SUB-COMMISSION DISCUSSES ITS FUTURE WORK AND MANDATE

Sub-Commission on the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights
55th session
31 July 2003
Morning





The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this morning continued to discuss the suggestions made by the Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, Bertrand Ramcharan, on the work of the Sub-Commission.

Experts’ views on the statement made by the Acting High Commissioner varied, but it was generally agreed that this year's session appeared to show that the Sub-Commission was fumbling in the dark, with a general attitude of pointlessness prevalent among the participating non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which was particularly evident in the treatment of the second item on the agenda, the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation, in all countries. This was, naturally, a matter of grave concern, and required the identification of a solution to the problem, whilst avoiding any forms of conflict with the parent body of the Sub-Commission, the Commission on Human Rights.

At a time when States flouted with impunity their obligations with regard to the Charter of the United Nations, Experts noted with concern, it was not surprising that cynicism and pessimism had grown to the point where they threatened to take over. Some in the human rights community could even feel despondent, since concern over the implementation of human rights norms contained in the human rights instruments failed in importance when the world seemed to be entering an era of anarchy in the international system.

The nature of the Sub-Commission, limited as it had been by the Commission now that it no longer had the right to pronounce on country-specific issues, and the changes in its functioning due to this were grounds for concern for many of the Experts. Although no consensus was reached upon this, it was generally agreed that there was a need to reassert the role of the Sub-Commission as an effective and purposeful body and to make its presence and decisions once more known on the international humanitarian scene. Various suggestions were made on this topic, including the creation of an intra-sessional working group on terrorism.

Experts speaking this morning were Françoise Jane Hampson, Asbjorn Eide, Jose Bengoa, Emmanuel Decaux, Abdul Sattar, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Antoanella-Iulia Motoc, Shiqiu Chen, Leila Zerrogui, Yozo Yokota, Soo Gil Park, Christy Ezim Mbonu, Florizelle O’Connor, and Miguel Alfonso Martinez.

Following the statements of the experts, a representative of the International Labour Organisation addressed the meeting under agenda item 6 on specific human rights issues including women and human rights, slavery, and other issues including terrorism.

The Representatives of Saudi Arabia, the Russian Federation, and China also addressed the topic of the future work of the Sub-Commission.

William Bunch, Head of the Central Planning and Coordination Service, also addressed the Sub-Commission, speaking on directives relative to the preparation and submission of documents, including principles behind the preparation of the guidelines, General Assembly directives on format, length and deadlines, and codification of documents.

The Sub-Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Monday, 4 August to continue its debate on specific human rights issues including women and human rights, slavery, and other issues including terrorism.


Statements

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Chairperson of the Sub-Commission, informed the Sub-Commission that a non-governmental organization had been handing out leaflets and documents to Experts against the rules and regulations of the Sub-Commission. The non-governmental organization in question was Reporters Sans Frontiers, an organization that only last week had had its consultative status suspended for a year by the Economic and Social Council. Their presence in the hall and their actions were in flagrant violation of the decision taken by the Economic and Social Council and the rules of the Sub-Commission. Their actions would not be treated with impunity, since the Chairperson would personally inform relevant persons to ensure that such incidents were not repeated. Such incidents risked removing the credibility of non-governmental organizations whose participation was crucial in the Sub-Commission.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Sub-Commission Expert, said the Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, Bertrand Ramcharan, had made 12 points on how the work of the Sub-Commission was undertaken. This had been perceived as a form of criticism, that the work done by the Sub-Commission did not answer to these 12 challenges. There were two separate types of issues raised: what the Sub-Commission did and its relevance; and how this was done. Some of his comments implied that some issues had not been dealt with, such as poverty, education, democracy and the rule of law, the challenge of national protection systems and others. In some of these areas, it seemed that criticism should not be directed at the Sub-Commission, although in others members might want to undertake activities.

With regard to how work was done, there appeared to be a lack of precise follow-up of the activities of the Sub-Commission, and a practice could be adopted that any final report should actually contain some suggestions as to what should take place next, and these should be systematically followed-up by the Sub-Commission. With regard to the work on immediate issues of grave violations of human rights, agenda item 2, there was a real problem, that was not of the making of the Sub-Commission. This year's session showed that the Sub-Commission was fumbling in the dark, with a general attitude of pointlessness among the participating non-governmental organizations. There was a need to examine in particular how this agenda item was handled, maybe by an inter-sessional working group, however various issues needed to be resolved first.
On the specific issue of what could be done to improve the effectiveness of the special procedures, the suggestions of Experts Jose Bengoa and Asbjorn Eide should be investigated and maybe implemented.

