SUB-COMMISSION ON PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TAKES UP QUESTION OF VIOLATIONS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD

Sub-Commission on Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights
54th session
30 July 2002
Morning

Concern Expressed over Responses to Terrorism


The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights began its debate this morning on the question of the violation of human rights anywhere in the world, with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and Sub-Commission Experts noting, among other things, that both terrorism and misguided or over-vigorous responses to terrorism could result in violations.
NGOs also charged, as in previous years, that human-rights offenses were occurring in various countries and regions.
A representative of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues said some States had surrendered to panic following the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States and had armed themselves with legal weapons that unduly restrained fundamental freedoms, while other "opportunist" States were capitalizing on the battle against terrorism to justify ongoing repressive measures.
The International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, citing occupied Palestine in particular, charged that terrorism was a direct consequence of the dismay and desperation of poverty-stricken and oppressed people in reaction to "the double standards in the so-called New World Order".
Sub-Commission Expert Vladimir Kartashkin said that while terrorism was a huge threat to human rights, Governments, under the pretext of combatting it, should not violate human rights themselves.
Debate on the question of abuses anywhere in the world is different for the Sub-Commission and its 26 Experts than for Sub-Commission's parent body, the Commission on Human Rights. Before the Sub-Commission, national delegations may only address human-rights matters in their own countries; and the Sub-Commission is barred from dealing with situations in countries that already are the subject of the procedures of the Commission.
Addressing the meeting were representatives of the Association for World Education; the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; the World Union for Progressive Judaism; Dominicans for Justice and Peace (in a joint statement with Franciscan International; the Innu Council of Nitassinan; the International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; International Educational Development; the American Association of Jurists; the International Association of Democratic Lawyers; Interfaith International; and the World Muslim Congress (in a joint statement with the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities and the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations).
Representatives of Turkey, Mexico, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain spoke.
In addition to Mr. Kartashkin, Sub-Commission Expert Halima Embarek Warzazi took the floor.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Sub-Commission adopted a revised agenda for its three-week session, noting, among other things, that a gender perspective was to be integrated into all agenda items.
Members of Working Groups were announced. Appointed to the Working Group on the administration of justice were Sub-Commission Experts Francoise Jane Hampson, Antoanella-Iulia Motoc, Florizelle O'Connor, Lalaina Rakotoarisoa, Soli Jehangir Sorabjee, and Yozo Yokota. Appointed to the Working Group on the working methods and activities of transnational corporations were Experts Miguel Alfonso Martinez, El Hadji Guisse, Vladimir Kartashkin, Soo Gil Park, and David Weissbrodt.
The Sub-Commission's Working Group on the administration of justice will meet this afternoon at 3 p.m. The Sub-Commission will reconvene in plenary at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 31 July.
Statements
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Sub-Commission Expert, said that last year had been particularly cruel in terms of human rights violations and selective police action across the world. People had become victims of these oppressive approaches because of their appearance and their choice of religion. These incidents had occurred as a result of the tragic events of 11 September. Because of the world war against terrorism, several countries had strengthened repressive legislation to guarantee security. Human rights in today's world were besieged. In this context, the situation in the Middle East was beyond comprehension. The increasingly violent means and repressive approaches had led to the denouncement by humanitarian organizations of Israeli behaviour. Journalists could not move freely and were often subject to reprisals. However, it was important to stress that there were also several Israeli soldiers and civilians that spoke out against Israeli action in the occupied territories.
Human rights were in danger because of the war on terrorism, Mrs. Warzazi reiterated. Official responses to terrorism tended to move human rights to secondary positions of priority. The denial of human rights was very clear in the treatment of the prisoners of war kept in Guantanamo Bay. Criminals, despite their crimes, must be treated according to humanitarian law. In this context, the events surrounding the entry into force of the International Criminal Court were a worrying sign for the future of human rights. Something had to be done about these nationalist type attitudes to international humanitarian law and international cooperation. These were issues that needed to be focused on in order to safeguard the future of human rights throughout the world.
