Sub-Commission starts debate on economic, social and cultural rights

3 August 2004


Discusses Reports on Right to Drinking Water,
Debt, Non-Discrimination and Extreme Poverty


The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this morning began consideration of its agenda item on economic social and cultural rights, discussing documents on the promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, the effects of debt on human rights, non-discrimination as enshrined in article 2, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the need to develop guiding principles on the implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against extreme poverty.

Sub-Commission Expert El-Hadji Guisse presented his final report on the promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, saying the right to water was a right for all human beings, and stood together with the right to food as a biological right, without which humans could not live. These biological rights were a foundation, the essence of the economic rights of any society. Institutions of the United Nations system could elaborate directives related to the effective implementation of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation and enhance the advancement of this right. It was important to monitor the efforts made at the national level to measure the progress of this right.

Experts made comments and asked questions on the report, including on the criminal liability of water pollution, the issue of privatization of water resources which had a significant impact on access, the need to focus on individual rights to water and not just collective rights, the need for a draft declaration on water, and the need not to neglect the role of the international aid agencies in the provision of drinking water as well as in providing the information and technology to countries which needed them in order to provide drinking water to citizens. An Expert said that the situation of water deficit could lead to world conflict.

Mr. Guisse also presented his working paper on the effects of debt on human rights, saying debt had a negative impact on the development of the developing countries. When the political and economic crisis took place years ago, debt had been seen as a way to overcome some of the problems. The search for profit through debt had added misery to the weak economy of the developing countries. The developing countries were in turn paying back the debt interest by violating certain rights of their population. The cancellation of debt was found to be essential, while better terms of debt were sought.

Commenting on the working paper, Experts raised issues on the need to distinguish in the context of debt cancellation whether the debt was fair and indeed whether it was possible or impossible to pay back, the nature of debt as a serious obstacle to development, the impact of globalization on economies in developing countries and whether its positive aspects outweighed the negative aspects, whether the concept of equality which underpinned the notion of human rights had been greatly undermined, even ignored in the making of contracts and agreements between Governments and international lending agencies, and the extent to which debt had in fact been repaid several times over even though payments continued.

Jose Bengoa, in his capacity as coordinator, presented a progress report on the joint working paper by Antoanella-Iulia Motoc, Emmanuel Decaux, Yozo Yokota, El-Hadji Guisse and himself on the need to develop guiding principles on the implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against extreme poverty, saying it was a crucial appeal that the issue of extreme poverty be a priority in all discussions. There was a moral conviction on the part of the authors of the paper, and it was important to make further efforts in dealing with the topic and assessing other means. The Sub-Commission should serve as a bridge in all aspects in the process of tackling extreme poverty.

Questions and comments were raised by Experts, including on such topics as the definition of extreme poverty as a concept that denied all elementary human rights, the violation of economic, social and cultural rights undergone in situations of extreme poverty, differing socio-economic values of rights in the context of the primacy of what was called biological rights, without which life could not exist, and the feminisation of poverty.

Emmanuel Decaux presented his working paper on non-discrimination as enshrined in article 2, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, saying the first parameter of the study targeted the source of discrimination. Article 2, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant enumerated the criteria of discrimination with a precise and open list, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political opinion or all other opinions, national origin or social or all other situations. One should not neglect any form of discrimination. In his preliminary study, he had assessed several hypothesis and precise works. It was useful to assess the situation on the basis of national practices and jurisprudence.

Experts commented on the working paper and asked questions, including on such topics as the need to identify those principles involving non-discrimination that were considering binding customary international law so as to prevent a situation in which only ratifiers of the Covenant were considered bound by non-discrimination provisions relating to economic, social and cultural rights, discrimination based on age, and on whether issues related to culture and morals were human rights issues.

Experts taking the floor this morning were Vladimir Kartashkin, Chin Sung Chung, Ibrahim Salama, Gudmundur Alfredsson, Miguel Alfonso Martinez, N. U. O. Wadibia-Anyanwu, Yozo Yokota, Mohamed Habib Cherif, Florizelle O’Connor, Antoanella-Iulia Motoc, Halima Embarek Warzazi, Françoise Jane Hampson, Shiqiu Chen, and Kalliopi Koufa.

