Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases CHR subsidiary body
SUB-COMMISSION DEBATES WORKING PAPERS ON ITS METHODS OF WORK
26 July 2005
Share
Sub-Commission on the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights
26 July 2005
The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this afternoon discussed two working papers on the work of the Sub-Commission under agenda item 2 on the violation of human rights in all countries by its Expert Francoise Hampson, and on the methods of work of the Sub-Commission relating to the choice of subject and the preparation of reports by its Expert Emmanuel Decaux.
Ms. Hampson, who presented her working paper yesterday, said the Sub-Commission needed agenda item 2 for two reasons: non-governmental organizations needed a vehicle to let off steam and it was the best way in which the Sub-Commission could receive information on special situations and new issues. On the issue of the future of the body, she said if the Sub-Commission was to show that it had any role to play in a reformed United Nations, it had to show that it was able to carry out this reform. To be worthy of continued existence, the Sub-Commission needed to show that it could make these changes
Mr. Decaux, in presenting his working paper, said the setting up of an informal working group, which would be open to all, would be a positive step to establish a veritable programme of work of the Sub-Commission. Most of the time the issue of studies was taken up without any previous thought, and without taking into consideration the issues which should be given priority. He also noted that the Sub-Commission should carry out radical reforms with regard to its system of dealing with human rights.
A number of Experts commented on the two working papers, as did representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, Pax Romana, World Peace Council, International Commission of Jurists, American Association of Jurists, and International Humanist and Ethical Union (in a joint statement with Association for World Education and Association of World Citizens).
At the end of the meeting, the Sub-Commission opened its debate on item 2 on the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation, in all countries, with particular reference to colonial and other dependent countries and territories. It heard a joint statement by the Association for World Education.
When the Sub-Commission meets at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 27 July, it will continue with its general debate on agenda item 2.
Documents on Organization of Work of the Sub-Commission
Under its agenda item on the organization of work of the Sub-Commission, Francoise Hampson presents a working paper (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/4) on the work of the Sub-Commission under agenda item 2 concerning the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all countries. The working paper examines the role and importance of agenda item 2 and considers the various ways of improving the effectiveness of the work of the members of the Sub-Commission and non-governmental organizations. It says agenda item 2 enables the Sub-Commission to examine situations that the Commission itself, for whatever reason, cannot address. The greater freedom of action of the Sub-Commission carries with it great responsibilities. Agenda item 2 enables the Sub-Commission to address a situation as a whole, which is particularly useful in the case where a crisis develops very suddenly. Agenda item 2 also enables the Sub-Commission to address situations that arise between the end of the annual session of the Commission and the middle of August, and is the only forum for such a discussion until the beginning of the annual session of the General Assembly. Among the suggestions the working paper presents to improve the deliberations on agenda item 2 is the adoption of guidelines to seek to ensure even-handedness in the countries or regions addressed by members of the Sub-Commission.
The Sub-Commission has before it a working paper prepared by Emmanuel Decaux (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/5) on the methods of work of the Sub-Commission relating to the choice of subject and the preparation of reports in which he indicates that it is up to the Sub-Commission to decide to set up a Working Group to deal with the issue. The working paper notes that the Sub-Commission often decides on the themes to be debated without putting them in a general context. Such flexibility is inconvenient and it creates obstacles to long-term planning. It is essential to set up a Working Group within the Sub-Commission to study its programme of work. Concerning the choice of subjects of studies, the working paper says that in order to better determine the priorities of the Sub-Commission, all working papers should be evaluated in a collegial manner.
