SUBCOMMISSION ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON MINORITY PROTECTION, FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT, OTHER TOPICS

AFTERNOON
HR/SC/98/31
26 August 1998

Calls for Lifting of Embargo on Iraq, Citing Suffering of Population

The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities approved resolutions, decisions and measures this afternoon on protection of minorities, freedom of movement, and various matters falling under its agenda item entitled "review of further developments in fields with which the Subcommission has been or may be concerned".

Included in this category of "further developments" was a measure urging the international community and the United Nations Security Council to lift the economic embargo imposed on Iraq since the conclusion of the Gulf War. In a resolution entitled "the humanitarian situation in Iraq", the Subcommission cited "unacceptable" declines in levels of health, nutrition, health care, employment, and agriculture, and a rise in infant mortality. It contended that an embargo that condemned an innocent people to hunger, disease, ignorance and even death without attaining the objectives for which it was declared was a flagrant violation of economic, social, and cultural rights and of international law.

The Subcommission decided to convene an expert seminar to make practical recommendations for the further work of the Subcommission on the right to freedom of movement, in particular with respect to a study on the legal standards applicable to different types of forced displacement.

The panel forwarded to the Commission on Human Rights a draft convention on the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances. The draft had been developed by the Subcommission's sessional Working Group on administration of justice.

It asked one of its members, Francoise Jane Hampson, to prepare a working paper on the subject of reservations by countries to human-rights treaties they had ratified, including an examination of the number and scope of such reservations, their impact, and the role and responsibility of monitoring bodies in relation to reservations to human-rights treaties. And it requested one of its alternates, Vladimir Kartashkin, to prepare a working paper on ways by which the Subcommission could examine the observance of the human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by States which were not parties to human-rights conventions.

It urged countries and "non-State actors" to renounce the use of anti-personnel landmines.

And, among other actions, it called on its Working Group on Minorities to carry on with its tasks and to consider, among other topics, "issues relating to the legacies of the slave trade on the Black communities throughout America".

At the beginning of the meeting, Subcommission members Rajenda Kalidas Wimala Goonesekere and Halima Embarek Warzazi provided statements on the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as there had not been time for their remarks during the morning session.

The Subcommission also approved the following membership for its pre-sessional working groups:

Communications: for Africa, Fisseha Yimer, Joseph Oloka-Onyango (alternate); for Asia, Fan Guoxiang, Zhong Shukong (alternate); for Latin America, Alberto Diaz Uribe, A. Salinas Rivera (alternate); for Eastern Europe, Teimuraz O. Ramishvili, Vladimir Kartashkin (alternate); for Western Europe, David Weissbrodt, Francoise Jane Hampson (alternate).

Indigenous populations: for Africa, El-Hadji Guissé; for Asia, Ribot Hatano, Yozo Yokota (alternate); for Latin America, Miguel Alfonso Martinez, José Bengoa (alternate); for Eastern Europe, Volodymyr Boutkevitch, Oleg Shamshur (alternate); for Western Europe, Erica-Irene Daes, Francoise Jane Hampson and Helena Cook (alternates).

Minorities: for Africa, Mustapha Mehedi, Ahmed Khalil (alternate); for Asia, Soli J. Sorabjee; for Latin America, J. Gengoa, Miguel Alfonso Martinez (alternate); for Eastern Europe, Vladimir Kartashkin; for Western Europe, Asbjorn Eide, Jan Helgesen.

Contemporary forms of slavery: for Africa, Halima Embarek Warzazi, Yeung Kam Yeung Sik Yuen (alternate); for Asia, Sand Yong Park; for Latin America, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Marianela Ferriol Ferriol Echevarria (alternate); for Eastern Europe, Ioan Maxim, Antoanella Iulia Motoc (alternate); for Western Europe, Kalliopi Koufa, David Weissbrodt and Helena Cook (alternates).

The Subcommission is next expected to convene in public session on Friday, 28 August, to adopt its final report for the session.

