountability would lie with the States in which the violations occurred. There were also matters of jurisdiction -- for example, for serious violations, such as crimes against humanity, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court could come into play.
ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC, Sub-Commission Expert, said she really appreciated the working paper presented by Ms. Zerrougui last week on discrimination in the criminal justice system. She intended to present to the Sub-Commission a draft resolution nominating Ms. Zerrougui as a Special Rapporteur for the Commission on Human Rights. Her work was complex and broad and needed the support of the Sub-Commission. A distinction might be needed on regional decisions important for third and fourth countries and simple regional decisions. Another concern was the discrimination against women in the administration of justice. Concerning Ms. Hampson's paper, Ms. Motoc asked what type of responsibility she was talking about, was it the responsibility of the United Nations or States. A clarification was needed, she stressed. It was only after such a clarification was provided that one could respond to Ms. Hampson's request for guidance. It was suggested that a distinction be made between peace-keeping operations and peace-maintenance operations. There was also the very ambiguous concept of self-defence that had been omitted. Concerning the distinction between peace-maintenance operations and human rights operations, clarifications were needed.
Concerning prostitution and trafficking, Ms. Motoc said that a distinction needed to be made on the level of seriousness of the violations of human rights by the contingents. There was a universal legal penal jurisdiction, in the shape of crimes against humanity. One needed to focus some attention on jurisdiction, she said.
YOZO YOKOTA, Sub-Commission Expert, said he agreed with the proposal that the scope of the study by Mrs. Hampson be made more comprehensive and inclusive; among other things, there was the matter of regional organizations carrying out peacekeeping operations under UN authorization. There was the controversial issue, too, of the NATO involvement in Kosovo -- some questioned whether the attacks carried out there were legal. He wondered how human rights law applied to such activities. On the second question, he thought there were many activities to maintain international peace and security that were not strictly within a human rights mandate, and these should be considered by the study. Other issues needed to be considered. Only States were parties to human rights conventions, for example, but UN personnel acting under the authority of the Secretary-General, he would like to think, were bound by such human rights conventions. He wondered if Ms. Hampson could look into the matter. And punishment for serious violations of human rights in the course of discharging UN mandates raised questions of how the International Criminal Court's mandate would come into play.
KALLIOPI KOUFA, Sub-Commission Expert, said she agreed with Mr. Park, Mr. Eide, Mr. Yokota and with the problems highlighted by Ms. Motoc. These questions were complex, it would be interesting to hear from Ms. Hampson herself on how she would want to approach the subject.
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Sub-Commission Expert, said the proposed study was a promising one. UN missions in the past had committed other crimes than those involving women -- Canada and the Netherlands had sanctioned crimes in the course of such missions, for example. She agreed that the study should consider all human rights abuses. A major point of the report should be to reveal what was going on under the flag of human rights; it should show who committed such abuses. Such people should be punished, and those at the top levels of the Organization should be aware of some of the offenses that were being committed. On the issue of sexual harassment in refugee camps in Africa, there appeared to have been a fair amount of ignorance among top managers. Impunity should be totally condemned in the study; no one should escape punishment for such crimes. UN contingents also should effectively control and have responsibility within their areas for any violations against women carried out by third parties. There should be a commitment among Governments sending contingents to UN missions that any of their nationals committing crimes would be subject to prosecution.
DAVID WEISSBRODT, Sub-Commission Expert, said he shared the views of his colleagues that the initial work undertaken was important. He suggested that Ms. Hampson make reference to the human rights training manual of UNHCR, which in chapter 22 dealt with the expected conduct of international civil servants. He hoped that this reference would be helpful.
FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, responding to the comments on her study by Sub-Commission members, said the distinction referred to in paragraph "A" was between operations under a UN mandate and those not under a UN mandate. As for the meaning of her second question, within a UN operation, the mandate could give all sorts of responsibilities to a mission, and different contingents would be responsible for different parts. Some participants were charged with giving human rights training, and her point was that the study would focus on human rights behaviour by the entire contingent rather than whether the small part giving human rights training was functioning properly, although there had been charges on occasion that such human rights training violated human rights. With regard to prostitution, she had only put the matter in as an example. It had raised one of the big problem areas. In matters of detention carried out by UN forces, the issue of responsibility was clear. But there was a confusing middle ground; if peacekeepers made use of the "services" of women kept against their will as prostitutes by third parties, how much responsibility lay with the peacekeepers so acting? Administrative arrangements might be suitable in many cases for asserting liability for human rights violations; for example, the UN could put in place some automatic system for following up on whether persons sent home for violations were subsequently held accountable. It also seemed to her the study could end up with a chapter that proposed guidelines and reviewed best practices.