Statements Discussing Working Papers on Work of Sub-Commission Under Agenda Item 2 on Violation of Human Rights in All Countries, and on Methods of Work of Sub-Commission's Choice of Subjects and Preparation of Reports
CHIN-SUNG CHUNG, Sub-Commission Expert, said the working paper by Francoise Hampson on the work of the Sub-Commission under agenda item 2 had summarized correctly last year's deliberations, and it had timely taken into account the prevailing debate on the role of the United Nations. The working paper by Ms. Hampson was the only independent working paper of its kind. Referring to paragraph 17 of the working paper on how members reinforced their independence by not referring to their own countries, Ms. Chung said that for genuine independence, members should not mind discussing violations of human rights in their own countries. The Commission should look into the peer review mechanism. It would be useful to follow up with an extended working paper on this subject.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, said the working paper was the result of an open discussion, which included a very broad consultation with non-governmental organizations. If consensus was not reached, there would be more in-depth study. It was now time to move on to the next phase thanks to the good work of Ms. Hampson. Item 2 remained a priority, and was like the doorway to the work of the Sub-Commission. It was as important to listen as it was to speak. It should be a true dialogue. The work should leave some trace behind it to be fully useful. The working paper also gave an opportunity to detect sustained violations. More transparency was necessary. Work could be done to make the work of the Sub-Commission more readable. Only if the Sub-Commission spoke with a single voice would it have any choice of being heard.
DZIDEK KEDZIA, Representative of the High Commissioner, said the Plan of Action prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner was an official plan of the Office, which had already been put on the Office’s website. The Secretary-General in his agenda for reform had requested the High Commissioner to prepare the Plan, which she did. The goal was to close gaps between the actions and the realities on the ground with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights. The international community was expected to do much in enhancing international security. The Office had developed the Plan in accordance to the mandate given to it by the General Assembly.
The Plan of Action of the Office also sought to empower the right-holder and to assist individuals to effectively enjoy their rights. The presence of the Office in many countries had helped them in their efforts to promote human rights. The Office was mandated as a leading human rights organization to promote human rights in partnership with other bodies. The Office was now in the first phase of implementing the Plan of Action. In order to give full effect to the Plan of Action, the participation and the support of all bodies was essential.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Sub-Commission Expert, said when non-governmental organizations addressed the issues raised in the working papers by Mr. Decaux and Ms. Hampson, they should be careful to mention specific cases so that Experts would fully understand the situation
SHIQIU CHEN, Sub-Commission Expert, said he had failed to find the document on the website, but he congratulated the Expert for the efforts to produce this working paper. It gave an opportunity to discuss the decisions by the Sub-Commission. The last suggestion had thoughtful ideas, but its legal basis and its feasibility should be considered further as it could be hard to put into practice and action. A member should be chosen to report at a following session. There is a possible danger that the Sub-Commission would go beyond its mandate, he said. Members were told to report on human right emergencies. It is not very operable. Even the present High Commissioner could put forward an overall situation report. It was hard to imagine any member who could take up such a difficult task.
Commenting on the tenth paragraph, he said this would lead to going beyond their mandate and also they might take measures too much in a hurry. He believed that it was necessary to put a question mark on the legal basis of the issues mentioned.
PENNY PARKER, of Minnesota Human Rights Advocates, said the Chairperson’s statement on certain human rights issues should be sent to the Commission on Human Rights. Retroactive evaluation should be done under agenda item 2 so that the situation could be clarified.
DAVID RIVKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said large terrorist attacks had caused severe suffering in New York, Bali, Madrid, London, and more recently in Egypt. There was a fairly unique situation in the twenty-first century where private entities were violating human rights through terrorism. More had to be done to register the condemnation of the Sub-Commission and to acknowledge the threat caused by terrorism, and particularly to emphasize that no cause, no matter how just, could justify these actions. The Sub-Commission should at least condemn countries that supported terrorists, he said.
ABDUL SATTAR, Sub-Commission Expert, said that because of the current restrictions, the Sub-Commission was hampered and could not discuss certain issues. However, it should continue to discuss the situation of human rights in countries that were not dealt with by the Commission on Human Rights.
JANIO IVAN TUNON VEILLES, Sub-Commission Expert, said the working paper presented by Ms. Hampson had noted that Experts should not make reference to their own countries. However, the States nominated the Experts, although they acted independently. He asked why reference was made in the working paper to stop Experts from discussing the situation in their respective countries. He wanted more clarification on this issue.
ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC, Sub-Commission Expert, said the issue of terrorism should be discussed intensively, including by non-governmental organizations. Other issues pertaining to the working papers presented by Ms. Hampson and Mr. Decaux were also be should given some thought.
YOZO YOKOTA, Sub-Commission Expert, asked about the status of those countries which were discussed by the Commission under its 1503 procedure so that the Sub-Commission did not disclose certain aspects that were debated in closed session.
