SUB-COMMISSION STARTS CONSIDERATION OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

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




Experts Present Reports on the Right to Drinking Water,
Extreme Poverty and Human Rights



The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights began its consideration of economic, social and cultural rights this morning by hearing two of its Experts introduce reports on the promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, and human rights and extreme poverty.
El Hadji Guisse, introducing his preliminary report on the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, said more than 1.5 billion people did not have access to safe drinking water in the world today. According to the World Health Organization, 80 per cent of diseases were directly linked to the lack of safe water. Mr. Guisse warned the Sub-Commission that by 2015, three billion people - half of the population of the world - will be lacking access to safe drinking water. This was expected to lead to conflicts in the years to come and the international community was called upon to act together to resolve this impending crisis.
Responding to the report, Sub-Commission Experts Godfrey Bayour Preware and Stanislav Ogurtsov both stressed the danger in taking drinking water for granted. Mr. Preware said that even though his country was full of lakes, the water had been polluted by certain transnational companies and was no longer safe to drink. Mr. Ogurtsov underlined that the lack of unsafe water was not only an issue in developing countries. It was already - or would become - an issue in all countries.
Expert Jose Bengoa presented a joint working paper on guiding principles on the implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against poverty. The paper was produced by Yozo Yokota, Mr. Guisse, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro and himself. Mr. Bengoa said the aim was to contribute to the drawing up of a document on extreme poverty and human rights, which should become a draft declaration later on. The study had questioned the current direction of globalization and the emergence of a modern extreme poverty. Inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations were asked to provide suggestions that would have a broad-based approval by the international community in its fight against poverty.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Sub-Commission concluded its general debate on the administration of justice, rule of law and democracy.
Also addressing the Sub-Commission this morning were Sub-Commission Experts Soli Jehangir Sorabjee, Lammy Betten, Soo Gil Park, Emmanuel Decaux, Asbjorn Eide and Yozo Yokota. The following non-governmental organizations also spoke: the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples; the Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation; Liberation; and World Citizens. Representatives of Nigeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Turkey addressed the meeting. And the right of reply was exercised by the representatives of Egypt, Mauritania, Iraq, Brazil and Colombia.
The Sub-Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue consideration of its agenda item on economic, social and cultural rights.

Statements on the Administration of Justice, Rule of Law and Democracy
VERENA GRAF, of the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said some States had records of almost always being under a state of emergency -- Israel, for example, had first proclaimed a state of emergency in 1948 and then had routinely extended it. Turkey, which aspired to full membership in the European Union, had replaced martial law in 1987 by emergency rule. At present, the state of emergency seemed to be due for lifting by the end of 2002 in the two provinces where it still was in effect -- Diyarbakir and Sirnak. But the international community should watch carefully to see that the lifting was effectively implemented, that it was not all just "fine sounding words". Apparently the Emergency Rule Governorship (OHAL) was going to be replaced by a so-called GAP Under-Secretariat, but no one was saying what the Under-Secretariat's tasks and responsibilities would be. There was fear that the former institution was only changing its name.
Sub-Commission Expert Leila Zerrougui was congratulated on her working paper on discrimination in the criminal justice system -- especially on her remarks on the effects of selective pplications of laws after 11 September 2001 -- and the Sub-Commission was asked to extend her mandate so that she could carry out a full study on the subject.
RIYAZ PUNJABI, of the Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation, said the issue of the independence of the judiciary had emerged as an important element of civil society building in recent years and international consensus was slowly building up on the subject. The report of the sessional Working Group on the administration of justice had, however, pointed out the problems inherent in extending judicial guarantees to other human rights apart from the personal freedoms. As had been pointed out, in many cases, the very forces the United Nations called upon to enforce mechanisms for the independence of the judiciary in order to ensure national compliance with international consensus were the violators of the principle of judicial independence. This was a grave situation. The ideal of an independent system of justice as an important pillar of a democratic political order was clearly undermined in practice in many States. This was not only because of the clear lack of respect for the systems of justice but because the powers that violated judicial freedom regarded the judiciary as a potential obstacle in their way to usurp power.