The Sub-Commission will reconvene this afternoon at 3 p.m. to continue the discussion on economic, social and cultural rights. It will hear a presentation of a report on corruption and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights.

Documents on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Under this agenda item, the Sub-Commission has before it a note by the secretariat on promoting the right to development in the context of the United Nations Decade for the Elimination of Poverty (1997-2006) (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/13) in which the Secretary-General draws the attention of the Sub-Commission to the report A/58/276 and Add.1, submitted in accordance with General Assembly resolution 57/223, entitled “The right to development”, containing summaries of the information received by Member States, United Nations organs and bodies, specialized agencies, funds and programmes, international development and financial institutions, and non-governmental organizations on the implementation of the resolution.

There is a document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/014), which is a note by the secretariat on the right to development which concerns a decision 2003/116 by the Sub-Commission to request Ms. Florizelle O’Connor to prepare and submit to the Sub-Commission at its fifty-sixth session a working paper identifying and analyzing possible alternatives that would enable the Sub-Commission to respond fully and as effectively as possible to the Commission on Human rights’ request to prepare a concept document establishing options for the implementation of the right to development and their feasibility. Ms. O’Connor had not been able to submit the working paper.

There is a document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/016), which is a note by the secretariat on the legal nature of the right to development and enhancement of its binding nature. The right to development is a self-standing right, which is also a composite of all other internationally recognised rights and freedoms. There appears to be growing global consensus that the pursuit of the right to development must focus especially on poverty eradication and the narrowing of the gaps of inequality. The note defines the notion of development, and gives concepts of legal recognition and the meaning of the right to development, recent developments with regard to legal definitions of the right to development, developments in the realisation of the right to development, the global context and major challenges to effective realisation and implementation of the right, and some broad conclusions and major recommendations.

There is a document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/017), which is a note by the secretariat on mainstreaming the right to development into international trade law and policy at the World Trade Organization. It addresses the issue of how the right to development conveys a set of definitive and powerful normative messages, and that mainstreaming the right into the WTO actually yields a very concrete agenda for transformation of practice and structure. The paper argues that the right to development includes an uncontested, procedural participatory dimension, and that it stipulates the interconnection of all internationally recognised human rights in the formulation and execution of development-related laws and policies. It also examines how the right to development can be mainstreamed into legal and institutional practices at WTO. It concludes that the right to development, in linking development to the entire human rights framework, with its strong global legitimacy, evokes the possibility of the reorientation of WTO towards a kind of normative unity that it possessed around the conclusion of the Uruguay Round.

There is a document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/018) which contains a study on policies for development in a globalizing world: What can the human rights approach contribute? The study addresses some of the major issues that arise in implementing the human rights approach to development at the national level. It examines the implications of the current phase of globalization for the pursuit of the right to development. In this context, the general issue of the role of economic growth in the human rights approach to development is also examined. The paper goes on to elaborate some of the major principles that must guide national policies for development if the right to development is to be achieved.

There is a document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/019), which is a study entitled towards a human rights approach to development: concepts and implications. The study reviews the strengths and limitations of a human rights approach to development, with the idea of linking it to democratic governance and the various forms of exclusion, namely, economic, social and political, which lead to human rights denials. It outlines the types of interventions that are necessary to put into practice processes in order to remove these exclusions and create the conditions for people-centred development. Various actors in the international community, including public, private and civil society entities have different roles to play, but the primary responsibility for putting a human rights approach to development into practice remains at the national level, the study concludes.