PHILIPPE LEBLANC, of Dominicans for Justice, speaking on behalf of Franciscans International and Pax Christi International, raised the issue of the death penalty. A number of Dominican congregations in the United States had adopted a corporate stance advocating the abolition of the death penalty. The stance was based both on their commitment to proclaiming justice and on their experience as prison chaplains and their work with the families and friends of victims. In the United States, the Supreme Court recently issued some key rulings. One found that executing those with mental retardation was cruel and unusual punishment, and thus un-Constitutional. In another decision, the Supreme Court also found that the death penalty systems in states where a judge, and not a jury, assigned the death penalty, violated the Constitutional rights of those sentenced to death.
In calling for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide, the organization expressed its deep concern about the unjust and unequal application of the punishment. In countries where the death penalty continued to be enacted, it was more likely to be applied in a racist manner, and more likely to be applied to minorities and the under classes in general. Poor people, disabled people and young people were more often subjected to capital punishment. A case in point was the legal saga of Javier Suarez Medina, a young Mexican national scheduled for execution in Texas on August 14, 2002. Mr. Medina and his supporters urged governments to seek alternatives to the death penalty; encouraged the Sub-Commission to undertake a comprehensive study on discrimination in the justice system; and called for the abolition of the death penalty.
EL HADJI GUISSE, Sub-Commission Expert, said the general erosion of justice was such a frequent thing today that people suffering from the imbalances that existed on a daily basis around the world were losing their last forum for rectifying them. The administration of justice was vital for giving people a chance. Not only the trial itself but what took place before and after had to be considered. All regulations had to be taken into account, including those governing the police. Legal equality, at least, had to be provided in a world where so little else was equal.
Ill-treatment, when it occurred, generally occurred during detention. It seemed to occur in all countries of the world. It occurred, among other places, in the offices of police and border police. Torture at times was so horrible that it was indescribable. Measures taken to date had not prevented torturers from developing and perfecting their methods. It was clear that one step that would help would be ensuring that detention periods were short. Those foreigners who were halted and detained by other countries were often kept in centres that had little oversight or regulation; abuses could be extreme; legal counsel frequently was not provided; habeas corpus often did not apply; and medical examinations were not given. Expense was another problem with administration of justice -- those who had less money got less justice; those who could not bribe courts or police officers or prison officers suffered punishment. Abuses under civil law were increasing. Land was confiscated; local populations were deprived of their land without any indemnity being paid, for example. This happened daily. The Sub-Commission should consider the issue.
Mr. Guisse also thought more had to be done to investigate the negative role played by international companies in the countries of the South -- the companies were so large and powerful that the host Governments could not regulate them, and such companies could violate justice and leave people without recourse.
ANTOINE MADELIN, of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, told the Sub-Commission about the situation of a Tunisian Lawyer who had just completed a five-week-long hunger strike to raise awareness of the unfair holding of her husband in prison. His trial had lasted no longer than three minutes, and since the trial he had been held in solitary confinement. His family had suffered harassment by the Tunisian authorities, including a kidnapping attempt on his daughter. The Tunisian Government continued to violate political and civil rights. The Federation called on the Sub-Commission to act on this important issue.
Concerning the International Criminal Court, the Federation called for transparency and legitimacy and urged the Sub-Commission to ensure a transparent selection of judges. It was also necessary to ensure that there was geographical representation in the composition of the judges. The Federation also highlighted the military tribunals taking place in the United States following the events of 11 September. The Sub-Commission must be concerned by this arbitrary administration of justice in anti-terrorism measures.
MARIE-THERESE BELLAMY, of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, said the organization deplored once again that trade unions in carrying out their activities were being subjected to hostile behaviour by some Governments. The arrest and detention of trade unionists, long detentions without trial, harassment, and complicity of the police in the assassination of trade unionists were all matters of administration of justice of concern to the Sub-Commission. In Haiti, 6 unionists were being held illegally in a prison after totally unfair procedures. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 10 unionists had just been condemned to 10 months in prison for appealing for a strike, in keeping with their rights under international agreements ratified by that country. In Brazil, an agricultural workers' unionist had been assassinated after being tortured. He had been compiling proof of abuses committed by security officials. In Belarus, the end of trade unionism had been carefully prepared by the President and the Government. Trade union delegates had been forced to vote for a Chairman who had been imposed on them, a former member of the Presidential administration. Three unionists selling a trade union newspaper had been taken in for questioning by the police.