Commemoration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Statements

RAJENDRA KALIDAS WIMALA GOONESEKERE, Subcommission expert, said the declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly without a single dissenting vote in 1948 united mankind by proclaiming a universal truth, namely that members of the human family shared the ideal of protecting human identity and all of humanity was the richer for this. There had been three lines of activity relating to human rights on the part of the United Nations: standard setting; setting up monitoring and implementation mechanisms; and efforts to educate the peoples of the world about human rights. These efforts of the UN would not have been possible without the efforts of human rights workers around the world. Those NGOs had been the driving force behind human rights mechanisms; in this context, the adoption of the draft declaration on human rights workers was a significant step. Major challenges to advancing human rights had been the arguments of cultural relativism and divisibility of human rights. There were many challenges ahead, and in spite of the advances made too many people continued to suffer too much; it was necessary to make human rights a reality for these millions. The United Nations should concentrate on certain steps: prioritizing social justice - the efforts of the Subcommission to highlight issues linked to economic, social and cultural rights was salutary; and continuing with great vigour the efforts to ensure that non-State actors observed human rights as no segment of society should be immune to the respect of human rights of others. The celebration of the fiftieth anniversary would be hollow unless the United Nations committed itself to placing human rights at the centre of its agenda.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission expert, said that after 50 years, she felt all were entitled to celebrate the history of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, regard the progress made, and decide what to do in the future. It was worth noting that the document made no reference to the self-determination of peoples, for example; in fact the Universal Declaration called for colonists to respect the Declaration in their colonies. And despite the presence of 17 women among the drafters, there was not a single mention in the document of rights of women; that reflected the overall stress on civil and political rights as opposed to economic, social and cultural rights. Those concepts had been added later, and Africa had played a major role in those advances. It was sad to note that despite these contributions, Africa and the immense majority of its citizens were not in a position to enjoy the rights contained in the Universal Declaration. What was the point of this document if millions in the world could not even read it?

Action on Draft Measures, Decisions and Resolutions Proposed by the Subcommission, Statements

In a measure (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.15) on methods of work, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission noted it was unable to examine the revised working paper on the topic submitted by Subcommission expert Ribot Hatano and decided to invite all members of the Subcommission, Governments, and non-governmental organizations to submit comments to the Secretariat on the revised working paper by 15 October; it also decided to request Mr. Hatano to take into account the comments received in preparing a further working paper without financial implications to be submitted to the Subcommission at its fifty-first session, and to consider the working paper on a priority basis in private meetings.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.39) on prevention of discrimination against and protection of minorities, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission welcomed the recommendation of its Working Group on the topic to request its members to prepare working papers on thematic issues; welcomed the participation in the Working Group of representatives of treaty bodies, of other human-rights mechanisms, and of relevant special rapporteurs; appealed to all States, specialized agencies, NGOs and scholars to continue to participate actively; requested the Secretary-General to invite the specialized agencies and United Nations bodies, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, to provide information to the Working Group on their activities and programmes in the field of minority protection; welcomed the seminar prior to the fourth session of the Group on the role of the media in protecting minorities and urged the Group to give due consideration to the recommendations thereof; urged it to include in its agenda an item on issues relating to the legacies of the slave trade on the Black communities throughout America; recommended that the Commission on Human Rights consider the establishment of a voluntary fund to enable minorities to participate in the Working Group; and recommended a draft decision to that effect to the Commission for adoption.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.46) on a draft international convention on the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission decided to transmit the draft to the Commission Human Rights for its consideration, together with the comments of the Subcommission thereon as well as those of the Subcommission's sessional Working Group on administration of justice; it further requested the Commission to invite Governments, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations to provide comments on the draft convention.

In measure on its Working Group on the administration of justice and human rights, the Subcommission endorsed the decision of the group related to transmission of the draft convention on the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances to the Commission on Human Rights and decisions about the group's work programme, anticipated reports to be compiled by its members, and changes to its agenda.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.41) on housing and property restitution in the context of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission reaffirmed the right of all such persons to return to their homes and places of habitual residence and/or place of origin, should they so wish; reaffirmed the universal applicability of the right to adequate housing, the right to freedom of movement and the right to privacy and respect for the home; confirmed that the adoption or application of laws by States which were designed to or resulted in the loss or removal of tenancy, use, ownership or other rights connected with housing or property, the active retraction of the right to reside within a particular place, or laws of abandonment employed against refugees or internally displaced persons posed serious impediments to the return and reintegration of refugees and internally displaced persons and to reconstruction and reconciliation; urged all States to ensure the free and fair exercise of the right to return and to develop effective and expeditious legal, administrative and other procedures to ensure it; and decided to consider the issue at its fifty-first session under the agenda item entitled "freedom of movement".