The efforts of the Sub-Commission in bringing about reform in procedural matters and ensuring extension of judicial guarantees to all human rights could only succeed if the judiciary itself was held inviolable. It was time to turn to such issues in this forum and bring them within the ambit of discussions on the administration of the judiciary.
MAGGIE BOWDEN, of Liberation, said in some countries it was well-known that during elections voting booths were stolen, voters were harassed into changing their votes, and votes were stolen during counting. Unfortunately in most cases it was difficult if not impossible to prove such crimes. Therefore it was essential that there be independent monitoring teams to stop such events from occurring. A country that in recent years had experienced such problems was Turkey, and elections were coming up there in November or the months soon afterward. The level of tampering and harassment was higher in southeast Turkey, where most of the population was Kurdish and where the armed forces applied undue pressure. The Turkish Government was encouraged to allow the Kurdish language to be used in public schools and the United Nations was called on to send a monitoring team or observers to ensure free elections in the country.
The Sub-Commission also should pay attention to the climate of impunity for massive violations of the human rights of Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. There were thousands of arbitrary arrests; and thousands of petitions from victims and families to hold perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable had hardly been considered by the Indian judicial system. The Indian security forces enjoyed immunity from prosecution under discriminatory laws.
MIKE GBADEBO OMOTOSHO (Nigeria) said that his country attached great importance to the issue of criminal administration systems. Nigeria was fulfilling its obligations entered into under the international human rights instruments by creating a positive environment for its people to enjoy their basic human rights under the Nigerian criminal justice system. Citizens were guaranteed the enjoyment and protection of their rights and freedoms within the provisions of the law in the criminal justice system. Infringements or violations of rights could be redressed and were actionable within the legal system, after thorough investigation. The civilian administration in Nigeria cherished an independent judiciary, free from all forms of encumbrances. The doctrine of the separation of powers contained in the Constitution was respected as far as independence of the judiciary was concerned. Nigeria had decided to tackle discriminatory practices by waging war on corruption, which was a human phenomenon and prevalent in all societies. The independence of the operators of the criminal justice system was being respected.
The Sub-Commission was commended for the prominent role it played and continued to play in the fight against discrimination in the administration of justice all over the world. The Sub-Commission was called upon to make a qualitative contribution to the need to reform criminal justice systems so as to ensure effectiveness without sacrificing equity. In conclusion, the speaker said that Nigeria, alongside African countries, had had painful experiences of racism and discrimination. The growing incidence of discriminatory practices against aliens, migrants and victims of trafficking in developed countries was a concern. These people deserved equality in access to justice and legal aid.
HOLLA BACHTOBJI (Tunis) said her country was endeavouring to create a society based on fundamental liberties and human rights, democracy, and the placing of the individual at the centre of social development, openness and tolerance. Recent reforms had been introduced, such as reductions in custodial periods and the introduction of sentences that could be served in the form of community service. Other new measures, announced on 1 June, allowed custody and preventive detention to have a Constitutional framework. Also some measures concerned the administration of justice and were intended to strengthen the competence of judges in administering sentences, to grant parole in certain cases, and to allow community service to be applied in place of prison sentences. The reforms also allowed introduction of more humane responses to misdemeanours and lesser crimes.
Much still needed to be done. But Tunis could only deplore the fact that some NGOs had abused this forum and used it to disseminate lies and distortions about the country. They ignored ethics and objectivity; they exaggerated; they did not give credit for the great progress achieved. Tunisia denied the allegations made about the cases of Hamma Hammami and Radhia Nasraoui, who had been treated fairly by the Government.
JALILA HOUMMANE(Morocco) underlined the choice of Morocco to uphold human rights and consolidate and promote the benefits of democracy and rule of law by the strengthening the dignity of citizens. Thus, within the framework for sustainable development, Morocco had started a comprehensive reform to be applied with rigour. Amongst many other initiatives, Morocco had created an Ombudsman competent for finding means to change situations which were not compatible with equity. The creation of this institution had made it possible to assess the executive, legislative and judiciary in a totally impartial manner. These bodies were thus incited to conform with the rules of law and equity. In order to protect the citizen from abuses of power, a consultative organ of human rights had been created. Reforms now consisted of extending and streamlining its work so that it would be of further use to citizens. It was also worth noting the latest revision of the powers of the permanent military tribunal, re-assessing its competence in certain areas.