FRANCOISE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said that nothing in the working paper contradicted the mandate of the Members of the Sub-Commission. The Commission had told the Sub-Commission that they were required to deal with any urgent situation. If the basis of their concern was urgency, they must have some means to communicate that urgency to the Commission. There could be no doubt that the Sub-Commission had the mandate of the Commission to handle issues of emergency. It was not the Sub-Commission that was saying this, it was the Commission. On the point made by Mr. Salama, if the Sub-Commission was to show that it had any role to play in a reformed United Nations, it had to show that it was able to carry out this reform. To be worthy of continued existence, the Sub-commission needed to show that it could make these changes. Agenda item 2 was needed for two reasons; non-governmental organizations needed a vehicle to let off steam and it was the best way in which they could receive information on special situations and new issues. This made the Sub-Commission different.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Sub-Commission Expert, said he agreed with Ms. Hampson on the need to identify gaps as indicated in the paper. The Sub-Commission could do much relevant work in identifying gaps in standards. Experts could also describe and identify issues while drafting standards.
SHIQIU CHEN, Sub-Commission Expert, said with regard to item 2, it was suggested that summary records should be attached to it, but a similar request was not made on the other items. The working paper said that the summary records to be attached should not exceed 30 pages. He doubted the effectiveness of such a suggestion.
DAVID RIVKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said that with regard to legislation against terrorism, one should condemn the situation if such legislation was aimed at suppressing fundamental freedoms and banning political parties while aiming to prevent terrorism.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Sub-Commission Expert, said he would raise some questions on the point raised by Mr. Rivkin at a later stage.
FRANCOISE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said she wished to comment on Mr. Salama’s point that between the annual sessions of the Commission, there could be an acute crisis in which it was appropriate to express an urgent concern. She gave the example of the two bombings in East Africa, which had taken place during the Sub-Commission's session some years ago, and said it had been right to address them. It was useful to have a separate section on counter-terrorism, especially when States used counter-terrorism as a pretext. The key focus when looking at terrorism was the obligation of States to protect their citizens from criminal acts, including terrorist acts.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, introducing his working paper (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/5) on the methods of work of the Sub-Commission relating to the choice of subject and the preparation of reports, said the goal of the study was not to seek solutions to all situations but to offer a clue for discussion. In order to do that, the Sub-Commission last year had reflected in its work on the suggestion made by Ms. Motoc. The suggestion was to make permanent inquiries, to make periodic evaluations and to give vitality to the institution. The Sub-Commission should carry out radical reforms with regard to its system of dealing with human rights. It should think about its methods of work, and not only to think about the short-term. The suggestion made by Mr. Paulo Pinheiro on the need for a scientific balance in the work of the Sub-Commission was pertinent. The setting up of an informal working group, which would be open to all, would be a positive step to establish a veritable programme of work of the Sub-Commission. Most of the time the issue of studies was taken up without any previous thought, and without taking into consideration the issues which should be given priority.
R. RAJKUMAR, of Pax Romana, said non-governmental organizations (NGOs) supported the ideas in Mr. Decaux’s working paper, particularly efforts to improve the long term perspective of selecting and updating studies, more and better interaction with the treaty bodies, and the opportunities for NGO involvement. NGOs would like early and full access to studies and working papers, in order to be in the best possible position to read and comment on them. He hoped that NGOs would be included in this early distribution.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Sub-Commission Expert, said the performance, the role and the efficiency of the Sub-Commission depended on the research strategy. In the discussion with the members of the Expanded Bureau of the Commission on Human Rights, it had been clear that they had not given thought to this point. If they were to agree, the starting point ought to have been the papers introduced by Mr. Decaux and Ms. Hampson. There was a need to have a strategy on which issues should be conducted. There was a need for a feasibility assessment on whether the Members of the Sub-Commission would be able to take on all these studies. If not, the result would be excellent studies that they would not have time to read. He wondered how the experts and the expertise of our experts should be selected. Studies had to be put on the website in order to get comments from colleagues. It would save time in the Sub-Commission to get collective reflections.
GUDMUNDUR ALFREDSSON, Sub-Commission Expert, drew attention to the paper, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004\46. The Sub-Commission could usefully comment on this old document, he said.
ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC, Sub-Commission Expert, said the paper by Mr. Decaux had shown that the Sub-Commission had done a good job. The question was how to give continuality to the work. It would be the right thing to establish a mechanism of follow-up to the Sub-Commission’s resolutions and decisions. The Experts would like to see how their decisions were implemented.
FRANCOISE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said the Sub-Commission had been successful in organizing its work. With regard to the preparation of working papers, it should be known that they were not documents that provided all the necessary information. She suggested that draft reports could be put on websites before the Sub-Commission started its session. The current practice of the Secretariat to advance unedited copies of the working papers was useful. In the light of the past studies, prioritising of certain issues should be made. It was also a possibility to inject flexibility in assistance to studies. Practical remedies should be found to fund studies.
LAZARO PARY, of World Council for Peace, said that terrorism was a topical issue. Indigenous people had always combated terrorism, because they had been victims of colonialism and State terrorism. The World Council for Peace was against terrorism, and condemned the State terrorism that indigenous people had been subjected to by dictatorships in their countries. The debate on terrorism and reform should be taken separately, he said.
MOHAMED HABIB CHERIF, Sub-Commission Expert, said the Sub-Commission was implementing its decisions and the Experts were doing their work by providing studies and papers. Further efforts should also be made to promote human rights.
DAVID RIVKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said he was willing to do a separate study and present a paper on terrorism under item 2.
CORDULA DROEGE, of International Commission of Jurists, said in the discussions about the reform of the United Nations human rights system, the future of the Sub-Commission had received little attention. The International Commission of Jurists was convinced that an independent, expert and collegial body like the Sub-Commission played an important role in international human rights standard-setting, although the present Sub-Commission might be reconceived as a Sub-Committee of a new Human Rights Council. The Sub-Commission was often referred to as the Commission's "think tank". However, the Sub-Commission would only be able to fulfil its role as an expert body if it was reformed. In this regard, the organization welcomed the frank and constructive report by Mr. Decaux and hoped that it would generate an open discussion. One of the main weaknesses of the Sub-Commission was the deficiency in the level of expertise and independence of a number of its members. Certain criteria should therefore be respected to independence and high quality of expertise.
ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC, Sub-Commission Expert, said she supported the suggestion from Mr. Rivkin to have a working paper on terrorism as a separate issue under item 2.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, said there was a need for both a long-term perspective and a short-term country perspective. Mr. Salama had suggested that this paper should have recommended concrete action, maybe a formal working group could take this further. There was a need for a medium term perspective as well. There was room for evaluation, not only by the Secretariat but also collectively, on the feasibility of a study. Mr. Sattar had referred to imbalances in the topics. Ms. Hampson had suggested to distinguish more clearly between the short papers that could contain conclusions and the papers that could lead to more work. There could be a ceiling of 13 papers. On the question of expert researchers, Mr. Salama had pointed out some important issues. If Members had too much work, they may have to drop some to be able to work in the best possible way, Mr Decaux said. Mr. Rivkin had turned to the need to integrate new members. The need to involve the non-governmental organizations to a greater extent was clear. Ms. Motoc had made an important comment, saying that the Sub-Commission was not working in a vacuum or for something to be put in a file. The Sub-Commission Members were not doing research just for the sake of doing research.
DAVID RIVKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said he supported the paper presented by Mr. Decaux, although it was written in French and had not been translated in English. Also, Experts should not be robbed of the opportunity to discuss matters pertaining to their own countries.
Debate on Question of Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in all Countries
DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, in a joint statement, said it was appropriate during the discussion on item 2 to speak out against the radical ideology of Jihad that included calls for killing and terrorism in the name of God. On 18 July a fatwa was issued by the British Muslim Forum, approved by 500 United Kingdom Muslim clerics, scholars and imams. It had been argued that those who issued fatwas to kill innocent people in the name of Islam were not real Muslims. Bur just before the London massacres, a major conference of 170 Muslim scholars from 40 countries meeting in Amman had given an opinion in a final communiqué. It was not possible to declare these people apostates, they were Muslims. The most essential and basic human right was the right to life. Several non-governmental organizations had appealed to both the Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-Commission to condemn calls or references to God in order to justify any form of violence or hatred, and the use of any appeal to religion to kill civilians.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
and Protection of Human Rights
26 July 2005
The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this afternoon discussed two working papers on the work of the Sub-Commission under agenda item 2 on the violation of human rights in all countries by its Expert Francoise Hampson, and on the methods of work of the Sub-Commission relating to the choice of subject and the preparation of reports by its Expert Emmanuel Decaux.