DAVID LITTMAN, of the Association for World Education, said three years ago the Association had raised the matter of systematic efforts being made at several UN bodies by representatives of certain States to obfuscate some of the dominant paradigms of international relations as enshrined in the International Bill of Human Rights. It had provided factual documentation in an article, "Universal Human Rights and 'Human Rights in Islam'", and in a subsequent written statement entitled "The 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam". There, the Association expressed deep concern with regard to creeping tendencies, even at the Sub-Commission, to quote from the 1990 Cairo "Declaration" as if it was a universal United Nations Instrument, which it was not. The Association had requested from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights an explanation and a legal justification for including a self-proclaimed religious declaration in the OHCHR's 1997 "compilation" of international human rights "instruments".
In dealing with violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Association maintained that UN bodies should always uphold universal standards and international law. That was everyone's task at the Sub-Commission. All at the Sub-Commission were urged to read the Association's document E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/NGO/19 on the matter.
ANTOINE MADELIN, of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, drew the attention of the Sub-Commission to the massive attacks on civil liberties and human rights perpetrated in the name of the struggle against terrorism. A great number of countries had allocated themselves with particularly severe arsenals which restricted collective and individual liberties and the fundamental rights of citizens. Two types of States could be distinguished, he said. Those who had surrendered to the "panic" following the attacks and who had allocated themselves with legal weapons which restrained freedoms beyond the limits of international law. And the others, the "opportunist" States, abused the struggle against terrorism to initiate or justify measures hostile to individual liberties. The behaviour of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, and the Russian Federation illustrated these types of approaches to terrorism and the repression of civil liberties. The Sub-Commission members were urged to consider responding to the situation in working together, beyond the current mandate of Mrs. Koufa, on the issue of counter-terrorism measures and respect for human rights, including through an analysis of national, regional and international laws and practices.
DAVID LITTMAN, of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, said that after the 1967 Six-Day War, Jordan retained Transjordan, or 77 per cent of historic Palestine received from Britain in 1922, and today, with areas actually under the administration of the Palestinian Authority, the overall figure exceeded 80 per cent of what was, in effect, "Greater Palestine". The 22 Arab countries, including the Palestinian Authority, covered a global surface of 15 million square kilometres, while Israel's 1948-1967 borders covered 20,700 square kilometres, barely one-seventh of 1 per cent of the "Arab" land mass. In 1947 General Assembly Resolution 181 was rejected by the Arab League and five Arab countries invaded Israel, but failed to eradicate it. After a second failure in 1967, an Arab Summit Conference stated there would be no peace with Israel and no recognition of Israel.
What was needed today was a concerted effort to support the Mitchell plan, which could allow the parties to arrive at true reconciliation, leading to a viable peace treaty for the whole region. The World Union for Progressive Judaism had first proposed in 1990 its "dream" of a United States of Abraham for the Middle East based on a future confederation -- a partnership between Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians. But such a dream could only be realized if democratic institutions and respect for human rights and the rule of law became the norm in all countries of the Middle East, if the Palestinian Authority became a genuine partner in peace with Israel, and if there was a radical break with the past.
PHILIPPE LEBLANC, of the Dominicans for Justice and Peace, speaking on behalf of Franciscan International, drew the attention of the Sub-Commission to the situation of human rights of the people of Vieques in Puerto Rico, a 54 square-mile island between the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, with a population of about 9,400. It was used by the United States Navy, NATO countries and arms manufacturers for military training, as well as the testing of conventional and non-conventional weapons and munitions, including depleted uranium. The use of the island as a testing ground and for target practice had been going on for the past 60 years. Bombing was carried out as often as 200 days a year. These exercises were a violation of the economic, social and cultural rights of the people of Vieques. They had also had a detrimental impact on the livelihood of the people and seriously affected their health. Among some of the effects, the local economy had stagnated, the health of the residents had been gravely affected, and the marine life had been destroyed. The people of Vieques suffered from high levels of cancer and other serious health problems. The Sub-Commission was urged to examine the situation of human rights violations in Vieques; to urge the United States and NATO countries to end immediately their military manoeuvres, decontaminate the impact areas of Vieques and respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Vieques.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said terrorism was a huge threat to human rights, as it claimed so many innocent lives. But under the pretext of the struggle against terrorism, Governments should not violate human rights, either. Striking a balance was difficult.