There were other crimes in many other places in the world, including in China, where more than 41 trade unionists were being unfairly held in prison; others had been kept in forced labour camps and subjected to torture. There also were offenses being committed against trade unionists in "Korea" and Turkey.
KALLIOPI KOUFA, Sub-Commission Expert, said she agreed with several of the statements of her colleagues on Ms. Zerrougui's presentation of her study last week. There was no need to add more to her work, she already had her hands full with all the comments made by colleagues last week. It was necessary to detect and identify practices of discrimination. The manner in which Ms. Zerrougui had explained her approach was constructive and practical. Ms. Zerrougui was aiming to deal with direct discrimination within administration of justice. It was necessary to investigate the reasons which led to discrimination. This work would contribute to follow-up to the World Conference against Racism and the work of the Sub-Commission in general.
H. SHARFELDDIN, of the International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, said what had happened in the Balkans, the oppression in occupied Palestine, the dangerous clashes in Kashmir, the cruel and heavy-handed tactics of the United States in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, clearly proved that there could be no peace without justice. It was worth asking if peace and security could ever be achieved by force. Courts of justice had existed for hundreds of years, and history indicated that a strong and effective international court of justice offered the best hope for mankind.
The International Criminal Court, unfortunately, had been compromised because of the United States' insistence that its servicemen be excluded from complying with the rulings of the Court for a renewable period of a year. The work of the International Court of Justice, unfortunately, had been almost paralysed because it could not take up any major dispute unless both opposing parties were willing and because it lacked the power to execute its rulings through international troops assigned for the purpose, or through ordering a general termination of international relations, which could pressure a violating party into compliance. These restraints should be removed. A high standing court was the only hope for the ultimate realization of justice and for securing peace.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Sub-Commission Expert, said that he was favourably impressed by the content of the document submitted by Leila Zerrougui last week on discrimination in the administration of justice. This was a study that needed to be undertaken. The study was necessary, as highlighted by her clear arguments, to investigate the daily work of justice systems and the levels of discrimination therein. In this case, not only would it be important to highlight mechanisms in violation of international rules, but also institutional mechanisms. It would also be interesting to see which social factors led to discrimination on behalf of criminal courts. The study must deal with national rules that were being violated by international institutions. These clarification must be analysed by the Rapporteur and dealt with in the study.
The results of the World Conference against Racism, which had not been as fruitful as had been expected, and the events of 11 September, had rightly been highlighted. With respect to Durban, there was a need to formally recognize discrimination. With regard to 11 September, Mr. Martinez said these events had touched all communities in the world. However, some aspects of anti-terrorism measures were not within Ms. Zerrougui's mandate. Only matters of discrimination must be dealt with by her. A distinction must be drawn between differences of treatment, gravity and reflections of discriminatory practices. There were a whole set of measures that had been taken that had been opposed by various forces, including the High Commissioner for Human Rights and various international and non-governmental organizations. It would be the weaker and poorer sections of society that did not have access to the justice system. Foreigners were also victims of this lack of access, as stressed by Ms. Zerrougui. Foreigners sometimes suffered due to the lack of bilateral agreements between countries. There was a need to protect vulnerable sections of society which often faced a lack of access to the justice systems.
TASUO SHIMABUKURO, of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said that every year, since 1997, the Association drew the attention of the Sub-Commission to the demands raised by the Japanese League Demanding State Compensation for the Victims of the Pubic Order Maintenance Law. There was a need for a serious discussion on the major questions facing Japan, including one of wartime comfort women, a crime committed by Japan, and the need for history education for the prevention of past mistakes. In its 15-year war of aggression in the Asia-Pacific region the Japanese imperial government committed all sorts of atrocities against the region's people. These atrocities included the Nanking massacres, experiments on living bodies by its germ warfare unit 731, the use of sex slaves called military comfort women and abuse of prisoners of war.
Every year since 1974, the Association had petitioned the parliament for State compensation with signatures collected in support of the demand. To date, the Government had persistently refused to accede to the demand on the grounds that this was a matter of the past. The Sub-Commission was asked to recommend that the Japanese Government earnestly address the issue; appoint Special Rapporteurs to investigate the question; and recommend that the Japanese Government ratify the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitation to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.