MURAT SUNGAR (Turkey) said his country was grateful for the support given by the Sub-Commission to the new package of reforms just approved by the Turkish Parliament. The death penalty was now abolished in the Turkish legal system except in times of war and imminent threat of war. There had been a moratorium on executions since 1984. Amendments to the Law on Foreign Language, Education and Teaching had removed restrictions on the learning of languages and dialects traditionally used by Turkish citizens in their daily lives. An amendment to radio and televison provisions allowed broadcasting in such languages and dialects.
Amendments to the civil procedure and penal procedure codes introduced provisions to make retrial possible for civil and criminal law cases, and made the European Court of Human Rights' jurisprudence directly applicable in the Turkish legal system. A law also amended relevant provisions of the Penal Code, the Law on Associations, the Law on Meetings and Demonstration Marches, the Law on Foundations, the Press Act, the Law on Duties and Competences of the Police, and the Law on Free Zones. These amendments demonstrated Turkey's commitment to the highest possible standards of human rights.
SOLI JEHANGIR SORABJEE, Sub-Commission Expert, said more close attention should be paid to amnesties or impunity granted to perpetrators of grave human rights abuses. In principle this sort of thing went against the very purpose of the administration of justice. Such amnesties violated the core principle of the rule of law, whose basic point was that however high a person might be, the law was above him. Amnesty was most often granted to those high up, who masterminded and guided massive human-rights abuses. Persons farther down in the hierarchy were more likely to be punished. Such discrimination was unacceptable. Amnesty also violated the rights of victims, who had a strong interest in seeing that justice was done. In addition, amnesties bred resentment in the hearts and minds of victims when they saw murderers and perpetrators of grave abuses roam the streets in freedom. The resentment led to responses that continued to plague society.
A fund should be established for victims, in which the proceeds of the fines collected from offenders could be used for the rehabilitation of victims.

Rights of Reply
A Representative of Egypt, speaking in right of reply, said it was extremely important for the dialogue within the Sub-Commission to be carried out with objectivity and respect, without attempts by some non-governmental organizations to use unacceptable language. Egypt would not slip that low. However, it was necessary to clarify the facts about Dr. Saad Eddine Ibrahim. Non-governmental organizations were a source of pride in Egypt, however, this did not prelude safeguarding public property. This was the core of the question, the charges against Dr. Ibrahim were purely criminal and had nothing to do with his academic work or his freedom of expression. The charges were those of illegally obtaining funds for the purpose of bribing people and fraud.
Dr. Ibrahim had been judged by the Egyptian Supreme Court, a Constitutional and civilian court. An appropriate trial had been undertaken. Addressing this question within its legal appropriate framework was important. No academic or other type of personality was above the law in Egypt if that person violated the law.
A Representative of Mauritania, speaking in right of reply, said Mauritania was a State that respected law, liberty and human rights. There were a number of political parties with representatives at all levels. There was a free and independent press, and civil society was dynamic. The judiciary was independent, and all citizens were equal before the law. There was no form of discrimination based on race, and social or ethnic origin in the implementation of Government policies. Mauritania was close to ensuring universal education.
The trials referred to by a non-governmental organization (NGO) had taken place in public and totally according to the law, and the suspects were accorded all rights associated with a free trial. There was no question of there being refugees from Mauritania -- freedom of movement was complete. However, some individuals claimed an unjustified status, not based on reality. Anyone who knew Mauritania would be concerned about the difference between reality and the fiction presented by the NGO. Mauritanians lived in equality and harmony.
A Representative of Iraq, speaking in right of reply, responded to allegations made by non-governmental organizations yesterday. He was surprised that some non-governmental organizations were using this forum for issues that were not on the agenda. Why had Interfaith International been allowed to speak about Iraq in such a manner? Non-governmental organizations had a positive role to play in the promotion of human rights. It had therefore been regrettable to hear the statement yesterday which had not even been related to the agenda item. The speaker asked that all abide by objectivity in the good and important work of the Sub-Commission.