The Sub-Commission must condemn all violations of human rights -- it must call for holding all violators of human rights accountable. Terrorists and their accomplices must be held accountable, and also those who under the pretext of combatting terrorism violated human rights. The Sub-Commission must be objective and clear-headed about these complexities so that it could adopt an effective resolution on the matter of terrorism and human rights.
ARMAND MCKENZIE, of the Innu Council of Nitassinan, said that under this agenda item the Sub-Commission focused on areas where there was a systematic violation of human rights. His organization was concerned about the situation in Canada, and its law on the separation of races. This law particularly affected the Indian population and was rooted in colonialism and discrimination. Canada's approach did not respect the Declaration of the Durban Conference. There were a lot of problems in the region, however, the Indian Act was undertaken without any input or consultation. Constitutional amendments were probably the best way to protect the rights of indigenous peoples, he said, but it was clear that there would be no constitutional process in the foreseeable future in Canada. The Canadian approach was not about self-determination for indigenous peoples but about a continuation of colonialization. The Government process was completely out of step and out of touch with reality. The process was falling apart since it was founded in colonialism, discrimination and intolerance. The Indian Act had been unilaterally designed by the Canadian Government and imposed on its first nations. The Sub-Commission was urged to support the cause of indigenous peoples and to set international standards. The Canadian Government was urged to cooperate with relevant international organizations and cooperate with the First Nations Assembly to resolve the situation through partnership and cooperation.
ABDALLA SHARAFEDDINH, of the International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, said the bloody struggle in Palestine had reached a tragic level and all international human rights standards were being violated there. The arming and militarization of Israeli society, which had not brought either peace or security, was increasing. A United Nations fact-finding mission had not been allowed to enter the relevant region, and the Israeli massacres of Palestinian civilians continued. Ending the conflict meant ending the occupation, returning to the June 4, 1967 borders, returning refugees, and dismantling Jewish settlements.
The question was, why was the United Nations doing nothing? Why had it never done anything? Why were Security Council resolutions on occupied Palestine not enforced with the enthusiasm, even viciousness, with which Security Council resolutions on Iraq were enforced? The poor people and nations of the world were tired of these double standards and tired of watching powerlessly as atrocities were committed in Palestine. The terrorism that was beginning to spread through many regions of the world was a direct consequence of the great dismay and desperation of people concerning the double standards in the so-called "New World Order."
KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said that in 1990 and 2001, her organization had made statements on the situation in Kashmir. In 1990, the situation in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir had been exceptionally serious, with large numbers of Indian military forces carrying out operations largely against the civilian population in an attempt to put down the people's movement to have the UN-mandated plebiscite carried out. The Indian forces had committed many grave breaches of the Geneva Convention such as targeting civilians, mass arrests and torture, rape and the like. Today, the situation was even worse, especially with the consequences of 11 September. Now the failure to implement the Security Council mandate for a plebiscite of the Kashmiri people might lead to the destruction of the entire world, as India and Pakistan brandished nuclear weapons and the border situation remained serious.
India's attempts to reduce the entire Kashmir question to terrorism gained momentum after 11 September, with India constantly referring to "Islamic terrorists". The Sub-Commission was urged to take action that could lead to compliance with Security Council resolutions for a plebiscite and final disposition of Jammu and Kashmir. The Sub-Commission was urged to stress the importance of the participation of the Kashmiri people through their leadership in any discussions relating to the issue. The Sub-Commission was expected to assess and address the overwhelming violations of humanitarian law and human rights that had accumulated in Indian-occupied Kashmir
ALEJANDRO TEITELBAUM, of the American Association of Jurists, said the human rights system built up over decades relating to the rights of States and citizens was now being dismantled in favour of the rights of the market -- human rights were being made secondary to the law of profit. Police in Argentina were assassinating the unemployed who were protesting the draconian conditions imposed on the country by the International Monetary Fund; in Colombia, a veritable genocide was being carried out against trade-union leaders; the countries of the European Union were unfairly restricting immigrants. In the United States, a Presidential order had created secret military tribunals. The Government of Israel was continuing unabated its efforts to annihilate the people of Palestine.
