SUB-COMMISSION CONTINUES REVIEW OF SPECIFIC HUMAN RIGHTS;HEARS REPORT ON RESERVATIONS TO HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES

Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights
55th session
5 August 2003
Afternoon




Non-Governmental Organizations and States Address Issues
Concerning Terrorism, Small Arms, Contemporary Forms
of Slavery and Human Rights and Women



The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights continued this afternoon its consideration of specific human rights issues such as human rights and women; contemporary forms of slavery; and new priorities such as terrorism, and heard a presentation by Sub-Commission Expert Francoise Jane Hampson on reservations to human rights treaties.

Ms. Hampson presented her expanded woking paper on reservations to human rights treaties, saying that the starting point of any discussion on reservations was the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. There was no doubt that that was the regime applicable to reservations. It was necessary, however, to distinguish between the applicability of a regime and its actual application. It was clear that States could formulate a reservation, since human rights treaties generally did not prohibit it, but that was on the condition that the reservation was compatible with the objects and purposes of the treaty. Where a State formulated a reservation that was incompatible with the objects and purposes of a treaty, it was not capable of being accepted.

In a subsequent discussion, Sub-Commission Expert El Hadji raised concern about criticism of States making reservations, particularly concerning reservations made on the ground of religion. He stressed that such reservations must be respected since religion was often the very basis and framework of a country’s entire social and cultural existence. Sub-Commission Expert Miguel Alfonso Martinez stressed that when a reservation was entered in contradiction of the main principles of that particular treaty, it might be detrimental to the whole instrument. If the object of a treaty aimed at human rights protection, one could not make a reservation concerning its essence.

During the continued debate on specific human rights issues, several non-governmental organizations expressed their concerns about the human rights violations that terrorism represented, as well as the human rights violations observed in counter-terrorism measures undertaken since 11 September 2001. A representative of the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples said the lack of a specific and common definition of terrorism had led to anti-terrorist measures being formulated in a generic and deliberately ambiguous language to allow States to act on the basis of their political objectives. A representative of the Voluntary Action Network India said that defining terrorism with precision was not as important as actually understanding it. In responding to terrorism, the organization recommended that nation States refrained from supporting terrorism; respected human rights even under provocation; and strengthened internal mechanisms.

On small arms, a speaker representing the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities said that there had been thirty-four times more victims killed by governments in the twentieth century genocides than the number murdered in criminal acts with small arms. Firearms therefore allowed the weak to defend themselves from attacks by the strong. A representative of Human Rights Watch, on the other hand, said the uncontrolled proliferation and widespread misuse of small arms represented a global human rights and humanitarian crisis. It had been shown repeatedly that through irresponsible authorized arms transfers – and the flourishing grey market trade in weapons – small arms were readily supplied to gross human rights abusers in countries around the world.

Sub-Commission Experts Emmanuel Decaux, Kalliopi Koufa, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Asbjorn Eide, Antoanella-Iulia Motoc, Soli Jehangir Sorabjee, and Yozo Yokota also participated in the debate.

Representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, India and Bahrain, as well as a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, also addressed the Sub-Commission.

Exercising the right of reply was the representative of China.

Addressing the Sub-Commission this afternoon were representatives of non-governmental organizations, including: World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities; Human Rights Watch; International Commission of Jurists; World Union for Progressive Judaism; Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”; Voluntary Action Network India; International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples; International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations; Amnesty International; and International Human Rights Association of American Minorities.

The Sub-Commission will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. to conclude its discussion on specific human rights issues and begin its consideration of the administration of justice.

General Debate on Expanded Working Paper on Reservations to Human Rights Treaties

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, presented her expanded working paper on reservations to treaties, and said the starting point of any discussion on reservations was the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. There was no doubt that that was the regime applicable to reservations. It was necessary, however, to distinguish between the applicability of a regime and its actual application. It was clear that States could formulate a reservation, since human rights treaties generally did not prohibit it, but that was on the condition that the reservation was compatible with the objects and purposes of the treaty. Where a State formulated a reservation that was incompatible with the objects and purposes of a treaty, it was not capable of being accepted. The significance of such an analysis was that silence by a State party did not indicate acceptance of a reservation. It also meant that one of two consequences would follow. The State which formulated an incompatible reservation was either not a party to the treaty at all or it was a party without the benefit of the incompatible reservation, which was ineffective.