Ms. Hampson, who presented her working paper yesterday, said the Sub-Commission needed agenda item 2 for two reasons: non-governmental organizations needed a vehicle to let off steam and it was the best way in which the Sub-Commission could receive information on special situations and new issues. On the issue of the future of the body, she said if the Sub-Commission was to show that it had any role to play in a reformed United Nations, it had to show that it was able to carry out this reform. To be worthy of continued existence, the Sub-Commission needed to show that it could make these changes
Mr. Decaux, in presenting his working paper, said the setting up of an informal working group, which would be open to all, would be a positive step to establish a veritable programme of work of the Sub-Commission. Most of the time the issue of studies was taken up without any previous thought, and without taking into consideration the issues which should be given priority. He also noted that the Sub-Commission should carry out radical reforms with regard to its system of dealing with human rights.
A number of Experts commented on the two working papers, as did representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, Pax Romana, World Peace Council, International Commission of Jurists, American Association of Jurists, and International Humanist and Ethical Union (in a joint statement with Association for World Education and Association of World Citizens).
At the end of the meeting, the Sub-Commission opened its debate on item 2 on the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation, in all countries, with particular reference to colonial and other dependent countries and territories. It heard a joint statement by the Association for World Education.
When the Sub-Commission meets at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 27 July, it will continue with its general debate on agenda item 2.
Documents on Organization of Work of the Sub-Commission
Under its agenda item on the organization of work of the Sub-Commission, Francoise Hampson presents a working paper (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/4) on the work of the Sub-Commission under agenda item 2 concerning the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all countries. The working paper examines the role and importance of agenda item 2 and considers the various ways of improving the effectiveness of the work of the members of the Sub-Commission and non-governmental organizations. It says agenda item 2 enables the Sub-Commission to examine situations that the Commission itself, for whatever reason, cannot address. The greater freedom of action of the Sub-Commission carries with it great responsibilities. Agenda item 2 enables the Sub-Commission to address a situation as a whole, which is particularly useful in the case where a crisis develops very suddenly. Agenda item 2 also enables the Sub-Commission to address situations that arise between the end of the annual session of the Commission and the middle of August, and is the only forum for such a discussion until the beginning of the annual session of the General Assembly. Among the suggestions the working paper presents to improve the deliberations on agenda item 2 is the adoption of guidelines to seek to ensure even-handedness in the countries or regions addressed by members of the Sub-Commission.
The Sub-Commission has before it a working paper prepared by Emmanuel Decaux (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/5) on the methods of work of the Sub-Commission relating to the choice of subject and the preparation of reports in which he indicates that it is up to the Sub-Commission to decide to set up a Working Group to deal with the issue. The working paper notes that the Sub-Commission often decides on the themes to be debated without putting them in a general context. Such flexibility is inconvenient and it creates obstacles to long-term planning. It is essential to set up a Working Group within the Sub-Commission to study its programme of work. Concerning the choice of subjects of studies, the working paper says that in order to better determine the priorities of the Sub-Commission, all working papers should be evaluated in a collegial manner.
Statements Discussing Working Papers on Work of Sub-Commission Under Agenda Item 2 on Violation of Human Rights in All Countries, and on Methods of Work of Sub-Commission's Choice of Subjects and Preparation of Reports
CHIN-SUNG CHUNG, Sub-Commission Expert, said the working paper by Francoise Hampson on the work of the Sub-Commission under agenda item 2 had summarized correctly last year's deliberations, and it had timely taken into account the prevailing debate on the role of the United Nations. The working paper by Ms. Hampson was the only independent working paper of its kind. Referring to paragraph 17 of the working paper on how members reinforced their independence by not referring to their own countries, Ms. Chung said that for genuine independence, members should not mind discussing violations of human rights in their own countries. The Commission should look into the peer review mechanism. It would be useful to follow up with an extended working paper on this subject.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, said the working paper was the result of an open discussion, which included a very broad consultation with non-governmental organizations. If consensus was not reached, there would be more in-depth study. It was now time to move on to the next phase thanks to the good work of Ms. Hampson. Item 2 remained a priority, and was like the doorway to the work of the Sub-Commission. It was as important to listen as it was to speak. It should be a true dialogue. The work should leave some trace behind it to be fully useful. The working paper also gave an opportunity to detect sustained violations. More transparency was necessary. Work could be done to make the work of the Sub-Commission more readable. Only if the Sub-Commission spoke with a single voice would it have any choice of being heard.