MAMADOU DJA, of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship Among Peoples, said administration of justice often did not occur at all; what did one do when courts did nothing, for example, as in Mauritania? Since independence, black Mauritanians had been heavily discriminated against; in 1986 thousands of black Mauritanians had been arrested and sentenced without the use of defense lawyers to 4 and 5 years in prison at hard labour for protesting racism in the Government. Some 120,000 had been deported to Senegal and Mali in 1989. These people were the survivors of a genocide orchestrated by the regime. Since then the south of the country, the "black" region, had been administered by an army in which there were no blacks. There had been thousands of assassinations and disappearances. There had also been torture.
Those who had committed these crimes enjoyed total impunity, including through an amnesty promulgated in 1993. Today the black population continued to suffer pronounced discrimination and to be deprived of jobs and land. More then 70 per cent of the population had suffered human rights violations. The Sub-Commission should give particular attention to the administration of justice in Mauritania, and the Movement would request that the Commission on Human Rights address the matter at its next session.
ELENA BONAVITA, of the Indian Movement-Tupaj Amaru, referred to the disappearances during the military dictatorship in Uruguay in the 1970s. Similar situations had been experienced throughout Latin America. In Uruguay, a Commission for Peace had been established to investigate disappearances in the country. The results had not been forthcoming since there was no way to force perpetrators of crimes to tell their secrets. So far, only 15 cases of disappearances had been solved. The military had not been willing to give any information, even with the promise of secrecy and impunity. The contradictory behaviour of the Government was a consequence of the practice of impunity.
The former foreign minister had been indicted for the disappearance of a school teacher. This case had taken several years to even bring to court due to supposed "lost documents". It was necessary to demand that judges took cases of disappearances into account. Political will was needed to allow the families of victims of disappearances to find peace.

Right of Reply on the Violation of Human Rights Anywhere in the World
A Representative of Morocco, speaking in right of reply under the agenda item on the violation of human rights anywhere in the world, said a non-governmental organization had made an erroneous presentation before the Sub-Commission. More than 1,000 Moroccan prisoners had been held for more than 25 years by the Polisario in flagrant violation of international law and despite appeals by the Security Council and the Secretary-General. It was unacceptable that these prisoners continued to be held. The international community was conscious of the situation. There were also others held in camps in Tindouf; they were separated from their families and their rights were also being violated. Rights to expression and assembly were being denied with impunity in the areas held by the Polisario.


CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/SC/02/7 of 5 August 2002, the statement by Philippe LeBlanc of Dominicans for Justice and Peace, on page 5 and 6, should read as follows:
PHILIPPE LEBLANC, of Dominicans for Justice, speaking on behalf of Franciscans International and Pax Christi International, raised the issue of the death penalty. A number of Dominican congregations in the United States had adopted a corporate stance advocating the abolition of the death penalty. The stance was based both on their commitment to proclaiming justice and on their experience as prison chaplains and their work with the families and friends of victims. In the United States, the Supreme Court recently issued some key rulings. One found that executing those with mental retardation was cruel and unusual punishment, and thus un-Constitutional. In another decision, the Supreme Court also found that the death penalty systems in states where a judge, and not a jury, assigned the death penalty, violated the Constitutional rights of those sentenced to death.
In calling for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide, the organization expressed its deep concern about the unjust and unequal application of the punishment. In countries where the death penalty continued to be enacted, it was more likely to be applied in a racist manner, and more likely to be applied to minorities and the under classes in general. Poor people, disabled people and young people were more often subjected to capital punishment. A case in point was the legal saga of Javier Suarez Medina, a young Mexican national scheduled for execution in Texas on August 14, 2002. After 13 years on death row, Mr. Medina had now exhausted all normal avenues of legal appeal and unless the courts or the Governor of Texas intervened, he faced death by lethal injection in 10 days despite mounting concerns over the reliability of his sentence. Dominicans for Justice and Peace, Franciscans International and Pax Christi International urged governments to seek alternatives to the death penalty; encouraged the Sub-Commission to undertake a comprehensive study on discrimination in the justice system; supported calls for the abolition of the death penalty; and requested the Sub-Commission to examine the case of Mr. Medina and to take action as appropriate before his execution.


* *** *