Where a reservation was compatible with the objects and purposes of a treaty, a State may still object to it on that ground, because a State was free to reject a reservation not expressly provided for in the treaty on any ground at all. In that event, however, the State had to comply with provisions with regard to the time limits for indicating its objection. There was some evidence of State practice in the field of humanitarian treaties that supported such an approach. The objecting States indicated that certain reservations had no effect. In other words, they in effect severed the invalid reservations. The report then turned to the reaction of high contracting parties. The practice of States with regard to reservations to human rights treaties was interesting and seemed to be significantly different from the practice with regard to other treaties. Over ninety-nine per cent of the objections referred directly to the incompatibility of the reservation with the objects and purposes of the treaty. The report further considered the reaction of the monitoring mechanisms as well as the effect of a decision of a monitoring body that a reservation was incompatible with the objects and purposes of a treaty. Finally, the report drew together the separate stages in the argument by way of conclusions and recommended that the expanded working paper be sent to all the treaty monitoring bodies and the International Law Commission.

EL HADJI GUISSE, Sub-Committee Expert, said that the Raporteur should be encouraged to continue her work on reservations. Certain doctrines had criticized some of the reservations of some States, particularly concerning reservations made on ground of religion. In some States, religion was the basis for the existence of the State. In his opinion, the reservations made on the ground of religion should be allowed. States were not asked to agree to all legal propositions but they should respect them. The whole question of reservations should be given a new thought. Pushing a State to withdraw the reservations made upon its ratification of a treaty might be an act of interfering in its internal affairs. The reservations were made in accordance with the domestic realities that the States were faced. If the reservations did not negate the principles of the international conventions to which the State was a party, it should be accepted.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, said the work of Francoise Jane Hampson was significant for the Sub-Commission, in particular in the relation between the Sub-Commission and the International Law Commission. Progress was the ultimate goal of the Sub-Commission and to ensure coherence in the international human rights field. These were substantive matters and the approach needed to stress that human rights were not a field like others since they were governed by the laws of reciprocity. There seemed to be a pyramid of treaties to which were added conventions and protocol. The Sub-Commission was in a dynamic phase and States must try to limit their reservations or lift their reservations. The dialogue between the Sub-Commission and the International Law Commission was very important, and it was essential to make sure that the Sub-Commission’s approach was heard.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Sub-Commission Expert, said that when a reservation was entered in contradiction of the main principles of that particular treaty, it might be detrimental to the whole instrument. Certain treaties aimed at the protection of human rights could not accept reservations concerning their essence. All international human rights instruments were equal and there was no ranking among them. A State could not determine the rank of treaties. With regard to reservations, States could decide on their reservations that were compatible with the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. The reservations made by States should not run counter to the main objectives of the treaties. The issue of reservations could not be seen as an isolated question. The sovereign capacity of States with regard to reservations should be seen vis-a-vis the United Nations stand.

KALLIOPI KOUFA, Sub-Commission Expert, said the working paper was interesting and provided important insights. It was important to ask who could decide on the incompatibility of reservations.

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Sub-Commission Expert, said he noticed that yet again the Sub-Commission was entering into a divide between the North and the South. If one looked at agrarian protectionism of the North against the people of the South, or at the situation of generic drugs, one could understand the problem. However, when referring to the United Nations system as representing the North only, it was going too far. In fact, the South had pioneered the Vienna Convention as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Without wanting to provoke a polemic on the issue, it was impossible to debate the question of reservations to treaties in terms of the North and the South.

ASBJORN EIDE, Sub-Commission Expert, said that human rights were universal and indivisible but the particularity of each State was taken into consideration in their application. Contrary to the assertion by a previous speaker, there was a hierarchy among treaties. No one argued that reservations were not permissible, but the question was about the circumstances in which they were made. What were the consequences of reservations if they were incompatible with the principle of the universality of human rights? The paper by Ms. Hampson was very interesting

ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC, Sub-Commission Expert, said international law seemed to be static but in fact it was evolving. The basis for international law still remained treaties between States; however there was a second level of laws of communities and societies which was emerging. Today one spoke of the lawfulness of the international order, something that had not been referred to previously. Concerning the Vienna Convention, the evolution of laws often became customary law given time and even in the face of resistance. There were other articles that were relevant to the work of the Sub-Commission concerning jus cogens, which was at the heart of the work on human rights. Human rights had a legal regime that was different from classical international law due to its reciprocal nature. The work of the Sub-Commission was evidence that laws were progressing in many ways. One example of such progression was developments to do with indigenous peoples. Francoise Jane Hampson’s paper showed this evolution. Dialogue was also becoming a norm for the work of the Sub-Commission.