ASBJORN EIDE, Sub-Commission Expert, said that he agreed with the proposal of a mechanism, be it an intra-sessional working group or something else, on counter-terrorism measures. More generally, he had not perceived the statement of Mr. Ramcharan in the same manner as other Experts did. It had been a useful statement on the strategic role of the Sub-Commission. Concerning victims, under the item of violations, he supported Mr. Jose Bengoa’s suggestion concerning special procedures. One area that required more attention was the analysis of a national protection system. In addition, the challenges of people on the move globally -- refugees, migrants, trafficked women – were systematically ignored even though this was one of the most serious human rights problems. It was unpleasant to look at something that was approaching “concentration camps” in some countries with regards to asylum seekers. The Sub-Commission had a strategic role to play in this regard.

JOSE BENGOA, Sub-Commission Expert, said there was a need to analyse in depth the future of item 2, since this appeared to lie at the centre of the concerns on the Sub-Commission as a whole, both by Experts and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). There was a need to settle this issue. The Acting High Commissioner had spoken of challenges, and with regard to the proposals made by Ms. Hampson, there was belief that these two were complementary. It appeared that Mr. Ramcharan’s ideas could be reflected in an initial study concerning the results of the reports of Special Rapporteurs and the follow-up mechanisms established by the Commission on Human Rights. A study of the results and proposals of the working groups should also be made, in connection with the recommendations made by the Commission. A study of the mechanisms for the prevention of human rights violations, treaty bodies and analysis of the follow-up bodies should also be made. The Sub-Commission should organise a small committee composed of persons from the various regions who could draft and discuss a proposal concerning these studies for the plenary of the Sub-Commission.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, said that he agreed with everything that had been said. It was important to have an overview of the human rights system. A few years ago, a compilation of recommendations had been suggested. Some kind of inventory of this kind could be useful, he said. The Sub-Commission could act as a facilitator for follow-up since the human rights system was lacking a barometer of human rights violations.

ABDUL SATTAR, Sub-Commission Expert, said with regard to Mr Ramcharan’s statement, the Sub-Commission should rise to the many challenges listed therein. Observing the Experts, there was confidence that the Sub-Commission could continue its tradition of making a valuable contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights, as past activities of the Sub-Commission had advanced human rights. The work of the Sub-Commission merited the support of the Commission and of ECOSOC. However, at the same time, there was a need to take note of the points made by the various long-standing Experts regarding the curtailment of the time and finances made available. If the Commission and ECOSOC had high expectations of the Sub-Commission, they should make the time and resources available in order for the Sub-Commission to carry out its job and mandate effectively.

Among the challenges listed by the Acting High Commissioner, one, that should be at the top of the list was ignored, namely the formidable challenge of credibility. The world had watched with disbelief the distressing trend with regard to the international system. At a time where States flouted with impunity their obligations with regard to the Charter of the United Nations, it was not surprising that cynicism and pessimism had grown to the point where they threatened to take over. Some in the human rights community could even feel despondent, since concern over the implementation of human rights norms contained in the human rights instruments failed in importance when the world seemed to be entering an era of anarchy in the international system. At such a time of darkness, it was to the credit of the members of the Sub-Commission and of many NGOs that they continued to light candles to relieve this oppressive darkness.

One of the challenges listed affected more people than any other, and that was the challenge of poverty, and this called for remedial action at both national and international levels. It was time to take effective action to relieve the situation of these millions. There was a need, in the context of the promotion and protection of human rights, to place emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights, even more than emphasise on civil and political rights.

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Sub-Commission Expert, said that he welcomed the focus on item 2 of the agenda. This item of the Sub-Commission had become an invitation to irrelevance since it was outdated and seemed to have little importance. Due to the restrictions imposed by the Commission that the Sub-Commission could not discuss specific country situations, the discussions under item 2 were becoming surreal. What was next, he asked. Would the Sub-Commission study human rights violations on the moon next? All the proposals made were useful, but in order to revitalize item 2, one needed to focus on the suggestion of the establishment of the kind of committee, previously mentioned by other Experts.

ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC, Sub-Commission Expert, said the Sub-Commission would need a text and certain approaches for in-depth consideration of its future mandate and identity. Mr Ramcharan was perhaps aware that all topics touched upon in his statement would be analysed in depth. When looking at human rights, where were these located, she said. The work of the Sub-Commission, and its role and usage by other bodies and organizations should be examined. Of course there were extremely concrete reasons related to resources, which were very scarce. Returning to concrete proposals, the Sub-Commission was now a think tank and had been so since 1999, and there was a conflict between this fact and the ways of work of the Sub-Commission which needed to be resolved, in order to improve the work done. There was a need for a Working Group on Working Methods, including the manner in which it prepared reports and studies. Experts were not content with their status as a think tank and wanted something else. There was scepticism as to potential changes in the way the Sub-Commission thought. Further, the loss of the ability to sanction particular cases was grave.