In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.43) on forced population transfer, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission decided to convene an expert seminar, in close cooperation with relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and if necessary without financial implications, to assist in and to make practical recommendations for the further work of the Subcommission on the right to freedom of movement, in particular with respect to a study on the legal standards applicable to different types of forced displacement and any lacunae between those standards, for submission to the Subcommission at its fifty-second session.

In a measure (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.36) on promotion of dialogue on human-rights issues, adopted by consensus, the Subcommission reiterated its commitment to international cooperation in the field of human rights, and invited Governmental and non-governmental observers of the Subcommission to carry out constructive dialogue and consultations on human-rights issues, and to facilitate the formulation and adoption of resolutions and decisions; endorsed a cooperative approach in search of common understanding and reasonable accommodation of divergent views, particularly in the discussion on the effectiveness of the Subcommission; and decided to continue consideration of the question at its fifty-first session.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.37) on human rights and terrorism, adopted by unanimity, the Subcommission requested the Special Rapporteur, Kalliopi Koufa to elaborate a preliminary report based on her working paper and submit it at the panel's fifty-first session, a progress report at its fifty-second session, and a final report at its fifty-third session.

In a measure (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.37) on a working paper on a study of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission took note of the circumstances surrounding the inability of Clemencia Forero Ucros to submit her working paper and decided to request her to submit it to the Subcommission at its fifty-first session.

In a measure (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.40) on adverse consequences of economic sanctions on the enjoyment of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission decided to continue consideration of the topic at its fifty-first session under the agenda sub-item entitled "Implications of humanitarian activities for the enjoyment of human rights".

In a measure (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.42) on reservations to human-rights treaties, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission decided to request Subcommission expert Francoise Jane Hampson to prepare, without financial obligations, a working paper on the subject, including an examination of the number and scope of such reservations, their impact on the scope of the obligation accepted by States, reservations to the procedural provisions of human-rights treaties, including opting-out clauses, and the role and responsibility of monitoring bodies in relation to reservations to human-rights treaties, and to submit the paper at the Subcommission's fifty-first session.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission expert, said that Subcommission expert Louis Joinet had drawn attention to the number of studies that the Subcommission could undertake at any one time, and perhaps next year the Subcommission's limit would be reached. The more the Subcommission initiated preliminary studies, the more it would be restricting its capacity to take the initiative. He believed that Ms. Hampson's work would soon lead to the Commission authorizing a study. It was necessary to think about how far they were limiting their own capacity to take initiatives.

LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission expert, asked how could you have an action to encourage ratification of human-rights instruments if you did not also deal with the issue of reservations? Some instruments had been ratified with so many reservations that the meaning was distorted; it was true that at the beginning the emphasis had been on ratification -- there were few ratifications then; the pattern of reservations had since emerged. He thought the initiative to encourage withdrawal of ratifications should be strongly supported.

ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission expert, agreed that there would be a link between the working paper of Subcommission expert Vladimir Kartashkin and that of expert Francoise Jane Hampson. Certainly there could be working papers that did not become studies. Working papers improved the Subcommission's possibility to discuss matters and when he had co-sponsored decisions for working papers, he did not believe that this necessarily implied that a study on the subject would be carried out.

DAVID WEISSBRODT, Subcommission expert, said he did not see an overlap between efforts to encourage ratifications and efforts to encourage withdrawal of reservations of human-rights treaties. It seemed to him that both were worth the effort, and there was more than enough work to keep two Subcommission experts occupied. This measure seemed to him a very productive use of the Subcommission's time.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Subcommission alternate expert, said he was surprised at the discussion that had taken place around the two documents. Several experts had not been present at the session in the morning and were apparently confused. He had no intention of examining the question of reservations in his document. This was a subject that would be examined by Ms. Hampson. In this working document, he would be examining the question of why States were not party to the international human rights documents. The United Nations was in a paradoxical situation; most States had ratified the human rights instruments, and they had to enter a dialogue, and submit reports to treaty bodies. At the same time, many States that had not ratified any of the international instruments did not have any responsibility before the United Nations. However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established universal standards.