SOLI JEHANGIR SORABJEE, Sub-Commission Expert, said that some reservations were permissible and some were not. But who should decide the compatibility or acceptance of the reservations by States parties to treaties? He asked for further information from the Rapporteur on who should decide on the issue of permissibility or acceptability of reservations by States.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Sub-Commission Expert, said that he had been clear when he had mentioned the existence of jus cogens norms in international law. Of course, at the top of the pyramid there was the United Nations Charter and other stand alone treaties, but aside from those specific treaties there was no hierarchy and no treaty could be ranked above another. If there were differences of approach, it was divided between the North and the South. This difference could be seen, and it could be seen often.

YOZO YOKOTA, Sub-Commission Expert, said that the need for the universality of human rights should be stressed concerning the human rights treaties. The Sub-Commission should encourage States to be parties to human rights treaties and not denounce them. The Rapporteur contradicted herself when she said that the treaty bodies monitoring international instruments should be able to decide on the compatibility of the objective purpose of the treaties, and at the same time she said that the observations and conclusions by treaty bodies had no strong backing by States.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said that she agreed with Mr. Martinez that there was only one reference in the Vienna Convention of a special category of treaties. A State may formulate a reservation unless the reservation was incompatible with the objects and purposes of the treaty. A State could ratify or not ratify a treaty, but could not make incompatible reservations. If a reservation that was valid affected the scope of the treaty, the treaty body must be competent to decide whether a reservation was valid or not. The treaty body must have jurisdiction to determine if a reservation was acceptable. That was part of what being a quasi-judicial body meant. If a reservation was valid, it was still up to a high contracting body to determine if it found the reservation valid. On whether one should refer to a State deciding to denounce a treaty, she stressed this must be done. More generally, this did not arise since the main activity of the treaty bodies was monitoring. Finally, with regard to Mr. El Hadji Guisse’s intervention, there was no objection to reservation based on religion, but the objection was the form in which these reservations were presented. It must be very clear what exactly the reservation was, as opposed to insisting on the entire treaty being viewed with national factors in mind.

Statements on Specific Human Rights Issues

DON KATES, of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, said that genocide had counted for some of the greatest atrocities in human history, and horrible crimes against humanity continued in the same form to this day. Thirty-four times more victims were killed by governments in the twentieth century genocides than were murdered in criminal acts during the same period. History proved that genocide rarely succeeded against an armed population, and in fact was seldom attempted. In many cases, acts of genocide were accomplished by military and quasi-military branches of governments, using the very firearms they denied their people from possessing. Firearms allowed the weak to defeat an attack by the strong.

RAHEEK RINAWI, of Human Rights Watch, said the uncontrolled proliferation and widespread misuse of small arms represented a global human rights and humanitarian crisis. The global proliferation of small arms – including weapons such as pistols, assault rifles, and grenade launchers – raised serious human rights concerns. It had been shown repeatedly that, through both irresponsible authorized arms transfers and the flourishing grey market trade in weapons, small arms were readily supplied to gross human rights abusers in countries around the world, including in areas of violent conflict and in violation of international arms embargoes. Governments were responsible for controlling international arms transfers to prevent them from getting into the wrong hands. They must also act responsibly with respect to the internal circulation of weapons. Governments must fulfill existing government responsibilities to comply with international humanitarian and human rights law, and they must ensure that police and armed forces strictly upheld international standards. They must ensure that adequate laws were in place to punish the misuse of small arms by private actors, and that these were effectively implemented and enforced. Finally, they must close legal loopholes and strengthen lax controls that allowed grey market trade in weapons to thrive and they must hold arms traffickers accountable.