Not all special procedures analysed massive violations of human rights, she said. The way in which the Sub-Commission worked required change. In the context of the legitimacy of international bodies, the Sub-Commission was legitimate, since it represented all regions of the world. With regard to counter-terrorism measures, there was a need for collegiality and understanding between all members of the Sub-Commission.

SHIQIU CHEN, Sub-Commission Expert, said regarding the points raised by the Acting High Commissioner that he held a more pragmatic and realistic view. The challenges before the Sub-Commission were not only confronting the Sub-Commission, but there were challenges that confronted the entire United Nations system. In other words, many of the challenges mentioned could not be addressed solely by the Sub-Commission. The Sub-Commission was also faced with a realistic challenge in that the mandate given to it far exceeded resources available. It was still necessary to improve the quality and effectiveness of the work of the Sub-Commission. The recommendations made these last few days would take some time to digest. He welcomed the participation of observers, but stressed that they must base their expectations of the Sub-Commission on the real challenges and obstacles that it faced. The Sub-Commission could not be expected to perform the same task as the Commission but must consider a way to improve its own effectiveness.

LEILA ZERROGUI, Sub-Commission Expert, said item two was no longer of interest to anyone, including Experts, but the problem was that the Commission was so clear on the topic of thematic issues, and this limited the ability of the Sub-Commission to address the issue effectively. Whether it was the duty of the Sub-Commission or of the Commission on Human Rights to address this and make the necessary changes was an issue which was also important to resolve. The Sub-Commission was obliged to refer to States when creating a Working Group, and the Commission needed to recognise this. Secondly, with regard to mechanisms and Special Rapporteurs, there was a need to consult these to identify how the Sub-Commission could work on their reports and findings without coming into conflict with the Commission. To be effective and useful and not to create further problems with the Commission was the goal.

YOZO YOKOTA, Sub-Commission Expert, said the statement of the Acting High Commissioner had been inspiring and useful, particularly the references to relief to victims of serious violations of human rights, the challenge of national protection systems, and the challenge of people on the move globally. It was crucial to provide relief to victims of serious violations of human rights, even though it was clear that the Sub-Commission did not currently have that capacity. The challenge of national protection systems was also important and international human rights standards must be fully implemented and applied in domestic legislation. There were countries in the world where national protection systems did not exist at all. In such cases, there was a need for monitoring by the human rights system. Concerning the challenge of people on the move, he stressed that it was not the movement that was the problem. The problem occurred when people were forcibly moved, abducted and or trafficked. All aspects of global human movement needed to be addressed. The Sub-Commission must pay attention to this growing phenomenon across the world.

SOO GIL PARK, Sub-Commission Expert, said he had been impressed by the opening statement of Mr. Ramcharan, since he had expressed clearly what needed to be done to make the Sub-Commission operate more effectively on a range of issues. There was indeed grounds for concern on how the forum was developing, particularly in the context of the restrictions imposed on the Sub-Commission with regard to agenda item 2. It was therefore crucial to render effective the functioning of the Sub-Commission. In order to fight the monster, one should not become a monster, and therefore in the light of the various anti-terrorist legislations implemented by many countries, the Sub-Commission needed to identify its role in this context, and should indeed set up an inter-sessional working group that could be entirely devoted to studying these legislative acts as suggested by Ms. Hampson. Groups should also be formed to identify how to deal with the insights contained in Mr. Ramcharan’s statement, as suggested by Mr. Bengoa. There was concern as to whether the Sub-Commission was the best place to formulate a poverty-reduction policy, since the human rights approach to poverty as a social phenomenon insisted on active policies including anti-discrimination measures.

CHRISTY EZIM MBONU, Sub-Commission Expert, said that out of the challenges set by the Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, none were outside the mandate of the Sub-Commission. She felt uncomfortable about the statement referred to by her colleagues concerning the statement made by a non-governmental organization on the lack of country references in United Nations press releases. Everyone remembered the chaos and polemics that had been going on when the Sub-Commission had dealt with specific country situations. Why on earth would the Sub-Commission want to go back to such polemics, when it was clear that this was a waste of time. There were definitely other issues that could be taken up under item 2, such as terrorism, torture, the effect of corruption on poverty as well as democracy and the rule of law.