A Representative of Brazil, speaking in right of reply, said the statement made by the non-governmental organization (NGO) World Federation of Trade Unions needed a response. The murder referred to was being investigated by the civil police, who had already arrested two suspects. The slaying appeared to be a common crime without the involvement of authorities or any relation to unionist activity. The federal government was following the case very closely. The Government wished to state that the NGO could contact the Government for additional information on the case.
A Representative of Colombia, speaking in right of reply, said the Government of Colombia regretted the repeated practice of non-governmental organizations like the World Federation of Trade Unions, which had submitted a set of data that had no legal, scientific or factual rigour. They were attempting to create a certain opinion of the situation in Colombia. The Colombian Government was not denying the situation in the country, however, the situation must not be taken out of context or be described by inaccurate data, or the true situation would not be reflected.

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Under this agenda item, the Sub-Commission has before it a note by the Secretariat on the promotion of the right to development in the context of the United Nations Decade for the Elimination of Poverty (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/8). In its resolution 1999/9, the Sub-Commission had requested the Secretary-General to invite all relevant United Nations bodies and agencies to step up their actions aimed at promoting international cooperation for the realization of the right to development in the context of the United Nations Decade for the Elimination of Poverty and to provide him with information thereon, and to transmit annually to the Sub-Commission the information received. As of 18 July 2002, no reply has been received.
There is a report by the High Commissioner on liberalization of trade services and human rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/9). The present report is the third in a series of reports by the High Commissioner concerning human rights and trade, the others being a report on the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, and a report on the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. The present report builds on the analyses in these previous reports and begins by setting out the relationship between human rights and trade, drawing on human rights principles and standards as well as the previous reports of the High Commissioner. In particular it notes that a human rights approach to trade sets the promotion and protection of human rights among the objectives of trade liberalization; emphasizes the role of the State in the process of liberalization; and seeks consistency and requires a constant examination of the relationship between progressive liberalization of trade and the enjoyment of human rights.
The High Commissioner identifies a list of areas requiring further action to promote human rights approaches to the liberalization of trade in services, amongst which are ensuring equal access for basic services; ensuring the right and duty of Governments to regulate; encouraging interpretations of GATS that are compatible with human rights; undertaking human rights assessments of trade policies; providing international cooperation and assistance; and increasing dialogue on human rights and trade.
There is a preliminary report (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/10) by Sub-Commission Expert El-Hadji Guisse on the relationship between the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and the promotion of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, which has among its conclusions that "the problem of water is universal. Close cooperation among all nations of the world is therefore essential". Mr. Guisse contends that in keeping with the Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition, all developed countries and others able to do so should collaborate technically and financially with developing countries to improve water resources for agricultural production; that cooperation among developing countries on water matters is also important; and that the rights of poor people in particular "generally lie outside ordinary law and must constitute an exception to the normal rules governing civil and commercial obligations. In a few industrialized countries very recently, such rights have emerged as guaranteeing, within a liberal system, the access for all users, even the poorest, to a minimum supply of drinking water in areas covered by a distribution network, for a reasonable price . . . States must take all necessary measures to enable the poorest people to enjoy this right, which is vital for all human beings".
There is a note by the Secretariat (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/12) listing the world's 100 largest transnational corporations (TNCs), ranked by foreign assets as of 1999; and listing the economic performance of countries in terms of the human development index and GDP per capita.
There is a note by the Secretariat (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/14) announcing that a further study by Special Rapporteurs Joseph Olaka-Onyango and Deepika Udagama on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights will not be available for the fifty-fourth session of the Sub-Commission and instead will be submitted to the fifty-fifth session; and a note by the Secretariat (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/11) announcing that three working papers prepared by Expert David Weissbrodt will be issued as documents for the Working Group on the working methods and activities of transnational corporations; and that a study submitted by Expert Asbjorne Eide to the previous session of the Working Group will be provided to the current Working Group as a background document.