HASSIBA HADJ SAHRAOUI, of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), said that a number of counter-terrorism measures adopted by certain States, both prior and subsequent to the events of 11 September, had had a profoundly adverse impact on the enjoyment of human rights. A substantial number of rights were implicated, including arbitrary detention, torture and other ill treatment, right to a fair trial, and discrimination on the basis of religion, ethnicity or national origin. The continued presence of more than 600 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, who for over one year had not seen a judge, lawyer or family member and who in effect had been stripped of all legal personality, served as a constant reminder of the ongoing urgency of the problem. The ICJ fully recognized that every State had both the right and duty under international law to take measures to combat terrorism. However, as the General Assembly resolution of 4 December 2002 made clear, States were no less enjoined to “ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law”.

DAVID LITTMAN, of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, raised issues related to female genital mutilation and highlighted part of Halima Embarek Warzazi’s report which said that in the year 2000 there was a 97 per cent female genital mutilation number in Egypt. It was a fact that even today most parents in that country would more readily follow existing Al-Azhar Sunni fatwas than a very vague State law. The Union also asked whether there were statistics for those roughly 30 countries concerned, both in the Arab world, and elsewhere in Africa, and whether the overall figure had declined from about two million cases per year of this ghastly female torture. Concerning the Special Rapporteur on this subject, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy had provided a pertinent analysis of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism was often claimed by many countries, but the hideous practices against females that were carried out in the name of religion or belief must be proscribed by spiritual and secular leaders as unacceptable. Concerning the issue of contemporary slavery, the Union welcomed the announcement ending the 20-year old civil war in the Sudan in which two million were killed and nearly five million displaced. However, slavery remained a taboo subject in northern Sudan. Yet, those referred to as “abductees” were in fact “slaves”. Turning to terrorism, the Union appealed to the Sub-Commission to adopt a clear resolution condemning the great infamy, epitomized by the acclaimed “jihadist-martyrdom bomber”. The current obfuscation on their true significance implicitly condoned a gathering plague of religious, not political terror.

LAZARO PARY, of the Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, said that the indigenous peoples were conscious of the significance of terrorism, violence and racial discrimination. Since the conquest of their land and ancestral heritage, the indigenous people had been victims of colonial terror and of the subsequent oppression of military dictatorships, which practised torture and disappearances in the name of “national security”. Since they were victims themselves, indigenous peoples condemned all forms of terrorism and deplored the violence and terror perpetrated against people. As admitted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, rebellion was a legitimate means against tyranny. Colonialism was responsible for usurping international peace and security. The United States and its unconditional ally, the United Kingdom, and the alliances of the Old Continent, through their crusade against terrorism, subjected people to domination. State terrorism was the most universal scourge that affected people and that confronted civilization. The West should give a thought to its policy of subjugation that was still practised today.

NARENDER KUMAR , of the Voluntary Action Network India, said although there were more than 100 definitions of terrorism, none had been accepted universally. However, defining terrorism with precision and universality was not as important as actually understanding it. As had been said time and again, democracy and human rights were indivisible and interdependent, and on the other side, terrorism was the antithesis to the concept of a democratic society. Terrorists used acts and methods to coerce others from a free choice and full participation in the political process. The boycott of free and fair elections, held in full view of the international media and other organizations, in Jammu and Kashmir by so called aspirants of self-determination amply proved that by seeking to achieve their goals through violence, terrorists revealed their unwillingness to subject their views to the test of a fair and democratic political process. In responding to terrorism, the nation State must refrain from supporting terrorism; respect human rights even under provocation; and strengthen internal mechanisms through an independent judiciary, effective national institutions, and a vibrant and alert civil society.

ELENA SANTIEMMA, of the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said that her group considered that there was a general consensus in accepting the 11 September events as a turning point in the position of the States facing the phenomenon considered generally as “terrorism”. It was commonly accepted that based on these events, States had been able to exploit anti-terrorist rhetoric to implement measures radically in opposition to the respect and enjoyment of the individual or political or collective rights. The lack of a specific and common definition of terrorism meant that the application of the anti-terrorism measures had been extended to categories that, according to international legislation, could not be considered as terrorism. National liberation movements and insurgent groups, recognized as belligerent parties by the Geneva Conventions, would be considered terrorists. The new anti-terrorist measures adopted in several cases had been formulated in a generic and deliberately ambiguous language to allow that, on the basis of the political priorities of the States, those measures could be used to silence opposition groups that dissented from the “mainstream thought”. Instead of defining a “terrorist organization”, it was preferred to define what was “terrorist activity”.