All this was but the thin end of the wedge in terms of the trend to sacrifice human rights in favour of profit -- profit, moreover, intended to benefit a small, rich minority. The trend also was seen in the United Nations, where transnational corporations with long histories of rights violations were playing a greater role. In the Sub-Commission's Working Group on transnational corporations, time continued to be wasted in work on a draft declaration that already had been widely denounced as ineffective and full of loopholes.
PELPHINA SAHUREKA, of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said all peoples had the right to freely determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Every State had the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. In the case of the people in the Moluccas, their fundamental rights had not only been denied since 1950 but their existence as a people had been endangered through a barbaric war that the Indonesians had waged against them in the last three years. The Moluccan people had appealed to the United Nations and could not understand the apathy of the international community. The situation in the Maluku islands remained critical despite Indonesian manipulating propaganda of a so-called peace process. A so-called deal had been imposed by the Indonesian authorities since February 2002 in Maluku. However, in reality this peace deal was again another Indonesian manoeuvre to deceive world concern towards the inhuman situation of the Moluccan people. Since April, the Indonesian authorities had issued a decree through the Governor of Maluku forbidding the entrance of any foreigners into the Moluccas. In other words, by placing Maluku outside the attention and concern of the United Nations and the world community, the Indonesians could continue to commit freely and without restrictions their crimes, war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Moluccas. The United Nations was urged to take immediate and appropriate measures in the Moluccan situation.
CLAQUIN YOANNA, of Interfaith International, said that her organization had been increasingly alarmed at the level of violence and conflict in the Indian-occupied states of Assam, Munipur, Nagaland, Tripura and Kashmir. Inter-caste, communal, inter-religious and political violence had claimed hundreds of lives in these states and it was very disturbing to hear the continued reports of the violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These infringements were the result of decades of conflict over land, resources, cultural identity and political power, and had reached a level where the most basic human right - the right to life - was being ignored. Security forces' failures to uphold human rights when carrying out security operations had reinforced the culture of impunity that prevailed among the military, she added. State corruption, poor economic development and the large number of refugees and indigenous communities competing for resources had exacerbated movements for self-determination and secession and each contributed to the complexity of the conflict. The international community was encouraged to speak out against all human rights violations and infringements of fundamental freedoms. Member States were called upon to make a meaningful move towards ensuring that perpetrators of human rights violations were not exempt from justice, and that basic human rights of all their countries' citizens were upheld accordingly.
MURAT SUNGAR (Turkey) said that on 3 October 2001 a comprehensive package of Constitutional amendments had been adopted by Parliament that would greatly strengthen human rights protections in the country. Cases in which the death penalty could be imposed had been restricted; the rights of freedom of expression and thought for political parties had been strengthened; the advisory nature of the National Security Council had been emphasized; the scope of freedom of thought and the press had been expanded; the legal equality of spouses had been made clear; and the duration of detention for offences committed collectively had been reduced to four days. Necessary amendments to the Civil Code and necessary enabling legislation in response to these Constitutional amendments had since been adopted.
Steps also had been taken to improve detention conditions in prisons. The scope of the country's state of emergency had been reduced -- it now applied to only two provinces -- and a complete lifting of the state of emergency was envisaged for 1 December 2002. Turkey could confidently state that it was aiming to attain the highest possible level of human rights standards. Any fair criticism of Turkey should take into account the considerable progress the country had achieved.
ERASMO MARTINEZ (Mexico) said policies in the field of human rights were a priority for the Government of Mexico. Mexico had recently been involved in setting up an office of the High Commissioner in the country. It was necessary to analyse the situation of human rights in a country and then base a national plan on this diagnosis. In Mexico, the diagnosis would be carried out by three independent experts with the support of international organizations. Mexico had recently taken several steps within human rights on the international level, handing in the instruments of ratification to several important Conventions.
In Mexico, all people had the right to defend their political and civil rights. In May 2001, Mexico had been visited by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of the judiciary. This year, as last year, Mexico had hosted several Special Rapporteurs on different thematic issues. International norms and standards were the only means to ensure that human rights were enjoyed on the international, regional and national levels.
IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Pakistan) said his country attached great importance to the protection of human rights. On August 14, 2001 elected local bodies had assumed office throughout Pakistan. They had unprecedented powers, and the bodies were expected to manage local affairs themselves. General elections were set for October, and steps had been taken to facilitate the participation of women and minorities. Several steps had been taken to eliminate violence against women; so-called "honour killings" were now treated as crimes of premeditated murder. Major efforts had been and were being taken to eliminate child labour and to rehabilitate children who had been carrying out such labour.
The indiscriminate use of bar fetters had been banned throughout Pakistan. The right to freedom of opinion and expression was respected, and the press in Pakistan was free. Greater emphasis had been placed on overhauling the national economy with the goal of achieving sustained economic development, as human rights could not be fostered without eliminating poverty. All major militant groups had been banned, their offices seized, and their assets frozen; Pakistan condemned terrorism and extremism in all its forms and manifestations, but international law, it had to be noted, drew a clear distinction between terrorism and the legitimate exercise of the right to self-determination. Pakistan was ready for a dialogue to defuse tensions in South Asia and to resolve continuing disputes, including those related to Jammu and Kashmir.
ISMAIL ASADOV (Azerbaijan) said mass violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, threats to society and territorial integrity of States, had become a sorrowful reality of nowadays. It was more often that States were facing aggression, military occupation, ethnic cleansing, separatism and terrorism. Conflicts that were not dealt with in a timely and resolute manner were transformed into a humanitarian disaster later on. Several United Nations mechanisms had recognized that the territory of a State must not be a subject for military occupation or acquisition by another State as a result of use of force. Nevertheless, present practice demonstrated that in many cases such factors of evolution of norms of international law were not an obstacle to their violation.
The Government of Azerbaijan proceeded from the position that all the complex of humanitarian problems caused by armed conflict, including those related to the restoration of human rights, could not be solved without the withdrawal of the occupying forces from the Azerbaijani territory and the return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their native lands. The occupied areas of Azerbaijan were used by terrorist organizations for the purpose of illegal trade of weapons. His Government considered that the support and encouragement of this fact by some States was the main reason for the continuation of the armed conflict spill-over creating a threat to the stability and security in the region of the South Caucasus.
SAEED MOHAMED AL-FAIHANI (Bahrain) said the Kingdom of Bahrain had embarked on a path aimed at ensuring the protection of human rights, based on the principles of the Constitution and the National Action Charter. The Constitution, in fact, was based on the Charter and had overwhelmingly won approval in an independent popular referendum; it ensured rights and freedoms in accordance with Constitutional guarantees, tradition, human rights values, and humanitarian law. This year Bahrain had witnessed its first municipal elections, in which women had attained the right both to vote and to stand as candidates. In July, three important decrees had been announced regarding the practice of political rights, the Shura Council and Chamber of Deputies, and the Financial Auditing Court Law. These decrees were designed to prepare the nation for forthcoming elections to the Chamber of Deputies. The Cabinet also had recently approved a draft law by decree on establishing a Constitutional Court. A draft Labour Union law was under consideration and was expected to be finalized soon.
The international community, meanwhile, should not forget the suffering of the Palestinian people. Israel should cease its acts against the Palestinians and should withdraw from the occupied territories.
ASHRAF SARAAF, of the World Muslim Congress, in a joint statement with the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, and the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said that even as India intensified its campaign to crush the Kashmiri struggle by force, New Delhi planned to legitimize its occupation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through fraudulent elections. Force and fraud had been India's consistent strategy to perpetuate its occupation of Jammu and Kashmir since 1948 and circumvent its legal commitment under the United Nations Security Council resolutions to allow the Kashmiri people to decide their political destiny through a free and fair plebiscite. This strategy had not succeeded in the past and was unlikely to succeed now. Any objective observers would be able to conclude even today that such elections could not be either free nor fair since the elections were held under Indian military occupation. The Indian military presence was likely to be used, as in the past, to stuff ballot boxes and coerce the reluctant Kashmiris to "vote", often literally at gunpoint. India must acknowledge that a military solution was not possible; that the status quo was the problem; that a peaceful political settlement would have to be the outcome of negotiations between India and Pakistan; and that a durable Kashmir solution would have to be based on the wishes and aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
* *** *