There is a note by the Secretariat (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/41) on intellectual property and human rights. In Sub-Commission resolution 2001/21 the High Commissioner was requested to seek observer status with the World Trade Organization for the ongoing review of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights; to consider the need for an examination into whether the patent, as a legal instrument, was compatible with the promotion and protection of human rights and corresponding State obligations; to undertake an analysis on the impact of the TRIPS Agreement on the rights of indigenous peoples; and to convene an expert seminar on the human rights dimension of the TRIPS Agreement. The note explains that the High Commissioner was unable to complete all the requests made of her, however the High Commissioner did make attempts to find funding from outside sources for an expert seminar; had convened an Expert Group on Human Rights and Biotechnology and had commenced the process of seeking observer status with the World Trade Organization for the ongoing review of the TRIPS Agreement and would report to a future session of the Sub-Commission on the progress.
There is a report submitted by the United Nations Population Fund on economic, social and cultural rights, prevention of discrimination and other human rights issues (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/43). The report contains general information on UNFPA activities related to human rights, as well as specific points on issues of relevance to items 4,5 and 6 of the agenda. UNFPA is working for the promotion and protection of fundamental rights in a number of areas through technical assistance in policy and programming and advocacy. The purpose of the report is to draw the Sub-Commission's attention to a number of the Fund's activities, to inform about its considerations and to facilitate its work. UNFPA hopes that the report will be a valuable tool for the members of the Sub-Commission, observers and non-governmental organizations, serving as a source of information as well as a reference guide.
And there is also a programme of work of the ad hoc Working Group established to prepare a study to contribute to the drafting of an international declaration on extreme poverty and human rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/15) which proposes, among other things, a study of regional situations, with Asia to be covered by Sub-Commission Expert Yozo Yokota, Africa by Expert El Hadji Guisse, Latin America by Jose Bengoa, and developed countries and other areas also to be considered. Approaches to the study would include compiling thematic indicators and examining existing international instruments and their use in poverty eradication. The final objective of the study would be to draft an international declaration. The ad hoc group also suggests that the study could consider the topics of the link between poverty and extreme poverty; the dynamics of the struggle against poverty; multilateral cooperation on the matter; the responsibility of non-State actors; the importance of local authorities; good governance and transparency in governance; primary education; the participation of the poor themselves and of local organizations in battling poverty; solidarity; economic, social and cultural rights; technical and financial assistance; corruption; vulnerable groups; and affirmative action and poverty.

Statements on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
El HADJI GUISSE, Sub-Commission Expert and Special Rapporteur on the relations between the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and the promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, presented his preliminary report, saying it was not long since he had only had a month to prepare it. This meant that it contained only the main ideas which later would provide the framework for the document.
As all knew, water was the source of life and access to drinking water was for each individual an important element of his or her existence. Today, more than 1.5 billion people did not have access to safe drinking water. The World Health Organization had stated that 80 per cent of diseases were a direct cause of dirty water. Since this was such an important issue, the problem needed to be considered in order to present a document which would provide a basis for global reflection on the issue. There was a real shortage of water resulting from natural causes such as desertification, drying up of rivers, and deterioration of the atmosphere. There was also the impact of humankind causing the lack of water. The greatest consumer of water was agricultural activity. This was linked to the right to access to food. The natural causes, due to man or environment, had led to the conclusion that there were insufficient amounts of water. By 2015, three billion people will be lacking sufficient amounts of water, and this was expected to lead to conflicts.
The legal basis of the right to drinking water was found in the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Children, where heads of States had committed themselves to access to water for all children. These two Conventions presented the legal basis for the right to water. In addition the Protocol for Water and Health, signed in London in 1999, was without a doubt the first international text taking a position in favour of clean drinking water for all.
What should be the cost of water, Mr. Guisse asked. In countries of the North, the privatization of the water system aiming simply to profit unfortunately meant that water was becoming an inaccessible product. Because of privatization the right to drinking water was being denied. All those who were privatizing water in their regions imported mineral water for themselves since they dared not drink the water they produced themselves. This was not a problem that could be solved by one country alone, but a problem that could only be addressed in cooperation.