JAN LONN, of the International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, said the entire system of international law was now faced with the greatest challenges ever since the inception of the United Nations. While the unilateral undermining of and assault on the core principles of international law were already underway, the events of 11 September and the battle against terrorism were used as a pretext for a rejection of norms and standards which had long been accepted as binding norms of international conduct. Human rights had been suffering worldwide as a result of this. The world’s major military power had declared that when its interests were at stake, neither the Charter of the United Nations, nor any other treaties, norms and standards of international law could hinder its actions. The Sub-Commission had on several occasions raised its voice and adopted resolutions reflecting its concern over the current developments, reflecting its role of integrity and independence in the United Nations human rights system. The Sub-Commission was encouraged to adopt, once again, positions and pronounce itself clearly on peoples’ right to peace, non-use of force, the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination, the duty to observe humanitarian norms and human rights under war and occupation, and the need for all United Nations Member States to maintain integrity in this respect.

MELINDA CHING, of Amnesty International, said that States were not acting with sufficient urgency to control arms. The Group of Eight governments were the world’s biggest arms suppliers and therefore had the greatest responsibility to control the global trade. Amnesty International welcomed the intention of the Special Rapporteur on the prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons to examine further the consequences of those violations as well as addressing other categories raised in her working paper. Following the United Nations Biennial Conference in July 2003 on the implementation of the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons, it was clear that more needed to be done to prevent the violation of human rights with such arms. The deaths of more than three million people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo had been characterized by illegal killings, torture and rape of civilians by forces on all side, mostly through the misuse of small arms and light weapons.

ALTAF HUSSAIN QADRI, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said women were not only the most important component of any society but were also the most vulnerable one. They were often subjected to gross injustices and were frequently the targets of human rights violations. This situation worsened in cases of armed conflict and illegal occupation by a foreign army such as in Indian-held Kashmir. The abduction of school girls and the molestation and rape of girls and women aged between 7 and 70 years of age had been reported in the occupied territories. The absence of any international monitoring mechanism and the international media from the occupied territories encouraged the impunity of the agents of the occupying power. The international debate and progress on defining terrorism had been blocked by the countries such as India, which wished to lump everything, including the legitimate right of self-defense, under the rubrics of terrorism. A key issue to be examined in the context of terrorism was the need to address the root causes of this scourge. To eradicate terrorism, it was necessary to eradicate poverty, oppression, tyranny, occupation, defiance of international legality and flouting of international law. In addition, any debate on terrorism would remain incomprehensive without addressing State terrorism. One must not allow the occupying powers to justify the genocide of innocent civilians as fighting terrorism. Kashmiris were victims of State terrorism and sought international protection.

CHRISTOPH BIERWIRTH, of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said that his organization acknowledged the multifaceted linkages between refugee issues and human rights. Violations of human rights constituted one of the main root causes or refugee flows. The work of the UN human rights machinery, and in particular the fact-finding and analytical efforts of the Special Rapporteurs and the treaty-monitoring bodies, offered an invaluable opportunity to collect precise and reliable country of origin information, required to properly establish international protection needs. Refugee experience, in all its stages, was closely linked to the degree of respect by States for human rights and fundamental freedoms. UNHCR acknowledged the important role of the Sub-Commission in further developing and clarifying human rights standards as they related to the treatment of non-citizens, which obviously included refugees, asylum-seekers and other persons of concern to UNHCR.

As regards the threat stemming from international terrorism, the 1951 Convention and the 1961 Protocol in no way restricted or prevented action against persons engaged in such acts, and explicitly provided possibilities for exclusion of those not deserving international protection. UNHCR was, however, concerned about an increasingly restrictive and negative environment towards refugees in the context of the overall debate on anti-terrorism measures. Further, UNHCR expressed strong support for the Sub-Commission’s efforts to carefully and systematically examine the issue of citizenship in cases of State succession. Dissolution of States constituted indeed one of the main challenges for the prevention and reduction of statelessness, an issue which fell under UNHCR's mandate.