FLORIZELLE O’CONNOR, Sub-Commission Expert, said the Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights had placed a challenge to the Sub-Commission on how to harmonise the philosophy of human rights with the needs of those purported to be protected by the body. One of the things that needed to be examined was the distinction between the philosophy and the intellectual approach to making human rights real, and the practical obstacles to overcome in making the rights a reality. The introduction of the social forum provided a window of opportunity, but required direction in order to improve its results and to provide better information to the Sub-Commission and other bodies. The comments made were a serious call to work on the protection and promotion of the millions around the world whose only hope lay in the simple words “human rights”.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MIGUEL, Sub-Commission Expert, said that as far as he was concerned item 2 had begun to lose its practical value a long time ago. Due to a series of circumstances, including specific actions taken by the Sub-Commission, it had begun to lose its credibility. It was noteworthy that no resolutions had been taken on developed countries but solely on the human rights of developing countries. Back in these days, there was also a lot of secrecy as to the voting. His interest in item 2 had therefore declined long before the Commission had given its instructions. The decision made by the Commission suggested that at least for some time, the Sub-Commission must not deal with country situations. It was very early for the Sub-Commission to challenge or attempt to circumvent this decision. As for Mr. Ramcharan’s statement, the scope of his intervention was surprising. Mr. Ramcharan had expressed his first concern on the need to provide protection for victims of violations of human rights, however there were limitations as to what the Sub-Commission could do in this field due to the restrictions set by the Office of High Commissioner. As to the question of the challenge of democracy and the rule of law, he agreed that when the population was involved in egalitarian participation, there was more of a chance for development. However, it was not within the mandate of the Sub-Commission to comment on countries' electoral systems. The practice of having parallel meetings with the plenary, due to time constraints, was disturbing.

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Sub-Commission Expert, said with regard to the statement of Mr. Miguel Alfonso Martinez, he agreed with regard to the impossible mission in the context of the work constraints, for example the co-running plenaries and working groups. Other colleagues had stressed this fact, causing nostalgia for the past, despite the difficulty of that period. However, there was a need to create and be innovative when dealing with these issues, and not to look to the past.

MADI AL-TURKI (Saudi Arabia) said with regard to Mr. Ramcharan’s statement, there appeared to be agreement among country representatives that he did not want to damage or criticise a human rights institution, being familiar with the limits of the Sub-Commission. There appeared to be some ambiguity in his statement, particularly with regard to special procedures of the Human Rights Commission, which was the only body competent in the evaluation of these procedures. The Sub-Commission should work in the framework of its mandate, as specified in a report. With regard to item 2, this was an issue that had been around for a while, and at the present time it would not be appropriate to re-open discussion on this since the parent body and ECOSOC did not wish it to re-open. Revision of the mandate of the Sub-Commission had been made before, and this would undoubtedly reopen in the near future. Mr. Ramcharan had referred to two challenges, but there was another - the capacity of the Sub-Commission to survive, since it was an important body that deserved support, but should items be continually re-opened, it would have knock-on harmful effects on other bodies.

SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation) said that his country believed that the Sub-Commission in its mandate must be guided by decisions taken by the Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council. The Sub-Commission must step up implementation of issues under its existing mandate. This session, many reports had not been prepared or submitted by the deadline. This showed that there were problems with the existing mandate and its implementation. Experts must comply with the existing mandate. Certain proposals that had been made had legal consequences and the Sub-Commission must therefore respect decisions taken in the Commission. The Russian Federation believed that the role of the Sub-Commission must be to deal with specific issues.

JUN CONG (China) said with regard to improving the effectiveness of the Sub-Commission, the suggestions made were interesting, since the Sub-Commission needed to reform and become more effective. There was a need for a better atmosphere for better efficiency. Effectiveness should be related to the real situation in the world, where there was a great gap in terms of development, and poverty. With regard to item 2, some Experts had made comments about China, some of which were incorrect, and this would be proved by providing written documents to the Experts.

ROGER PLANT, of the International Labour Organization, said the problems of modern forced labour, slavery-like working conditions and human trafficking for both labour and sexual exploitation were at last beginning to attract much needed attention, slowly but surely rising on the agenda of Governments, international organizations and NGOs worldwide. However, very much more remained to be done to move from rhetoric to practical action against this scourge. There were clear signs of a growing commitment by States to accept the often widespread existence of modern forced labour, to analyse and understand it, and to develop the legal and practical means of eradicating it. The ILO also had an important particular contribution towards combating human trafficking. However, there was still a need for an idea of the real dimensions of modern forced labour, in different sectors and different regions. There was a need to ensure that the next ILO global report on forced labour had the major global impact that was so urgently needed.




* *** *