MUSTAPHA MEHEDI, Subcommission expert, said that with regard to the question of reservations, he had been a co-sponsor, but he hoped that Ms. Hampson would particularly emphasise the effective implementation of the treaty, right down to the last stage of its publication. He hoped that the question of the dissemination of treaties would be dealt with as some States merely mentioned the treaty and not the contents.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.44) on the humanitarian situation in Iraq, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission, believing that measures such as embargoes should be limited in time and should be lifted even if the legitimate objectives of the measures had not been attained, noted with grave concern the immense suffering endured by the Iraqi people, and by children in particular; drew attention to the alarming accounts in numerous reports by the United Nations and specialized agencies concerning the situation of innocent people who were suffering an unacceptable decline in levels of health nutrition, health care, employment, and agriculture; pointed out that infant mortality was rising, that the water-supply situation had continued to deteriorate, and that farm output would be able to meet only 10 per cent of required nutritional levels; considered that any embargo that condemned an innocent people to hunger, disease, ignorance and even death without attaining the objectives for which it was declared was a flagrant violation of economic, social, and cultural rights and of international law; appealed to the international community and, in particular, to the Security Council, for the embargo provisions affecting the humanitarian situation of the population of Iraq to be lifted, and urged the international community and all Governments, including that of Iraq, to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi population, in particular by facilitating the delivery of food, medical supplies and the wherewithal to meet their basic needs.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.45) on the adverse consequences for human rights and injurious effects of anti-personnel landmines, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission urged States that had not yet done so to sign or ratify the relevant conventions on conventional weapons and landmines; urged all countries responsible for the laying of anti-personnel landmines in foreign territories to assume full responsibility for the necessary mine clearance operations, and to cooperate with the host countries for this purpose in every possible way, in particular developing countries; urged them to modify their legislation where necessary in accordance with the wording of the Ottawa Convention, in full respect of its articles and spirit, including the clause prohibiting any reservations to the Convention; underlined the importance for non-State actors also to renounce the use of anti-personnel landmines; encouraged member States to continue the process of establishing regional and sub-regional zones free of anti-personnel landmines; and encouraged Governments, organizations and individuals to contribute to the United Nations mine-clearance programme, or to increase existing contributions.

MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said he did not consider that this draft fell within the area of competence of the Subcommission. If this draft was submitted to a vote, he would not take part in the voting.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Subcommission expert, said that the widespread use of anti-personnel landmines put at risk civilian populations, especially children. For the Subcommission that was concerned with children, this resolution was therefore particularly appropriate. Anti-personnel landmines also prevented people from returning home. Indiscriminate use of such mines by State and non-State actors could constitute a war crime. It was very important that this resolution should contain operative paragraphs 2 and 3. Many States were involved in the Ottawa process that would lead to a complete ban - but it was extremely important that those States that were not party to the Ottawa process would be encouraged to ratify the convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects.


FAN GUOXIANG, Subcommission expert, said he would go along with the consensus, if there was one, but he had strong reservations with the text of the resolution as he had outlined last year.

MR. WEISSBRODT said he understood the important relationship between landmines and human rights. He was taken aback by the amendment as he did not fully understand to what it applied. The Subcommission was beginning to walk into negotiations that were going on elsewhere. The Subcommission was perhaps becoming involved in events that had happened long ago: 'full responsibility' for conduct that happened long ago was perhaps going too far. Last year, they had decided to use different language that was perhaps more acceptable; the Subcommission had asked the Secretary General to appeal to all States, especially those that had laid landmines, to contribute to the clearance fund.

SANG YONG PARK, Subcommission expert, said he was reluctant to go along with the consensus, as he felt the issue did not necessarily fall within the subject matter of the Subcommission; but he would not break consensus.