KIM YONG HO (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said sexual slavery and slavery-like practices during armed conflicts constituted a war crime and a crime against humanity, which gave rise to the condemnation of the international community as the most flagrant violation of women’s rights. Certain international legal norms had been established with regard to such situations; yet, the practical measures to punish the serious violations of women’s rights and to prevent the recurrence of such violations had not reached the desired level compared to the wish and demands of the victims. The situation had not been settled completely due to the double-faced and impudent behaviour of the offenders of such acts who stubbornly denied legal responsibility while recognizing the truth of the crime itself. The victims’ demands were quite clear. Victims wanted to restore their dignity and honour and the first step in this regard lay in the sincere acknowledgement of the legal responsibility on the part of the offenders. The offender must acknowledge the legal responsibility, disclose the whole truth of the crimes, make a sincere formal apology and provide compensation.

SUGEESHWARA GUNARATNA (Sri Lanka) said that his country was deeply concerned about the illegal manufacture and circulation of small arms and light weapons and their uncontrolled and illegal spread and misuse world over. It was apparent that most of the excesses and violations of human rights and humanitarian law, as a result of that phenomenon, took place due to the illegal traffic and use of small arms and light weapons. While congratulating Barbara Frey for her report, he said that the report had identified that violations of human rights could occur due to misuse of small arms by both State and non-state actors. The report had focused on the important aspect of State responsibility when there was misuse of small arms by agents of the State and on instances where the State failed to exercise due diligence for actions by individuals and groups acting in their private capacity. It could be agreed that a certain degree of responsibility could be attributed to States for allowing such illegal misuse. However, in some instances, with regard to actions by non-state actors, the delegation was of the view that in a vast majority of cases that beget human rights violations by illegal misuse of small arms and light weapons, the concept of due diligence was not applicable.

PANKAJ SARAN (India) said the Special Rapporteur on terrorism had not shed adequate light on her core mandate, which was the impact of terrorism rather than counter-terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights. It bore repetition that the phenomenon of terrorism posed one of the most serious threats to human rights. The fight against terrorism was not an academic issue for those innocent men, women and children who had suffered and continued to suffer untold misery and pain. Terrorist acts violated the most fundamental right of all, the right to life, and also impinged upon all other human rights including the right to freedom of opinion and expression. A comprehensive study on the impact of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights was long overdue. The debate on terrorism and its impact on human rights had remained inconclusive not only because of conceptual inadequacies but also because of misleading propaganda of State and non-state actors who sought to conceal their self-serving violent agenda behind lofty principles such as self-determination and freedom-struggle. Ironically, these principles were usually invoked by State sponsors of terrorism who hoped to create confusion – thereby deflected attention from their own actions by raising the bogey of “state terrorism”.

ALI AL-ARADI (Bahrain) said that women did not receive all the credit they deserved in societies where they participated actively. Women in his country, however, had attained the highest level of development, thanks to the system that allowed the enjoyment of their rights. Through the effective political participation of women, Bahraini women had been holding higher posts, including serving in the National Council. They were capable of exercising their civil and political rights through their participation in elections. At present, women held 35 per cent of all occupations in public and private sectors. The structural change that was undertaken by the Government had allowed women to enjoy not only their full rights but also encouraged women to effectively participate in building the society together with their male counterparts. Despite all the efforts made by the Government in promoting and protecting the rights of women, the Government still had to continue to take measures to ensure that the rights of women were fully enjoyed.

Right of Reply

A representative of China, speaking in a right of reply in reference to allegations made by some non-governmental organizations, said that the Falun Gong was a sect and many of the practitioners were women. What the Government was doing was to re-educate the members to allow them to lead normal lives. Criminal activities had been committed under the cover of that sect. The judicial authorities were dealing with the cases involving Falun Gong.




CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/SC/03/10 of 5 August 2003, the statement by the representative of Bahrain on the last page should read as follows:
ALI AL-ARADI (Bahrain) said that women did not receive all the credit they deserved in societies where they participated actively. Women in his country, however, had attained the highest level of development, thanks to the system that allowed the enjoyment of their rights. Through the effective political participation of women, Bahraini women had been holding higher posts, including serving in the National Council. They were capable of exercising their civil and political rights through their participation in elections. At present, women held 35 per cent of all occupations in public and private sectors. The structural change that was undertaken by the Government had allowed women to enjoy not only their full rights but also encouraged women to effectively participate in building the society together with their male counterparts. Despite all the efforts made by the Government in promoting and protecting the rights of women, the Government still had to continue to take measures to ensure that the rights of women were fully enjoyed.

* *** *