GODFREY BAYOUR PREWARE, Sub-Commission Expert, said Mr. Guisse's report was preliminary but in fact quite comprehensive. Many took water for granted, but this study opened one's eyes to serious facts, such as that 1.5 billion people had no access to safe drinking water, while some 4 billion did not enjoy adequate sanitation services. The consequences were immense. In addition there were rising competing demands for water. International reactions to date gave cause for hope, but overall there was a need to develop and manage water resources; this was best done in ways that did not place total responsibility on commercial ventures. It had been suggested that the word "access" be removed from the title of the study; it did not seem to matter; the right to drinking water was already subsumed in the right to life itself, since water was indispensable for life. He thought the study might consider, among other things, provision of water in relatively arid regions; and the use of "social" pricing of such a vital resource, so as to ensure that even the poorest people could have reasonable access to water.
Mr. Preware said he came from a part of the world where there was a great deal of water, but the activities of transnational corporations had left it not fit to drink. He had learned not to take access to safe water for granted.
SOLI JEHANGIR SORABJEE, Sub-Commission Expert, expressed his appreciation for the report, particularly the link between access to water and access to self-determination. Life meant the right to live with human dignity, one component of which meant the right to pollution-free water. This was the manner in which the Indian Supreme Court had approached the situation. One could not take drinking water for granted.
STANISLAV OGURTSOV, Sub-Commission Expert, said the report was substantive, and he hoped Mr. Guisse would continue his successful work on the topic of water. Clean drinking water was lacking not only in developing countries but in developed countries as well; the forthcoming study, if possible, might have a comparative analysis of the cost of clean drinking water in various regions of the world. In developed countries, such water, if not increasing in cost, was being sold as clean drinking water when it was not -- what came out of the pipes could be used for some purposes, but not drinking. The human impact on drinking water supplies, over recent decades, had been catastrophic. There had been pollution of almost all rivers in Europe; most lakes, also; even the seas. Human activity had ruined the Aral Sea, and had ruined Lake Baikal in the Russian Federation. Perhaps consideration of this aspect could be broadened in the next report of Mr. Guisse.
Another area of focus could be methods for further international cooperation; it was clear that without such cooperation it would be a long time before world water problems were solved. The term "access" was directly connected to the right to drinking water. It meant such water should be available to all.
LAMMY BETTEN, Sub-Commission Expert, said several speakers had already stressed the importance of the right to water as a constitutional or international rights. This, however, made absolutely no difference to people who had no water. Whether it was written in their respective Constitutions or not would not provide one drop of water. She suggested that more focus was spent on amounts of money and activities undertaken to resolve this issue.
SOO GIL PARK, Sub-Commission Expert, said that at the beginning of this century the world had begun to realize that even the high seas were not unlimited in their resources. Regulation of fishing activities had begun, for example. Now the world was beginning to see that clean air and clean water were not infinite, either. Some international efforts had been made in response, and there were implications of a right to drinking water. He endorsed the Special Rapporteur's views that drinking water, among other things, should be managed by competent public authorities; that vulnerable people should be guaranteed access to water; and that water should be managed based on the principles of sustainable development.
From a legal standpoint, clarification was needed on whether some phrases employed in reference to "rights" involving water had different meanings. What did Mr. Guisse mean by a reference to "free" access to water? Water without cost? He hoped Mr. Guisse would continue the broad-ranging basis of his study, and would clearly enumerate categories and responsibilities, not only for people but for States. There were many valuable ideas and concepts in the report that should be further pursued, including those relating to the particular needs of developing countries.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Sub-Commission Expert, joined colleagues in congratulating Mr. Guisse for this very important starting point. It would be wise and useful to quote the sources and clarify the importance of certain Conventions in the report. When talking about rights, it was important to re-read the report, taking as the centre starting point the protection of human rights. When starting with human rights as a starting out point, the issue became more clear. One needed to be cautious, however, about not being demagogical about the issue.
ASBJORNE EIDE, Sub-Commission Expert, said the study was important; the right to drinking water was an integral part of several rights, including the right to life itself. The important thing was to allocate clearly and effectively the responsibilities of various actors in the field, including Governments. Development of water-saving technologies could be very valuable. He would offer other, more extensive comments in writing directly to the Special Rapporteur.