GUY GENOT, Subcommission alternate expert, said the question of landmines was one that particularly concerned his country. This explained why he found this type of resolution appropriate as it could have a link with the protection of the exercise of fundamental rights. It was necessary to avoid going to extremes. As an expert, his dearest wish was to see international law progress, particularly in its acceptance by all States. That mines had been laid in the past was regrettable, the international community had established mechanisms to ensure that the past had ways of being resolved: for example the mines clearance fund. He would prefer to see the draft resolution adopted by consensus without the amendment by Mrs. Warzazi, rather than following a vote.

AHMED KHALIL, Subcommission alternate expert, said the amendments proposed did not in anyway take away from the main concerns of the resolution. There was a question of balance here, however; it was not really a question of the past; people continued to be maimed and killed by mines; the longer they stayed in the ground the more dangerous they became; there was an incredible amount of mines still in the western desert of Egypt, as well as in other countries in Africa; it seemed to him that these countries did not have the resources to remove these mines; it seemed only fair that the countries that helped to lay these mines should help to remove them. These slight amendments did not in the least detract from the rest of the resolution but only raised another important issue.

YOZO YOKOTA, Subcommission alternate expert, said a number of people had expressed concern about the draft resolution. He wanted to make it clear that he supported the draft resolution, as it stood or with the amendments proposed by Mrs. Warzazi. The members of the Subcommission who objected did so, he thought, as the issue was already in the jurisdiction of the Security Council. However there were many issues that could be under the jurisdiction of several different bodies of the United Nations. Landmines did not attack combatants but rather children, farmers, and in some cases local populations. The extent of suffering produced by landmines, as well as its hindrance to development, meant that there was no reason why the Subcommission, as a human rights body, could not consider this issue.

MS. HAMPSON said the amendment mentioned "assuming" responsibility -- that meant taking on a moral rather than a legal responsibility; there was no legal responsibility implied. Second, the amendment did not assert responsibility for laying the mines; it did not apportion blame; it simply sought help with the responsibility for removing the mines.

MR. JOINET said he did not think that a resolution from the Subcommission could form a handicap to the discussions that were going on. In France, if the Government had finally halted manufacture of landmines, it was because there was a strong public opinion campaign. The Subcommission could contribute to further mobilizing opinion; it was for the experts to inform their Governments and NGOs about the issue.

MRS. WARZAZI said there were a certain number of rights that were not contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and consequently to try to oblige certain States who had not ratified the various human rights conventions to apply the provisions of the Universal Declaration would not necessarily comply with the true objectives of the co-sponsors. Mr. Kartashkin should take this question into account as there were indeed countries that continued to have reservations, despite the consensus reached at the Vienna Conference. There was nothing about women, children, or the handicapped in the Universal Declaration.

In a measure on ratification of human-rights instruments, the Subcommission decided to request Subcommission expert Vladimir Kartashkin to prepare, without financial implications, a working paper on ways by which the Subcommission could examine the observance of the human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by States which were not parties to United Nations human-rights conventions and to present it to the fifty-first session of the Subcommission; and also decided to change the title of its agenda sub-item "encouragement of universal acceptance of human rights instruments" by adding the words "and observance of the human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by States which are not parties to United Nations human rights conventions".

MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said he foresaw confusion in trying to distinguish between which human-rights conventions which were important and those which were not; they all were important and interrelated; there was no distinction between them; he therefore preferred the current wording to that of the draft previously considered.

Corrigendum

In HR/SC/98/28, issued on 24 August 1998, the headline should read as follows:

Special Rapporteur Makes Oral Statement on Terrorism and Human Rights

The second paragraph of the second page should read as follows:

The Subcommission also took up its agenda item on "review of further developments in fields with which the Subcommission has been or may be concerned", and under that rubric heard from its Special Rapporteur on human rights and terrorism. Alternate expert Kalliopi Koufa said insufficient time, the lateness of her appointment by the Commission on Human Rights, and a lack of assistance had made preparation of a thorough report on human rights and terrorism in time for the Subcommission meeting impossible. She made an oral statement concerning the basis and the orientation of the study -- noting, among other things, that there was still no firm definition of the terms "terrorism" or "act of terrorism" and still no common ground on whether such crimes carried out by armed groups acting outside State control were properly characterized as human-rights violations.