There is a document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/020) which contains the final report of the Special Rapporteur, El Hadji Guissé, on the relationship between the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and the promotion of the realisation of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation. The right to drinking water and sanitation constitutes a part of internationally recognised human rights, and may be considered as a prerequisite to the realisation of other human rights; the right to drinking water is also closely linked to the right to health and the right to food. Full enjoyment of the right to development is impeded in part by unequal distribution of water and lack of sustainable sanitation systems. The relationship between the right to drinking water and other internationally recognised human rights is such that it affects peace and security. The report contains various suggestions which, if implemented, can serve to advance the realisation of the right to drinking water and sanitation. The report also lists communications received from Governments and international organizations; general considerations; the legal basis of the right to drinking water and sanitation, both nationally and internationally; and the implementation of the right to drinking water and sanitation.

Before the Sub-Commission is a progress report on housing and property restitution in the context of the return of refugees and internationally displaced persons (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/22), which was submitted in accordance with Sub-Commission resolution 2002/7. The report notes that the issue of housing and property restitution is a pressing concern for millions of persons displaced throughout the world. Draft Principles have been developed in consultation with various agencies and organizations involved in the restitution process, and reflect the most recent research findings in the field. The Draft Principles are meant to inform about the development of restitution policies and programmes at the national and international level. In an annex, the report contains the Draft Principles on housing and property restitution.

There is a document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/022/Add.1) which contains an addendum to the above report, which is a commentary on the Draft Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons.

There is a preliminary report on corruption and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, in particular, economic, social and cultural rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/23), submitted in accordance with Sub-Commission resolution 2003/2. The report explores some general and specific manifestations of corruption, including cases of corruption in the corporate sector. The report continues with an identification of victims of corruption, the poor being the most vulnerable to corruption, and elaborates on the socio-economic and civil and political consequences of corruption in human rights terms, making the link to the undermining effects of corruption to developmental efforts of developing countries. The report also analyses corruption in the private sector and looks at the roles of multinational companies. In its conclusions and recommendations, the report, among other things, underlines the importance of political leadership in the fight against corruption.

There is a document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/024), which is a study by Emmanuel Decaux on non-discrimination as enshrined in article 2, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The study contains information on the sources of discrimination, including the different components of discrimination, such as racial and gender discrimination; information on vulnerable groups and on neglected categories of discrimination; the target of discrimination, including information on economic, social and cultural rights; the scope of discrimination, including the nature of discrimination and the availability of relief; and finally, recommendations, which indicate that a number of basic questions merit further attention.

There is a document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/025) which contains a progress report submitted on the implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against extreme poverty as examined by the ad hoc group of experts. Based on previous work undertaken by the ad hoc group of experts which contains a progress report submitted on the Implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against extreme poverty as examined by the ad hoc group of experts. It is based on previous work undertaken by the ad hoc group of experts on discussions held by members of the Sub-Commission, including three members of the ad hoc group, in Pune, India, in late January 2004 and on consultations with a variety of counterparts. General agreement was found on the need to draft a text on human rights and extreme poverty, and it therefore appeared to be time to explore the elements which could be incorporated into such a document. At the Pune meeting a number of basic principles as well as themes and issues relevant to the preparation of such a document were considered, and a methodology based on consultations was proposed. The report contains a summary of the discussions along with conclusions and recommendations.

There is a progress report on the implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against extreme poverty (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/25/Add.1). In its resolution 2001/31, the Commission on Human Rights requested the Sub-Commission to consider the need to develop, on the basis of the various relevant international texts and other relevant sources, guiding principles on the implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against extreme poverty. The Sub-Commission, in its resolution 2001/8, requested four of its experts to prepare a joint working paper on this subject, to be prepared in three stages. The report contains draft initial elements for discussion on possible guiding principles on human rights, poverty and extreme poverty.

There is a document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/027), which contains a working paper by Sub-Commission Expert El-Hadji Guisse on the effects of debt on human rights. The working paper highlights the adverse effects on human rights of the debt owed by third-world countries, evoking its origins and the legal aspects of the question, and emphasizing the inequitable, even illegal nature of debt, which contributes to extreme poverty and constitutes an obstacle to human development. The burden of debt renders the numerous problems affecting third world countries insurmountable, and is thus a serious impediment to the realisation of all human rights. The paper concludes that, burdened by debt, third world States are unable to respond to the many demands of their peoples, who are confronted with such problems as disease, famine, underdevelopment, lack of education and unemployment, which constitute serious impediments to the realisation of all human rights, whether collective or individual.