DZIDEK KEDZIA, Representative of the High Commissioner, said the Plan of Action prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner was an official plan of the Office, which had already been put on the Office’s website. The Secretary-General in his agenda for reform had requested the High Commissioner to prepare the Plan, which she did. The goal was to close gaps between the actions and the realities on the ground with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights. The international community was expected to do much in enhancing international security. The Office had developed the Plan in accordance to the mandate given to it by the General Assembly.
The Plan of Action of the Office also sought to empower the right-holder and to assist individuals to effectively enjoy their rights. The presence of the Office in many countries had helped them in their efforts to promote human rights. The Office was mandated as a leading human rights organization to promote human rights in partnership with other bodies. The Office was now in the first phase of implementing the Plan of Action. In order to give full effect to the Plan of Action, the participation and the support of all bodies was essential.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Sub-Commission Expert, said when non-governmental organizations addressed the issues raised in the working papers by Mr. Decaux and Ms. Hampson, they should be careful to mention specific cases so that Experts would fully understand the situation
SHIQIU CHEN, Sub-Commission Expert, said he had failed to find the document on the website, but he congratulated the Expert for the efforts to produce this working paper. It gave an opportunity to discuss the decisions by the Sub-Commission. The last suggestion had thoughtful ideas, but its legal basis and its feasibility should be considered further as it could be hard to put into practice and action. A member should be chosen to report at a following session. There is a possible danger that the Sub-Commission would go beyond its mandate, he said. Members were told to report on human right emergencies. It is not very operable. Even the present High Commissioner could put forward an overall situation report. It was hard to imagine any member who could take up such a difficult task.
Commenting on the tenth paragraph, he said this would lead to going beyond their mandate and also they might take measures too much in a hurry. He believed that it was necessary to put a question mark on the legal basis of the issues mentioned.
PENNY PARKER, of Minnesota Human Rights Advocates, said the Chairperson’s statement on certain human rights issues should be sent to the Commission on Human Rights. Retroactive evaluation should be done under agenda item 2 so that the situation could be clarified.
DAVID RIVKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said large terrorist attacks had caused severe suffering in New York, Bali, Madrid, London, and more recently in Egypt. There was a fairly unique situation in the twenty-first century where private entities were violating human rights through terrorism. More had to be done to register the condemnation of the Sub-Commission and to acknowledge the threat caused by terrorism, and particularly to emphasize that no cause, no matter how just, could justify these actions. The Sub-Commission should at least condemn countries that supported terrorists, he said.
ABDUL SATTAR, Sub-Commission Expert, said that because of the current restrictions, the Sub-Commission was hampered and could not discuss certain issues. However, it should continue to discuss the situation of human rights in countries that were not dealt with by the Commission on Human Rights.
JANIO IVAN TUNON VEILLES, Sub-Commission Expert, said the working paper presented by Ms. Hampson had noted that Experts should not make reference to their own countries. However, the States nominated the Experts, although they acted independently. He asked why reference was made in the working paper to stop Experts from discussing the situation in their respective countries. He wanted more clarification on this issue.
ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC, Sub-Commission Expert, said the issue of terrorism should be discussed intensively, including by non-governmental organizations. Other issues pertaining to the working papers presented by Ms. Hampson and Mr. Decaux were also be should given some thought.
YOZO YOKOTA, Sub-Commission Expert, asked about the status of those countries which were discussed by the Commission under its 1503 procedure so that the Sub-Commission did not disclose certain aspects that were debated in closed session.