GENEVIÈVE JORDAN, of World Citizens, made the parallel between access to safe drinking water with access to health care. This was a very important link, she said. Could national Constitutions of countries carry out work on the actual use of water? One might also need to ensure the clean-up of sources of water that were unsafe to drink. Were there any Conventions covering the measures that had been taken, she asked. When land had been sold, as in the case in Palestine, who owned the sub-soil, she asked.
EL HADJI GUISSE, Sub-Commission Expert, responding to the comments on his working paper, said he appreciated the support expressed and the suggestions offered by his colleagues. More acute problems in arid regions had been mentioned; also the cost of access to drinking water; and the very negative impacts of transnational companies. It was true there were great problems in these areas in countries of the South. Water was extremely expensive in such countries, and transnationals were polluting water sources. Both national and international responses were needed. The problem had to be stated in a brutal, honest way, it was so important. In India, Ghandi used to consider that his people would be neither independent nor sovereign if they had no water. Mr. Guisse said he would be interested in seeing the Indian Convention on drinking water, and related material.
There had been remarks about the scarcity of clean water in developed countries, and that, also, was true. Lately, moreover, there were seasonal droughts. Water supplies were being taxed by human activities, and the reasons for this needed to be studied. At this point there was serious pollution of rivers, lakes and the high seas. The matter deserved further study. "Recognizing" rights and problems involved were not enough, of course; it was not enough to "declare" that things should be done. Things actually had to be done. What was practically implemented was the important thing. Access -- as several Experts mentioned -- was vital; if access was expensive, some persons could not afford it. In such cases it was not enough to have a "right" to water. Violence had erupted in the modern world over rights to oil resources; in a few years, there could be wars over water, since water was necessary for life itself -- hence the right to water could be seen as directly linked to peace.
JOSE BENGOA, Sub-Commission Expert, submitted a preliminary joint report which contained the basis of a study carried out on poverty and human rights. This was not a general study and its aim was to contribute to the drawing up of a document on extreme poverty and human rights, which should become a draft declaration later on. An ad hoc Working Group had been appointed since it was impossible for one person to carry out the work. The ad hoc Group consisted of Mr. Guisse, Mr. Yokota, Mr. Pinheiro and Mr. Bengoa himself. Some of the thoughts expressed by the ad hoc Group were centred on the approach to be taken in the study of poverty and human rights. It had been agreed that the declaration on poverty must refer to the inalienable right to human rights. The principle of human dignity had also been underscored. The members of the ad hoc Group had also decided to study contemporary forms of poverty. The most extreme forms of poverty needed to be focused upon. Extreme poverty was an extreme violation of the right to life.
The ad hoc Working Group had asked whether poverty had always been associated with human society. New forms of globalization had given rise to a new form of poverty - a modern poverty. The precise aim of the study being prepared was to try to place this new creation of poverty that was taking place in the contemporary world. It had been stressed that a multi-cultural approach be used in the undertaking of the study. Mr. Bengoa pointed out that one of the criticisms of the Social Forum had been the globalization of consumption and human needs. The right to life made the creation of mechanisms protecting of this right necessary. There was enough data, and numbers on world poverty were more and more shattering. It was simply not possible to maintain this rampant globalization. This had been pointed out quite forcefully in the working paper. Various subjects needed to be included in a draft declaration on poverty, Mr. Bengoa said. Inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations were asked to provide suggestions that would have broad-based approval by the international community in its fight against poverty.
YOZO YOKOTA, Sub-Commission Expert, said that as a member of the ad hoc Group he wished to say that Mr. Bengoa had covered all the important points taken up by the Group. The Group had begun its work with basic assumptions, one of them being that poverty was the basis of many human rights violations. Another was that poverty induced, indirectly, other human rights violations --- for example, trafficking in women and children had its root cause in poverty. It was very important to tackle the issue of extreme poverty. Already, many efforts had been made; Governments had taken various steps, and there had been international initiatives. But all these efforts had not been enough; in fact, many had failed. New approaches had to be considered, such as the UN Decade for the Elimination of Poverty, which would conclude in 2006; it was clear halfway through the decade that a lot remained to be done. The Millennium Development goals announced in 2000 had set specific objectives for the year 2015, such as a 50 per cent reduction in poverty. But those were only stated objectives; practical measures to achieve them were the important thing.



* *** *