There is a document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/045) which contains a written submission by the World Health Organization on the promotion and protection of human rights concerning WHO initiatives and activities of relevance to the agenda of the Sub-Commission’s fifty-sixth session. The submission includes general information on the relationship between health and human rights; information with relevance to agenda item 4 on economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health, human rights and extreme poverty, and human rights and globalisation; agenda item 5 on prevention of discrimination, including racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, the prevention of discrimination and protection of indigenous peoples, and the prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities; and agenda item 6 on other human rights issues, including women and human rights.

Presentation of Final Report on Realization of the Right to Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation

EL-HADJI GUISSE (Sub-Commission Expert) resenting his final report on the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/020) said the report had a special feature, as information had been received from different Governments on the topic, information from the United Nations Environment Programme, and others including the Food and Agriculture Organization, which had stressed that they believed that the right to water was an integral part of the right to food. The guarantee of the right to water for agriculture could be integrated into the right to access to drinking water in this context, although this was not the view of the speaker. The United Nations Environment Programme had demonstrated that access to drinking water was an important right, but was also an environmental issue, as it was important for water to be used in an environment-friendly manner. The World Health Organization, which had carried out very useful work in the field of the implementation of the right to drinking water, was also drawing up a manual on water. The interest held for this matter was very stimulating, and stressed the importance of the issue: water was a source for life, and this right deserved to be formalized as had been other economic, social and cultural rights.

Mr. Guisse said the legal foundations to this right were analysed in the report, as it was believed that where there was a legal norm, then authority, whether national or international, could be invoked. Some of the measures taken by States to implement this right were also listed, for example the protection of the sources of water. The measures taken by developing countries were also listed, and it was noted that transnational companies had bought some water sources, with the aim of making a profit from their access. The right to water was a right for all human beings, and stood together with the right to food as a biological right, without which humans could not live. These biological rights were a foundation, the essence of the economic rights of any society. It was believed that institutions of the United Nations system could elaborate directives related to the effective implementation of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation and enhance the advancement of this right. It was important to monitor the efforts made at the national level to measure the progress of this right.

The discussion of this issue had not been exhausted, and there was still much to do. Norms had to be not only developed, but implemented, and mechanisms for implementation should be developed and discussed in the Sub-Commission. All would participate in this work, as it related to the survival of human beings. The lack of water would lead only to death, and there should be work to fight the impoverishment of this resource.

Discussion on the Realization of the Right to Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN (Sub-Commission Expert) said he found Mr. Guisse’s paper very interesting. He was quite right when he said that the situation of water might lead to world conflict. At present, there was a deficit in drinking water in the world. Mr. Guissé had dealt with legislation relating to water. The responsibility of polluting water or the source of drinking water should be considered and legal responsibility should also be engaged in that regard. If one took Russia, for instance, one could observe that it had a lot of water resources; and if they were polluted, the result would be negative. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights did not directly indicate the legal responsibility of water polluting. The question of legal responsibility emanated from other documents. Mr. Guissé’s paper had shown that the international community should develop a means to protect drinking water, but the author did not indicate any measure in that regard. The preparation of a draft declaration on the right to drinking water was essential.
CHIN SUNG CHUNG (Sub-Commission Expert) said the report only focused on the right to water in developing countries, but the report should discuss more the concept of sustainable development and environmental issues, as pollution of water was a serious problem in many countries, developed and developing. The criminal liability of water pollution should be discussed to a greater extent, as should be the right to clean water.

IBRAHIM SALAMA (Sub-Commission Expert) said a common concern that was held in the context of economic, social and cultural rights was the necessary caution of keeping the human rights perspective narrowly in mind. General comment number 15 in the report reflected this. Three particular dimensions of that general comment should be pursued: the principle of non-discrimination in practice, with examples; the principle of affordability, and what it entailed, notably the principle of free access for those who could not afford to pay; and the conditions of privatization, which was a serious matter and could have devastating effects on the right to water. These three elements should be further enhanced, hopefully by examples, and would constitute an added value to the already valuable report. Also the dimension of international cooperation needed to be treated further in the report.

GUDMUNDUR ALFREDSSON (Sub-Commission Expert) said he agreed with what the previous speakers had said. He asked about the situation of the right to water when the source of the river was in another country’s territory or if it was traversing common borders.

JOSE BENGOA (Sub-Commission Expert) said the privatization of investment on water and the privatisation of water supply should not in any way detract the State from its responsibility. While the private sector made investments in water, the State had the responsibility to see that water was protected, accessed and supplied equitably.

IBRAHIM SALAMA (Sub-Commission Expert) said with regard to the comment made by Mr. Alfredsson, the intellectual temptation in linking the right to water to international rivers and the legal situation of joint water courses was clear. It was an interesting and delicate question, but the question all Experts should ask when preparing a report was how to make the contribution distinctive from that done by any other international organization. With the over-stretching of the agenda on human rights, there was a need to restrict the work to the human rights aspect of any issue, and to keep it as focused as possible. A greater service to the right to water would be to continue to keep it in the context of human rights. Unless there were reports from the ground, however, the deliberations of the Sub-Commission would remain academic, and there was a need for more information on this topic.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Sub-Commission Expert) said the entire world was aware that in the coming few years water would be more valuable than it was today. Drinking water was being depleted. Mr. Guissé had linked his study to other issues such as the right to life. However, in the report there was not enough focus on individual rights. The importance of water resources should be underlined vis-à-vis the development of agriculture. In the ancestral land of the indigenous peoples, water pollution was an important issue. The indigenous people were dispossessed of the fight against the pollution of their water.

N.U.O WADIBIA-ANYANWU (Sub-Commission Expert) said water was life, and those who were lucky to have it in abundance took it for granted, and those who did not knew how important it was. The comments of Mr. Kartashkin on the need for a declaration setting out the basic principles for a set of beliefs and values on water and the need for sustainable water supplies for mankind were supported fully. It was a tragic irony that there was too much water in some places, and a lack of infrastructure for making it drinkable. Those with the means of providing the necessary supporting technology should change the water from undrinkable to drinkable. The conclusions of the report were fully supported, and it was noted that in this century water could turn into a source of conflict for all.
YOZO YOKOTA (Sub-Commission Expert) said the final report on this important issue was very useful for the future. The report stressed in paragraph 62 that there were close linkages between the right to water and other human rights, and this was recognized. The right to water was so essential that it touched on many other human rights, including civil and political rights, the right to life and the right to enjoy life. For these reasons, this paper was useful and helpful, and would help in the drafting of a declaration on the right to water. Many Governments, particularly in developing countries wanted to provide healthy and safe drinking water to all, but did not have the means to do so, neither the money, the infrastructure, nor the technology to make safe drinking water, and for this reason perhaps the Sub-Commission should not forget the role of various international aid agencies which should consider developing various drinking water and sewage projects by providing what was necessary to fill these lacunae.

Presentation of Working Paper on the Effects of Debt on Human Rights

EL-HADJI GUISSE (Sub-Commission Expert) presenting his working paper on the effects of debt on human rights, said debt had a negative impact on the development of developing countries. When the political and economic crisis took place years ago, debt had been seen as a way to overcome some of the problems. The search for profit through debt had added misery to the weak economy of the developing countries. The former colonialists fixed the rate of interest for debt accorded to the developing countries. The developing countries were paying back the debt interest by violating certain rights of their population. The cancellation of debt essential, while better terms of debt were also sought. Today, credit was an instrument of domination. The first solution to the problem was to cancel the debt. Those countries that became independent in 1959 and before were already indebted before they became politically free. The young States, at the time of independence, did not have any solid legal stand to reject the debt imposed on them by their former colonialists. Some experts had advocated that a debt contracted when the contracting State was under domination should be considered null and void.

The high interest rate provided by the creditors was higher than the debt itself. The future generations of the developing countries were already hostages of the debt. The high interest debt was unjust. The developed countries and financial institutions had created further mechanisms to impoverish the developing countries through the so-called structural adjustment programmes.

Discussion on the Effect of Debt on Human Rights

IBRAHIM SALAMA (Sub-Commission Expert) said the report was accurate and subject to actuality. Every paragraph and conclusion was agreed with, but some additional elements were suggested from the standpoint of a devil’s advocate. Once again, the issue of whether the human rights cause was given primacy in the report was raised, and it was pointed out how important it was to restrict the debate to the human rights perspective, as it was safer and methodologically more defensible. Instead of evaluating the justice of a debt contract, there was a need to concentrate on its human rights considerations and implications. Economic, social and cultural rights should be integrated in the right to development. Another element to distinguish in a loan or a debt was to decide whether the debt was possible or impossible to pay. Also fairness was an important consideration. Debt cancellation could not be invoked if it was the result of bad governance. Finally, an example of links between debt and its consequences on human rights was the situation in Iraq, where the people needed to be considered now in the context of debts undertaken by the previous regime, in which their will had not been consulted with regard to debts contracted.

MOHAMED HABIB CHERIF (Sub-Commission Expert) said debt crisis was a series obstacle to development. It was also a means of domination. The situation created by debt crisis had also created political instability and it was an impediment to human and economic development. The countries that were asking for more debt interests, high level of interest rates going up to 40 per cent. The payment for debt was a heavy burden to the young developing countries. The debt contracted by previous colonialist powers was transferred to the newly independent countries thus bringing suffering during the effort to maintain their independence. A radical solution should be found to that problem. The repayment of interest should be set by fair and favourable conditions. He called upon the international community to seriously think over the problem.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN (Sub-Commission Expert) said the working paper had been very satisfying, and almost all proposals contained therein were agreed with. Taking into account the proposals and recommendations made by Mr. Salama would make the document more politically balanced and would also contribute by bringing together different points of view expressed in the working paper. Paragraph 39 of the document stated that conditions of globalization of the economy led to marginalization of the power, with imbalances and was an insurmountable obstacle to a new world economic and social order. This paragraph was a very one-sided assessment of the process of globalization taking place in the world. Globalization was not such an obstacle, but on the contrary accelerated the edification of such a new order. It led of course to structural changes in the economy which on the one hand opened up new possibilities, and on the other hand in some cases contributed to greater poverty, unemployment and other negative consequences.

When talking about globalization, it should be borne in mind that it was a contradictory progress, with progress in some areas, but economists and researchers said that its advantages were greater than its disadvantages.

YOZO YOKOTA (Sub-Commission Expert) said he agreed with other Experts who spoke before him on the working paper on debt and human rights. The World Bank and other institutions should think of supporting and financing drinking water and sanitary services. However, not all loan arrangements were made available to finance all sorts of developments in a country. Assistance to developing countries might be made on grants.

FLORIZELLE O’CONNOR (Sub-Commission Expert) said the paper showed admirable restraint. The concept of equality which underpinned the notion of human rights had been greatly undermined, even ignored in the making of contracts and agreements between Governments, particularly those of the developing world and international lending agencies, multinational and bilateral. The concept of a contract suggested a negotiated agreement between partners or beneficiary and recipient. In developing countries, when the consequences on the right to life, employment, health, education and others which derived from the consequences of contracts entered into were viewed, it was clear that no Government which relied on the democratic process could have agreed to the terms of some of those contracts, given the consequences.

The concept of sovereignty was almost absolutely negated as Governments had been placed in a position where all terms were agreed to - or else. Today, in some countries, for every dollar that was gained, 89 cents went towards debt repayment. Rights to health, employment, education and quality of life were difficult to achieve with only 11 cents. It was difficult to believe that the rights of people were considered when these arrangements were entered into. There was difficulty in believing in this context in the advantages of globalization. When speaking of relief from debt, this implied revisiting the contracts entered into for all countries of the developing world, with a re-evaluation of the consequences, the massive human rights violations deriving therefrom, and seeking to find a just way in removing the hindrances caused by this repayment, and the creation of a level playing field. There was a need to revisit contracts entered into that had led to this situation of debt repayment, and consequences needed to be examined not only in an economic framework, but also from a human rights framework.

ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC (Sub-Commission Expert) asked if Mr. Guissé was also going to make a study on human rights violations stemming from the debt problems.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI (Sub-Commission Expert) said that the report of Mr. Guisse was greatly appreciated. A few years ago the Sub-Commission had discussed reparations for colonialisation, one of which had been the cancellation of debt by colonizing countries for those countries that had been colonized. It was considered that the debt had been largely repaid, and those who continued to demand repayment of the debt were vampires, blood-suckers, as the debt had been paid 40 or 50 times over, and now countries were being impoverished, with consequences for all types of rights and health. Mr. Guisse should include this in his next paper. What was being paid for now was not the debt, but the luxuries of developed countries.

Presentation of Progress Report on Joint Working Paper on the Fight against Extreme Poverty

JOSE BENGOA (Sub-Commission Expert), speaking in his capacity as coordinator and presenting the progress report on the joint working paper on the need to develop guiding principles on the implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against extreme poverty, said it was a crucial appeal that the issue of extreme poverty be a priority in all discussions. The authors suggested ways to come out of poverty. On the issue of poverty and human rights violations, the paper had made some points for discussion. Many initiatives were taking place at present, and a further approach was also needed. He said that there had been a moral conviction on the part of the authors of the paper. It was important to take further efforts in dealing with the topic and assessing other means.

In order to consider the issue, seminars and meetings could also be held to give it in-depth thought. The experts who dealt with the topic in the paper had made head way in addressing the issue. The concept of violation had been developed although one should be precise in addressing the concept. They had compared extreme poverty with the evolution of the eradication of slavery. A cultural process of abolitionist should be applied. The Sub-Commission should serve as a bridge in all aspects in the process of tackling extreme poverty.

Discussion on the Fight against Extreme Poverty

EMMANUEL DECAUX (Sub-Commission Expert) said all members of the Working Group should be congratulated for the excellent quality of the document, which was a useful starting point for work. Regarding the methodology of the document, it was appropriate to use multiple points of approach, as long as they remained coherent, and the United Nations had an important role to play here in avoiding contradictions. The role of the Working Group was essential in this respect in ensuring the continuity and coherence of work done. Poverty was not just a concept; it was a scandal, a scandal that existed in every country. Extreme poverty also required definition, and it was a concept that negated all elemental human rights. If a mobilization of all States was ever more necessary, it was vital to ensure that not only marginal situations were dealt with, with entire categories of poverty being ignored and abandoned to their fate. There should not be exclusions among the excluded, and the human rights approach was irreplaceable in order to avoid renouncing and forgetting the moral imperative of the fight against extreme poverty. It was only if a conceptual framework was clearly established that the operational framework could include fully human rights, which would not be limited rights, but inalienable rights.

ANTOANELLA- IULIA MOTOC (Sub-Commission Expert) said that based on different expertise and visions, seminars could be held on developing principles on the implementation of existing human rights norms. The joint working paper had made some conclusions. It should have further elaborated on the violations of economic, social and cultural rights by extreme poverty. Specialized agencies working in the field might be invited to look into the human rights instruments relating to extreme poverty. Regional social fora could also be organized to deal with the subject.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON (Sub-Commission Expert) said she associated herself fully with the statement of Ms. O’Connor on debt as made earlier, and with the proposals of Mr. Guisse and Mr. Bengoa as made in their reports.

EL-HADJI GUISSE (Sub-Commission Expert) said numerous issues had been raised on the very concept of poverty, that some would like to submerge in all sorts of theories, especially when saying that human rights had the same value, and that there should be no hierarchy of rights. However, not all human rights had the same socio-economic value, even if at the level of rights they had the same foundation and framework. The reality of every day was that these notions had different content, and therefore different categories of rights had been created. A poor person was a poor person, and distinctions could only be made on the basis of the social framework, and not on this basis. The rights that created a boundary were called biological rights, which included the rights to water, food, health, housing, as without any of these rights, other rights were negated, and there was destruction of life. These were all fundamental rights for all humans, and should not just be the obligation of States but for the international community from a legal point of view, with the obligation of saving lives.

CHEN SHIQIU (Sub-Commission Expert) said that extreme poverty meant no food, no education and a threat to the survival of people; in all, a violation of their basic rights. In Africa, the number of people affected by extreme poverty was increasing. Further measures should be taken. He totally agreed with the proposal of the paper to work on a guiding principle to implement the current human rights norms.

CHIN SUNG CHUNG (Sub-Commission Expert) said the paper provided an adequate basis for continuation. The report demonstrated explicitly the need for genuine and substantive inclusion of the poorest and most excluded in the process of relief. The Social Forum could be a place for this, although there were constraints and restrictions on it. The extension of the process of integration should be considered, as well as regional fora integrating the poorest and most marginalized. The right to self-determination should be included in the proposed guidelines because those in extreme poverty had a choice, and were not merely objects of charity. The definition of poverty and extreme poverty in paragraph 30 of the report of the Working Group was given, but a more working or operationalised definition should be included. There was no discussion on root causes of poverty in the document, and this should be included as it helped to avoid its consequences. Gender perspective should be further included, given the feminisation of poverty, which was serious in all countries of the world.

Presentation of Working Paper on Non-Discrimination

EMMANUEL DECAUX (Sub-Commission Expert) presented his working paper on non-discrimination as enshrined in article 2, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. He recalled that the Sub-Commission had already carried out work on various issues relating to non-discrimination. On its side, the Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had adopted a series of general conclusions, which directly touched the subject under study. The first parameter of the study targeted the source of discrimination. The term “source” was retained instead of “cause”. Article 2, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant enumerated the criteria of discrimination with a precise and open list, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political opinion or all other opinions, national origin or social or all other situations. One should not neglect any form of discrimination.

In his preliminary study, he had assessed several hypothesis and precise works. It was useful to assess the situation on the basis of national practices and jurisprudence. States would also be consulted at a later stage.

Discussion on Working Paper on Non-Discrimination

KALLIOPI KOUFA (Sub-Commission Expert) said the report had demonstrated profound understanding of the vital topic. It was important to distinguish this issue from other related subjects which had maybe been addressed by other United Nations bodies. There had been careful revision of the work at many levels and within different frameworks. The references to regional law and action were also appreciated. The special mention of vulnerable groups and neglected categories of discrimination such as persons with disabilities and older persons was also appreciated. There were references to a document which had not been ratified by some States, and she urged Mr. Decaux to identify those principles involving non-discrimination that were considering binding customary international law so as to prevent a situation in which only ratifiers of the Covenant were considered bound by non-discrimination provisions relating to economic, social and cultural rights. The work done by Mr. Guisse in his reports was also appreciated, and the comments of colleagues, including Mr. Kartashkin were joined with. Mr. Bengoa’s report was also applauded.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON (Sub-Commission Expert) said the comment on the importance of customary international law on discrimination was important. The International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination covered both direct and indirect discrimination. The increasing discrimination on the grounds of age was also important, as it was not always clear, for example if removing age limits on employment could create tensions between the old and young. The burden of proof sometimes rested on Governments to prove that discrimination was not occurring, and this was worthy of further exploration.

EL-HADJI GUISSE (Sub-Commission Expert) asked whoever would continue the work to take into account the report of Ms. Hampson on disappearing lands and the influence of this on discrimination.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI (Sub-Commission Expert) expressed her disapproval of paragraph 22 in the text. This paragraph could not be supported under any circumstances by the speaker.

N.U.O. WADIBIA-ANYANWU (Sub-Commission Expert) said she supported what Ms. Warzazi had said about paragraph 22 of the report of Mr. Decaux.