FRANCOISE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said that nothing in the working paper contradicted the mandate of the Members of the Sub-Commission. The Commission had told the Sub-Commission that they were required to deal with any urgent situation. If the basis of their concern was urgency, they must have some means to communicate that urgency to the Commission. There could be no doubt that the Sub-Commission had the mandate of the Commission to handle issues of emergency. It was not the Sub-Commission that was saying this, it was the Commission. On the point made by Mr. Salama, if the Sub-Commission was to show that it had any role to play in a reformed United Nations, it had to show that it was able to carry out this reform. To be worthy of continued existence, the Sub-commission needed to show that it could make these changes. Agenda item 2 was needed for two reasons; non-governmental organizations needed a vehicle to let off steam and it was the best way in which they could receive information on special situations and new issues. This made the Sub-Commission different.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Sub-Commission Expert, said he agreed with Ms. Hampson on the need to identify gaps as indicated in the paper. The Sub-Commission could do much relevant work in identifying gaps in standards. Experts could also describe and identify issues while drafting standards.
SHIQIU CHEN, Sub-Commission Expert, said with regard to item 2, it was suggested that summary records should be attached to it, but a similar request was not made on the other items. The working paper said that the summary records to be attached should not exceed 30 pages. He doubted the effectiveness of such a suggestion.
DAVID RIVKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said that with regard to legislation against terrorism, one should condemn the situation if such legislation was aimed at suppressing fundamental freedoms and banning political parties while aiming to prevent terrorism.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Sub-Commission Expert, said he would raise some questions on the point raised by Mr. Rivkin at a later stage.
FRANCOISE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said she wished to comment on Mr. Salama’s point that between the annual sessions of the Commission, there could be an acute crisis in which it was appropriate to express an urgent concern. She gave the example of the two bombings in East Africa, which had taken place during the Sub-Commission's session some years ago, and said it had been right to address them. It was useful to have a separate section on counter-terrorism, especially when States used counter-terrorism as a pretext. The key focus when looking at terrorism was the obligation of States to protect their citizens from criminal acts, including terrorist acts.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, introducing his working paper (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/5) on the methods of work of the Sub-Commission relating to the choice of subject and the preparation of reports, said the goal of the study was not to seek solutions to all situations but to offer a clue for discussion. In order to do that, the Sub-Commission last year had reflected in its work on the suggestion made by Ms. Motoc. The suggestion was to make permanent inquiries, to make periodic evaluations and to give vitality to the institution. The Sub-Commission should carry out radical reforms with regard to its system of dealing with human rights. It should think about its methods of work, and not only to think about the short-term. The suggestion made by Mr. Paulo Pinheiro on the need for a scientific balance in the work of the Sub-Commission was pertinent. The setting up of an informal working group, which would be open to all, would be a positive step to establish a veritable programme of work of the Sub-Commission. Most of the time the issue of studies was taken up without any previous thought, and without taking into consideration the issues which should be given priority.
R. RAJKUMAR, of Pax Romana, said non-governmental organizations (NGOs) supported the ideas in Mr. Decaux’s working paper, particularly efforts to improve the long term perspective of selecting and updating studies, more and better interaction with the treaty bodies, and the opportunities for NGO involvement. NGOs would like early and full access to studies and working papers, in order to be in the best possible position to read and comment on them. He hoped that NGOs would be included in this early distribution.
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Sub-Commission Expert, said the performance, the role and the efficiency of the Sub-Commission depended on the research strategy. In the discussion with the members of the Expanded Bureau of the Commission on Human Rights, it had been clear that they had not given thought to this point. If they were to agree, the starting point ought to have been the papers introduced by Mr. Decaux and Ms. Hampson. There was a need to have a strategy on which issues should be conducted. There was a need for a feasibility assessment on whether the Members of the Sub-Commission would be able to take on all these studies. If not, the result would be excellent studies that they would not have time to read. He wondered how the experts and the expertise of our experts should be selected. Studies had to be put on the website in order to get comments from colleagues. It would save time in the Sub-Commission to get collective reflections.
GUDMUNDUR ALFREDSSON, Sub-Commission Expert, drew attention to the paper, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004\46. The Sub-Commission could usefully comment on this old document, he said.
ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC, Sub-Commission Expert, said the paper by Mr. Decaux had shown that the Sub-Commission had done a good job. The question was how to give continuality to the work. It would be the right thing to establish a mechanism of follow-up to the Sub-Commission’s resolutions and decisions. The Experts would like to see how their decisions were implemented.
FRANCOISE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said the Sub-Commission had been successful in organizing its work. With regard to the preparation of working papers, it should be known that they were not documents that provided all the necessary information. She suggested that draft reports could be put on websites before the Sub-Commission started its session. The current practice of the Secretariat to advance unedited copies of the working papers was useful. In the light of the past studies, prioritising of certain issues should be made. It was also a possibility to inject flexibility in assistance to studies. Practical remedies should be found to fund studies.
LAZARO PARY, of World Council for Peace, said that terrorism was a topical issue. Indigenous people had always combated terrorism, because they had been victims of colonialism and State terrorism. The World Council for Peace was against terrorism, and condemned the State terrorism that indigenous people had been subjected to by dictatorships in their countries. The debate on terrorism and reform should be taken separately, he said.
MOHAMED HABIB CHERIF, Sub-Commission Expert, said the Sub-Commission was implementing its decisions and the Experts were doing their work by providing studies and papers. Further efforts should also be made to promote human rights.
DAVID RIVKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said he was willing to do a separate study and present a paper on terrorism under item 2.
CORDULA DROEGE, of International Commission of Jurists, said in the discussions about the reform of the United Nations human rights system, the future of the Sub-Commission had received little attention. The International Commission of Jurists was convinced that an independent, expert and collegial body like the Sub-Commission played an important role in international human rights standard-setting, although the present Sub-Commission might be reconceived as a Sub-Committee of a new Human Rights Council. The Sub-Commission was often referred to as the Commission's "think tank". However, the Sub-Commission would only be able to fulfil its role as an expert body if it was reformed. In this regard, the organization welcomed the frank and constructive report by Mr. Decaux and hoped that it would generate an open discussion. One of the main weaknesses of the Sub-Commission was the deficiency in the level of expertise and independence of a number of its members. Certain criteria should therefore be respected to independence and high quality of expertise.
ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC, Sub-Commission Expert, said she supported the suggestion from Mr. Rivkin to have a working paper on terrorism as a separate issue under item 2.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, said there was a need for both a long-term perspective and a short-term country perspective. Mr. Salama had suggested that this paper should have recommended concrete action, maybe a formal working group could take this further. There was a need for a medium term perspective as well. There was room for evaluation, not only by the Secretariat but also collectively, on the feasibility of a study. Mr. Sattar had referred to imbalances in the topics. Ms. Hampson had suggested to distinguish more clearly between the short papers that could contain conclusions and the papers that could lead to more work. There could be a ceiling of 13 papers. On the question of expert researchers, Mr. Salama had pointed out some important issues. If Members had too much work, they may have to drop some to be able to work in the best possible way, Mr Decaux said. Mr. Rivkin had turned to the need to integrate new members. The need to involve the non-governmental organizations to a greater extent was clear. Ms. Motoc had made an important comment, saying that the Sub-Commission was not working in a vacuum or for something to be put in a file. The Sub-Commission Members were not doing research just for the sake of doing research.
DAVID RIVKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said he supported the paper presented by Mr. Decaux, although it was written in French and had not been translated in English. Also, Experts should not be robbed of the opportunity to discuss matters pertaining to their own countries.
Debate on Question of Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in all Countries
DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, in a joint statement, said it was appropriate during the discussion on item 2 to speak out against the radical ideology of Jihad that included calls for killing and terrorism in the name of God. On 18 July a fatwa was issued by the British Muslim Forum, approved by 500 United Kingdom Muslim clerics, scholars and imams. It had been argued that those who issued fatwas to kill innocent people in the name of Islam were not real Muslims. Bur just before the London massacres, a major conference of 170 Muslim scholars from 40 countries meeting in Amman had given an opinion in a final communiqué. It was not possible to declare these people apostates, they were Muslims. The most essential and basic human right was the right to life. Several non-governmental organizations had appealed to both the Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-Commission to condemn calls or references to God in order to justify any form of violence or hatred, and the use of any appeal to religion to kill civilians.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: