Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases CHR subsidiary body
SUBCOMMISSION, AFTER EXTENDED DEBATE, APPROVES RESOLUTION ON HUMAN-RIGHTS DEFENDERS CONTAINING LIST OF NAMES
20 August 1998
Share
MORNING
HR/SC/98/24
20 August 1998
Subcommission Also Adopts Measure on "Developments in Mexico", Creates Sessional
Working Group on Transnational Corporations, Requests Various Studies
The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities this morning firmly condemned the murders of a series of human-rights defenders around the world, mentioning seven specific names, and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to follow up on the situations of eight other persons.
The panel of experts also adopted a resolution on "developments in the situation in Mexico", requesting Mexican authorities to combat impunity of perpetrators of serious human-rights violations, especially those suffered by numerous members of the indigenous populations, and to guarantee the safety of human-rights defenders. The measure was approved by a secret ballot of 12 in favour, 6 opposed, and 6 abstaining.
The group decided by consensus to create a sessional Working Group on the effects on human rights of the activities and working methods of transnational corporations, and to entrust various Subcommission members to carry out studies on affirmative action; on the rights of non-citizens; on proposals for the work of the upcoming World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance; on globalization in the context of an increase in incidents of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia; on promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation; and on the right to food.
Adoption of the Subcommission's resolution on "human-rights defenders" followed a debate of an hour and a half over details and terms -- whether specific names and countries should be mentioned and whether the term "human-rights defenders" should be used. Several experts contended that "human-rights defenders" was not an officially recognized phrase and did not appear in the draft declaration on the topic that had been developed over a decade of negotiations and would soon go before the General Assembly for possible adoption. Others expressed concern that the specific persons proposed for inclusion had not been sufficiently researched to ensure that they qualified as "human-rights defenders".
A series of secret ballots was held -- on the title of the resolution, in particular its use of the phrase "human rights defenders" (20 in favour, 4 opposed, none abstaining), on the second paragraph (17 in favour, 6 opposed, 1 abstaining), on the fifth paragraph (19 in favour, 5 opposed, none abstaining), on the sixth paragraph (22 in favour, 2 opposed, none abstaining), and on the text as a whole (21 in favour, 3 opposed, none abstaining).
Observers for several countries mentioned in the resolution voiced opposition to the specific references, among them Turkey, Tunisia, the Philippines, Myanmar, Honduras, and Nigeria.
In other action, the Subcommission strongly urged Governments to undertake immediately measures to eliminate the practice of forced evictions; sought information from the Secretary-General on United Nations efforts to promote the right to development; and called on States to combat acts of violence resulting from racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia directed against migrant workers and their families.
The Subcommission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to carry on with consideration of draft resolutions tabled under its agenda item on economic, social and cultural rights.
Action on Draft Resolutions, Statements
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.13) on violations of the rights of human-rights defenders in all countries, adopted by a secret ballot with 21 in favour, 3 opposed and 0 abstentions, the Subcommission urged each State to take any measures necessary within its own jurisdiction to ensure effective respect of their obligations in the field of human rights, and to guarantee to individuals, groups, organizations, associations and organs of society the necessary conditions to exercise freely their activities in favour of the recognition, promotion, and defence of human rights; firmly condemned the murders of José Eduardo Umana Mendoza, lawyer, professor of criminal law, and former member of the Lawyers Collective "José Alvear Restrepo" and member of the executive council of the World Organization against Torture, in 18 April 1988 in Bogota; Mr. Juan Geradi, President of the Commission of Peace and Justice in Guatemala, in April 1998; Rexhep Bislimi, member of the Council for the Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms, on 22 July 1998 in Pristina, Kosovo, Yugoslavia; Ernesto Sandoval Bustillo, president of a local branch of the Human Rights Committee of Honduras; Youssef Fethellah, lawyer, human-rights activist, and President of the Algerian League of Human Rights, on 18 June 1994 in Algeria; Luis Amparo Jimenez Pallares, journalist, director of the regional office of the Reintegration Programme and Coordinator of the Redepax peace network, on 11 August 1998 in Valledupar, Colombia; and Patrick Finucane, lawyer and human-rights defender in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1989, mentioned in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on his visit to the United Kingdom; called upon the Governments concerned not to leave crimes committed against human-rights defenders unpunished and to ensure judgement by a civil tribunal and punishment of the perpetrators as well as compensation of the families of the victims, including for killings which occurred a long time ago; urged each State to take any measures necessary within its own jurisdiction to ensure the security of all human-rights defenders who are being repressed, harassed or threatened throughout the world; requested the Government of Myanmar to ensure the security of Aung San Suu Kyi and of members of the National League for Democracy, in particular to guarantee their freedom of movement and expression, and urged the Government to extend to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar an invitation to visit the country; and recommended that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights enquire into the situation and safety of the persons on a list attached to the resolution and inform the Subcommission at its next session.
The list contains the following names: Akin Birdal, President of the Turkish Human Rights Association and Vice-President of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; Khemais Ksila, Vice-President of the Tunisian League of Human Rights and of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; Ramon Custodio, President of the Human Rights Committee of Honduras; Javier Giraldo, Executive Director of the Intercongregational Commission of Justice and Peace of Colombia; Clement Nwankwo, Director of the Constitutional Rights Project of Nigeria; Destan Rukichi, lawyer, member of the Council for Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms in Pristina, Kosovo; Viktor Kaisiepo, human-rights activist and spokesperson of the West Papua Peoples' Front of Indonesia; lawyers who were members of the Judicial Center of Public Interest of the Philippines; and Pierre Samba, President of the NGO Grand Vision in the Democratic People's Republic of the Congo. The resolution condemns the dissolution by the Government of that country of the Association for the Defence of Human Rights.
JOSE BENGOA, Subcommission expert, said that he had consulted with his co-sponsors, and that in no way could it be understood that this draft resolution was a personal and individual effort on his part - he had discussed it with his colleagues and the Secretariat. In the consultations they had seen that it would be necessary to have a vote on the draft resolution with the names under paragraph 4. If there were no names under paragraph 4, it would be a very weak resolution. It was clear that a formula was being sought for next year to establish how to decide on the names. Many of these names were placed there by members of the Subcommission, and many were well-known in the human rights world. He hoped there could be a consensus in the Subcommission on the names. The co-sponsors had checked the list, but after having reviewed the cases that had been set out under paragraph 4, it appeared that these were individuals who were defenders of human rights and should therefore be considered under this resolution. They had sought, with great respect and care, to see who the right persons would be, and if they had been selective in any inappropriate way, this was not their intention. As Subcommission expert Guoxiang Fan had said yesterday, it was not done 'to kill chickens or frighten monkeys'.
IOAN MAXIM, Subcommission expert, said there was a strong presumption that there were errors in the text of L.13; he wondered if there were any other errors, wanted to ask if that was the situation; if so, should the Subcommission shut its eyes and accept the possibility that errors might appear in the resolution. It seemed to him that, as recommended by Subcommission expert Louis Joinet, they should wait until next year so that the list of names could be thoroughly researched.
Y. K. Y. SIK YUEN, Subcommission expert, said experts were not infallible, and may wish to change opinions based on facts and circumstances; rules of procedure were made to guide the group, not rule it; although he agreed with the rest of the text, he felt unable to support paragraph 4 of L.13 and withdrew from co-sponsorship of the resolution. But he assured the others of his support for the rights of human-rights defenders.
LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission expert, said he had never asked for a postponement. Rather he had asked that Mr. Bengoa consider improvements for next year. He had never asked for a deferral, and if the names were withdrawn, the resolution would no longer have any point. Many of the people that they had come to know at the Subcommission had never had any type of support of this kind - they were talking about people, and the question should not be whether there were problems about States. There were resolutions in the General Assembly that discussed Kosovo - without intending to consider Kosovo as a State, and there was a precedent to mention areas - this was the case of East Timor.
FAN GUOXIANG , Subcommission expert, said that after listening to the debate, he thought the draft of L.13 was not mature yet; the term "human-rights defenders" was not an official term; he had read the draft declaration on the subject, which actually did not use the term; also the draft declaration repeatedly referred both to rights and responsibilities. Second, the part listing names and different countries was not "mature"; he was not sure of all of these people; the situation was very complicated; he supported the motion to defer the resolution until next year -- among other things, that would give the General Assembly time to discuss the draft declaration, perhaps clarifying the underlying issues.
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission expert, said that she was not so concerned over whether the people mentioned in the draft resolution were human-rights defenders or not - when there were people in their countries who defended human rights, she was happy to call them human-rights defenders. With regard to paragraph 4, as doubts had been expressed, it was a question of the credibility of the Subcommission - in order to avoid deferring the resolution to next year, she proposed that a full stop be put on the third line of paragraph 4, and that in paragraph 6, the Secretary General be requested to inquire about the situation and security of the persons named in the list attached to the present resolution.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission expert, said the proposal to delay the draft resolution until next year was very sensible; he preferred not to proceed to a vote on it this year, and thought that a vote on such a measure was not in the spirit of the Subcommission -- such a resolution was better adopted by consensus. Meanwhile the amendments offered to the draft resolution did not eliminate his doubts about it.
FRANCOISE HAMPSON, Subcommission expert, said that if Mr. Benoga were to propose Mrs. Warzazi's suggestion as an amendment, this could alleviate the concerns raised by the members of the Subcommission. She opposed deferral of the resolution, and also opposed the deletion of names from the list which would weaken the resolution.
MR. BENGOA said he had consulted with the others who had worked on the draft resolution, and the proposal of Mrs. Warzazi seemed appropriate; as for Subcommission expert Vladimir's suggestion, there was agreement that under paragraph 2, after mention of Kosovo, "Yugoslavia" should be written.
MR. JOINET said he agreed with what had been said, and fully supported Mrs. Warzazi's proposal. Rather than mentioning the Secretary-General, it would perhaps be better to refer to the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
MR. FAN said there was a clear distinction between the draft resolution and the draft declaration. No matter how you put it, the spirit and content of the declaration was different from the spirit and content of the draft resolution.
BULENT MERIC (Turkey) said he had listened very carefully to the discussion in the Subcommission. Turkey had reservations on the text which had been addressed in the discussion. However, Turkey wished that the draft resolution had evaluated each and every case on its own merits rather than pursuing a general approach to the question. The draft resolution referred to Akin Birdal, President of the Turkish Human Rights Association; in previous interventions, the Turkish representative had reflected the importance that the Turkish Government attached to the role of human-rights defenders in protecting and promoting human rights. The Turkish Government viewed the assassination attempt against Mr. Birdal as despicable, and the incident had been condemned by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister and others. The culprits had been identified, apprehended and brought to justice. What else was being sought from the Turkish Government in this regard - what else could the Government have done for Mr. Birdal?
MARIA ELVIRA POSADA (Colombia), said the Government wished to state that progress had been made in the investigation of the death of Eduardo Umana Mendoza, mentioned in paragraph 2 of the resolution under discussion; the criminal investigation in the case of the lawyer had begun in the human-rights unit of the National Prosecutor's office; the Government also offered a reward of $ 500,000 for information leading to clarification of the murder; it also had been agreed that information held in secret archives of various Government and police departments would be open to inspection by the National Prosecutor to ensure that they did not contain information on human-rights defenders marking them as members of subversive groups. Protection of human-rights defenders would be stepped up. The Ministry of the Interior had agreed to a budget increase for its special programme to protect human-rights defenders; and meetings had been held with NGOs to establish which defenders required immediate protection. Government officials had been ordered not to make statements which stigmatized such NGOs. Timely updates were promised on progress made in relevant investigations.
KAMEL MORJANE (Tunisia) said that his delegation wished to show respect for the Subcommission and had asked for the floor to make certain comments on the draft resolution. Tunisia was consolidating the protection of human rights every day. It was logical that a resolution should be drawn up stemming from the resolutions of the Security Council. However there were several problems with the form and content of this resolution. The term "human-rights defenders" continued to be ill-defined. Logic dictated that the Subcommission should make an appeal to all Governments to implement the declaration. However, if it contained the names of specific countries or certain defenders, this was unfair. He expressed the hope that the Subcommission would take his comments into account.
LILIA BAUTISTA (Philippines) said there was no group by the name of Judicial Centre for Public Interest in the Philippines; it was the Government's opinion that groups of doubtful names and origin had no business being in Subcommission resolutions.
MR. AYE (Myanmar) said he had to make reflections on the draft resolution. He failed to understand the rational for paragraph 5. Matters dealt with specifically in the paragraph had already been subject of a separate and specific resolution of the Commission on Human Rights, and it had been established that the Subcommission should not replicate the work of the Commission, this could set a bad precedent. Two days ago, the authorities of Myanmar had met with the National League for Democracy (NLD), and it was hoped that this was the first in a series of talks that would be productive. The invitation had been extended on 17 August. The Myanmar delegation requested the Subcommission to reflect its appreciation for the positive events in Myanmar by deleting operative paragraph 5.
GRACIBEL BU FIGUEROA (Honduras) said the delegation was concerned that in paragraph 4 there was only mention of a group of countries, all developing countries; it was an obligation of all States, without exception, to ensure the security of human-rights defenders. Honduras in recent years had made major efforts to enhance such security; it had adopted a law protecting such persons and requiring investigation of any harassment of them. It was clear to all that this resolution was still not mature, as shown by the many proposals, revisions, and amendments mentioned by experts. The matter should not come to a vote and instead consultations should be continued with the countries mentioned in the resolution regarding the persons mentioned.
A. HASSAN (Nigeria) said that in paragraph 4, mention had been made of Clement Nwankwo. The Nigerian delegation had no knowledge of Mr. Nwankwo having any problems with the Government of Nigeria. All they knew was that he had been deported from Switzerland last year.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.18) on developments in the situation in Mexico, adopted by a secret ballot with 12 in favour, 6 opposed and 6 abstentions, the Subcommission requested Mexican authorities to ensure full respect for the international instruments to which it was a party, and, to this end, attach highest priority to combatting impunity of perpetrators of serious human-rights violations, especially those suffered by numerous members of the indigenous populations, and to promoting the action of human-rights defenders and guaranteeing their safety; appealed to the signatories of the San Andrés accords to resume the process favouring dialogue; and requested the Commission on Human Rights to consider at its next session developments in the situation in Mexico.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission expert, said that while some parts of the draft resolution were clear, there were some value judgements with regard to the visits of Special Rapporteurs. He focused on the last preamble paragraph and the last operative paragraph. He was concerned by a new paragraph that was being introduced: preventive action on such a sensitive issue as human rights. If there was no definition, then the United Nations and the Subcommission did not have the authority to develop action in a general field where the action had to be based on criteria that had been established. However, this idea of preventive action caused him concern as the point of departure was probably more vague than those that existed for specific action for the Subcommission. To consider that a situation had become one that required preventive action was a value judgement. This draft resolution had been the subject of much discussion, but his vote on this paper, as submitted officially to the Secretariat, would be made in consequence of the points he had raised.
ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said there was not a persistent framework of human-rights violations in Mexico; there were, of course, abuses, but they were not officially sanctioned crimes and the authorities sought to punish and to eliminate any such violations; for that purpose they had established one of the most extensive ombudsman networks in the world and had extended legal protection and efforts to enforce them. Legal instruments had been enhanced and prompt responses were made to any complaints received; in a brief paper distributed to the Subcommission recently, several specific cases were described of authorities charged with human-rights being detained and brought to trial. The conflict in Mexico was limited to four of over 100 municipalities of Chiapas, which was one of over 30 states in the country. Major efforts had been made to rectify the conflict, including negotiations with armed, masked individuals who had declared war against the State; the Congress now had the task of deciding on reforms to the Constitution related to human-rights protection and of relevance to the conflict; the Government had made many appeals for dialogue and was in favour of dialogue; thematic rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights had been invited to visit Mexico, along with other human-rights experts; the International Committee of the Red Cross was present in the field, as were a number of internationally recognized NGOs; a commission had been set up to field human-rights complaints. The Government saw no justification for a resolution on Mexico under agenda item 2.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.4) on the concept and practice of affirmative action, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission decided to appoint its expert Marc Bossuyt as Special Rapportuer with the task of preparing a study on the subject to submit a preliminary report to the Subcommission at its fifty-first session; agreed with the suggestion of Mr. Bossuyt that he be authorized to request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to send out a questionnaire inviting submission of national documentation on the subject of affirmative action; and recommended a draft decision summarizing these aims to the Commission on Human Rights for adoption.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.6) on the rights of non-citizens, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission decided to entrust its expert David Weissbrodt with the preparation, without financial implications, of a working paper on the topic, and to take into account comments on the scope of such a study made during the fiftieth session of the Subcommission, for example, developments since the adoption in 1985 of the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who Are Not Nationals of the Country in Which They Live; overcoming impediments to ratification of the International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; discrimination between different groups of non-citizens; the implications of dual citizenship; and ways of contributing material on this topic to the upcoming World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said the rights of non-citizens should be the subject of an analysis, and Mr. Weissbrodt was entirely qualified to undertake such a study. In the working paper, he needed to take account of a series of studies done on the rights of migrant workers. The fact that there were countries that were likely to have problems in this sphere should not preclude taking a wide view of this subject.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.24) on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission declared all types of racism and xenophobia, such as ethnic cleansing, to be among the most serious violations of human rights; encouraged educational institutions, non-governmental organizations and the mass media to promote ideas of tolerance and understanding among peoples and between different cultures; supported the proposal for a preliminary analytical study on the objectives of the World Conference; recommended that topics for studies be considered using the materials developed by the Subcommission in the preparatory process and at the World Conference itself; decided to request one of its members, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro to prepare a paper on proposals for the work of the World Conference to be considered by the Subcommission at its fifty-first session; decided to carry out further studies without delay; suggested that the conference focus, among other things, on both situations of ethnic conflict and other patterns of discrimination; and recommended that the conference prepare a declaration and programme of action.
In a measure on globalization in the context of the increase in incidents of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, the Subcommission decided to entrust its expert Joseph Oloka-Onyango to prepare a working paper on the topic for submission at the Subcommission's fifty-first session, as a contribution to the preparation for the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.2) on promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission recommended that the Commission on Human Rights authorize the appointment of its expert El-Hadji Guissé as Special Rapporteur to conduct a detailed study on the subject, taking also into account questions related to the right to development, in order to determine the most effective means for reinforcing activities in this field; and recommended a draft decision to that effect to the Commission for adoption.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said he did not know if there was prior authorization by the Commission on Human Rights that would allow them to undertake the study. The procedure had to be clear, it was not the Commission that would authorise, it was the Economic and Social Council. So the Commission had to be asked to endorse the proposal, and recommend it to the Economic and Social Council.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.3) on the relationship between the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development, and the working methods and activities of transnational corporations, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission supported the Declaration on the Right to Development and underlined its multidimensional, integrated and dynamic character, and considered that it should constitute a basis for work undertaken on the relationship between human rights and the activities of transnational corporations; and decided to establish, for a three-year period, a sessional working group of the Subcommission composed of five of its members to examine this relationship; to examine, receive, and gather information, including any working paper prepared by a member of the Subcommission, on the subject; to analyse the compatibility of the various international human-rights instruments with the various investment agreements, regional as well as international, including in particular the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; to make recommendations and proposals relating to the methods of the work and activities of such corporations; and to prepare each year a list of countries and transnational corporations, indicating, in U.S. dollars, their gross national product or financial turnover, respectively; and to consider the scope of the obligation of States to regulate the activities of transnational corporations, where their activities had or were likely to have a significant impact on the enjoyment of human rights, both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, of all persons within their jurisdiction;
MR. JOINET requested that there be some recognition of the need to collect information on the situation of different groups, such as trade unions, so that there would be a rebalancing with regard to economic and social rights.
SOLI J. SORABJEE, Subcommission expert, said he strongly supported the amendment L.20 proposed by Ms. Hampson to resolution L.3.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said the amendment proposed by Ms. Hampson was a positive one and he was in a position to accept it. The greatest merit of this amendment was that it reiterated something that had been introduced into their discussions: although they were dealing with economic, social and cultural rights, they should not forget the effect that might result on political and civil rights.
ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission expert said that it was important to deal with violations of economic, social and cultural rights, and even if the forum for this was not agreed now, the need to deal with this issue had to be agreed.
MR. BENGOA said transnational corporations often were not seen as including financial institutions; if the co-sponsors would agree, he thought financial institutions should be added to the ranks of transnational corporations under the terms of the resolution, since the greatest impact came from the operation of international financial firms. In general, it was not very clear what the aim of the recommendations and conclusions of the working group would be; there needed to be an obvious aim; he did not think it was possible to address recommendations to corporations individually.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said that Mr. Bengoa's point was important, but the work undertaken by the Working Group would determine in which direction it would focus. The Working Group should take account of Mr. Bengoa's concern.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.8) on transmission of Subcommission resolution 1996/22 to the Secretary-General, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission, recalling its resolution on the "Tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development", in which it requested the Secretary-General to invite all relevant UN agencies and bodies to step up their action to promote international cooperation for realization of the right to development and to provide him with information thereon, and requested him annually to transmit to the Subcommission the information received, decided to request again that the Commission on Human Rights transmit the full text of the resolution to the Secretary-General.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.16) on the right to food, adopted unanimously, the Subcommission decided, without a vote, to request its expert Asbjorn Eide to review and update, without financial implications, his study on the topic submitted in 1987, and decided to request Mr. Eide to complete, without financial implications, the review and update of the report and to submit the final version of the updated study to the Subcommission at its fifty-first session.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.17) on forced evictions, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission strongly urged Governments to undertake immediately measures to eliminate the practice of forced evictions; strongly urged them to protect all persons who were currently threatened with forced evictions and to adopt all necessary measures giving full protection against arbitrary or unreasonable forced eviction, based upon effective participation, consultation and negotiation with affected persons or groups; recommended that all Governments provide immediate restitution, compensation, and/or appropriate and sufficient alternative accommodation or land, consistent with their wishes, rights, and needs, to persons and communities that had been forcibly evicted; and recommended that Governments ensure that any eviction whether forced or not, was carried out in a manner that did not violate human rights.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.19) on the situation of migrant workers and members of their families, adopted unanimously, the Subcommission considered that international migratory movements were steadily increasing because poverty was growing in a large number of developing countries and use of foreign labour in developed countries was continuing despite claims that there was an economic crisis; regretted once again the contradiction between the free movement of goods and the liberalization of trade in services and financial transactions encouraged by transnational corporations and international financial institutions, and the increasingly draconian restrictions imposed on the movement of individuals; considered that it was the responsibility of States to combat and put an end to all acts of violence resulting from racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia directed against migrant workers and their families; appealed to competent authorities of receiving countries as well as to members of civil society to pay particular attention to protection and defence of women migrant workers; expressed its conviction that migrant workers contributed not only to the economic progress of the States where they were employed but also to the enrichment of cultural life of the receiving societies and the establishment of an atmosphere of mutual knowledge and understanding and peaceful co-existence; drew attention to the need for States to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; appealed to Governments to ratify International Labour Office conventions 97 and 143; appealed to Governments, especially receiving States, to adopt comprehensive civil anti-discrimination legislation; considered that the misuse of information technology, particularly towards incitement of racism and racial violence, should be monitored; and appealed to Governments to establish appropriate legal and other forums and institutions to address the problems of migrants a
nd to provide access to them for migrant workers.
HR/SC/98/24
20 August 1998
Subcommission Also Adopts Measure on "Developments in Mexico", Creates Sessional
Working Group on Transnational Corporations, Requests Various Studies
The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities this morning firmly condemned the murders of a series of human-rights defenders around the world, mentioning seven specific names, and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to follow up on the situations of eight other persons.
The panel of experts also adopted a resolution on "developments in the situation in Mexico", requesting Mexican authorities to combat impunity of perpetrators of serious human-rights violations, especially those suffered by numerous members of the indigenous populations, and to guarantee the safety of human-rights defenders. The measure was approved by a secret ballot of 12 in favour, 6 opposed, and 6 abstaining.
The group decided by consensus to create a sessional Working Group on the effects on human rights of the activities and working methods of transnational corporations, and to entrust various Subcommission members to carry out studies on affirmative action; on the rights of non-citizens; on proposals for the work of the upcoming World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance; on globalization in the context of an increase in incidents of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia; on promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation; and on the right to food.
Adoption of the Subcommission's resolution on "human-rights defenders" followed a debate of an hour and a half over details and terms -- whether specific names and countries should be mentioned and whether the term "human-rights defenders" should be used. Several experts contended that "human-rights defenders" was not an officially recognized phrase and did not appear in the draft declaration on the topic that had been developed over a decade of negotiations and would soon go before the General Assembly for possible adoption. Others expressed concern that the specific persons proposed for inclusion had not been sufficiently researched to ensure that they qualified as "human-rights defenders".
A series of secret ballots was held -- on the title of the resolution, in particular its use of the phrase "human rights defenders" (20 in favour, 4 opposed, none abstaining), on the second paragraph (17 in favour, 6 opposed, 1 abstaining), on the fifth paragraph (19 in favour, 5 opposed, none abstaining), on the sixth paragraph (22 in favour, 2 opposed, none abstaining), and on the text as a whole (21 in favour, 3 opposed, none abstaining).
Observers for several countries mentioned in the resolution voiced opposition to the specific references, among them Turkey, Tunisia, the Philippines, Myanmar, Honduras, and Nigeria.
In other action, the Subcommission strongly urged Governments to undertake immediately measures to eliminate the practice of forced evictions; sought information from the Secretary-General on United Nations efforts to promote the right to development; and called on States to combat acts of violence resulting from racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia directed against migrant workers and their families.
The Subcommission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to carry on with consideration of draft resolutions tabled under its agenda item on economic, social and cultural rights.
Action on Draft Resolutions, Statements
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.13) on violations of the rights of human-rights defenders in all countries, adopted by a secret ballot with 21 in favour, 3 opposed and 0 abstentions, the Subcommission urged each State to take any measures necessary within its own jurisdiction to ensure effective respect of their obligations in the field of human rights, and to guarantee to individuals, groups, organizations, associations and organs of society the necessary conditions to exercise freely their activities in favour of the recognition, promotion, and defence of human rights; firmly condemned the murders of José Eduardo Umana Mendoza, lawyer, professor of criminal law, and former member of the Lawyers Collective "José Alvear Restrepo" and member of the executive council of the World Organization against Torture, in 18 April 1988 in Bogota; Mr. Juan Geradi, President of the Commission of Peace and Justice in Guatemala, in April 1998; Rexhep Bislimi, member of the Council for the Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms, on 22 July 1998 in Pristina, Kosovo, Yugoslavia; Ernesto Sandoval Bustillo, president of a local branch of the Human Rights Committee of Honduras; Youssef Fethellah, lawyer, human-rights activist, and President of the Algerian League of Human Rights, on 18 June 1994 in Algeria; Luis Amparo Jimenez Pallares, journalist, director of the regional office of the Reintegration Programme and Coordinator of the Redepax peace network, on 11 August 1998 in Valledupar, Colombia; and Patrick Finucane, lawyer and human-rights defender in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1989, mentioned in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on his visit to the United Kingdom; called upon the Governments concerned not to leave crimes committed against human-rights defenders unpunished and to ensure judgement by a civil tribunal and punishment of the perpetrators as well as compensation of the families of the victims, including for killings which occurred a long time ago; urged each State to take any measures necessary within its own jurisdiction to ensure the security of all human-rights defenders who are being repressed, harassed or threatened throughout the world; requested the Government of Myanmar to ensure the security of Aung San Suu Kyi and of members of the National League for Democracy, in particular to guarantee their freedom of movement and expression, and urged the Government to extend to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar an invitation to visit the country; and recommended that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights enquire into the situation and safety of the persons on a list attached to the resolution and inform the Subcommission at its next session.
The list contains the following names: Akin Birdal, President of the Turkish Human Rights Association and Vice-President of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; Khemais Ksila, Vice-President of the Tunisian League of Human Rights and of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; Ramon Custodio, President of the Human Rights Committee of Honduras; Javier Giraldo, Executive Director of the Intercongregational Commission of Justice and Peace of Colombia; Clement Nwankwo, Director of the Constitutional Rights Project of Nigeria; Destan Rukichi, lawyer, member of the Council for Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms in Pristina, Kosovo; Viktor Kaisiepo, human-rights activist and spokesperson of the West Papua Peoples' Front of Indonesia; lawyers who were members of the Judicial Center of Public Interest of the Philippines; and Pierre Samba, President of the NGO Grand Vision in the Democratic People's Republic of the Congo. The resolution condemns the dissolution by the Government of that country of the Association for the Defence of Human Rights.
JOSE BENGOA, Subcommission expert, said that he had consulted with his co-sponsors, and that in no way could it be understood that this draft resolution was a personal and individual effort on his part - he had discussed it with his colleagues and the Secretariat. In the consultations they had seen that it would be necessary to have a vote on the draft resolution with the names under paragraph 4. If there were no names under paragraph 4, it would be a very weak resolution. It was clear that a formula was being sought for next year to establish how to decide on the names. Many of these names were placed there by members of the Subcommission, and many were well-known in the human rights world. He hoped there could be a consensus in the Subcommission on the names. The co-sponsors had checked the list, but after having reviewed the cases that had been set out under paragraph 4, it appeared that these were individuals who were defenders of human rights and should therefore be considered under this resolution. They had sought, with great respect and care, to see who the right persons would be, and if they had been selective in any inappropriate way, this was not their intention. As Subcommission expert Guoxiang Fan had said yesterday, it was not done 'to kill chickens or frighten monkeys'.
IOAN MAXIM, Subcommission expert, said there was a strong presumption that there were errors in the text of L.13; he wondered if there were any other errors, wanted to ask if that was the situation; if so, should the Subcommission shut its eyes and accept the possibility that errors might appear in the resolution. It seemed to him that, as recommended by Subcommission expert Louis Joinet, they should wait until next year so that the list of names could be thoroughly researched.
Y. K. Y. SIK YUEN, Subcommission expert, said experts were not infallible, and may wish to change opinions based on facts and circumstances; rules of procedure were made to guide the group, not rule it; although he agreed with the rest of the text, he felt unable to support paragraph 4 of L.13 and withdrew from co-sponsorship of the resolution. But he assured the others of his support for the rights of human-rights defenders.
LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission expert, said he had never asked for a postponement. Rather he had asked that Mr. Bengoa consider improvements for next year. He had never asked for a deferral, and if the names were withdrawn, the resolution would no longer have any point. Many of the people that they had come to know at the Subcommission had never had any type of support of this kind - they were talking about people, and the question should not be whether there were problems about States. There were resolutions in the General Assembly that discussed Kosovo - without intending to consider Kosovo as a State, and there was a precedent to mention areas - this was the case of East Timor.
FAN GUOXIANG , Subcommission expert, said that after listening to the debate, he thought the draft of L.13 was not mature yet; the term "human-rights defenders" was not an official term; he had read the draft declaration on the subject, which actually did not use the term; also the draft declaration repeatedly referred both to rights and responsibilities. Second, the part listing names and different countries was not "mature"; he was not sure of all of these people; the situation was very complicated; he supported the motion to defer the resolution until next year -- among other things, that would give the General Assembly time to discuss the draft declaration, perhaps clarifying the underlying issues.
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission expert, said that she was not so concerned over whether the people mentioned in the draft resolution were human-rights defenders or not - when there were people in their countries who defended human rights, she was happy to call them human-rights defenders. With regard to paragraph 4, as doubts had been expressed, it was a question of the credibility of the Subcommission - in order to avoid deferring the resolution to next year, she proposed that a full stop be put on the third line of paragraph 4, and that in paragraph 6, the Secretary General be requested to inquire about the situation and security of the persons named in the list attached to the present resolution.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission expert, said the proposal to delay the draft resolution until next year was very sensible; he preferred not to proceed to a vote on it this year, and thought that a vote on such a measure was not in the spirit of the Subcommission -- such a resolution was better adopted by consensus. Meanwhile the amendments offered to the draft resolution did not eliminate his doubts about it.
FRANCOISE HAMPSON, Subcommission expert, said that if Mr. Benoga were to propose Mrs. Warzazi's suggestion as an amendment, this could alleviate the concerns raised by the members of the Subcommission. She opposed deferral of the resolution, and also opposed the deletion of names from the list which would weaken the resolution.
MR. BENGOA said he had consulted with the others who had worked on the draft resolution, and the proposal of Mrs. Warzazi seemed appropriate; as for Subcommission expert Vladimir's suggestion, there was agreement that under paragraph 2, after mention of Kosovo, "Yugoslavia" should be written.
MR. JOINET said he agreed with what had been said, and fully supported Mrs. Warzazi's proposal. Rather than mentioning the Secretary-General, it would perhaps be better to refer to the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
MR. FAN said there was a clear distinction between the draft resolution and the draft declaration. No matter how you put it, the spirit and content of the declaration was different from the spirit and content of the draft resolution.
BULENT MERIC (Turkey) said he had listened very carefully to the discussion in the Subcommission. Turkey had reservations on the text which had been addressed in the discussion. However, Turkey wished that the draft resolution had evaluated each and every case on its own merits rather than pursuing a general approach to the question. The draft resolution referred to Akin Birdal, President of the Turkish Human Rights Association; in previous interventions, the Turkish representative had reflected the importance that the Turkish Government attached to the role of human-rights defenders in protecting and promoting human rights. The Turkish Government viewed the assassination attempt against Mr. Birdal as despicable, and the incident had been condemned by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister and others. The culprits had been identified, apprehended and brought to justice. What else was being sought from the Turkish Government in this regard - what else could the Government have done for Mr. Birdal?
MARIA ELVIRA POSADA (Colombia), said the Government wished to state that progress had been made in the investigation of the death of Eduardo Umana Mendoza, mentioned in paragraph 2 of the resolution under discussion; the criminal investigation in the case of the lawyer had begun in the human-rights unit of the National Prosecutor's office; the Government also offered a reward of $ 500,000 for information leading to clarification of the murder; it also had been agreed that information held in secret archives of various Government and police departments would be open to inspection by the National Prosecutor to ensure that they did not contain information on human-rights defenders marking them as members of subversive groups. Protection of human-rights defenders would be stepped up. The Ministry of the Interior had agreed to a budget increase for its special programme to protect human-rights defenders; and meetings had been held with NGOs to establish which defenders required immediate protection. Government officials had been ordered not to make statements which stigmatized such NGOs. Timely updates were promised on progress made in relevant investigations.
KAMEL MORJANE (Tunisia) said that his delegation wished to show respect for the Subcommission and had asked for the floor to make certain comments on the draft resolution. Tunisia was consolidating the protection of human rights every day. It was logical that a resolution should be drawn up stemming from the resolutions of the Security Council. However there were several problems with the form and content of this resolution. The term "human-rights defenders" continued to be ill-defined. Logic dictated that the Subcommission should make an appeal to all Governments to implement the declaration. However, if it contained the names of specific countries or certain defenders, this was unfair. He expressed the hope that the Subcommission would take his comments into account.
LILIA BAUTISTA (Philippines) said there was no group by the name of Judicial Centre for Public Interest in the Philippines; it was the Government's opinion that groups of doubtful names and origin had no business being in Subcommission resolutions.
MR. AYE (Myanmar) said he had to make reflections on the draft resolution. He failed to understand the rational for paragraph 5. Matters dealt with specifically in the paragraph had already been subject of a separate and specific resolution of the Commission on Human Rights, and it had been established that the Subcommission should not replicate the work of the Commission, this could set a bad precedent. Two days ago, the authorities of Myanmar had met with the National League for Democracy (NLD), and it was hoped that this was the first in a series of talks that would be productive. The invitation had been extended on 17 August. The Myanmar delegation requested the Subcommission to reflect its appreciation for the positive events in Myanmar by deleting operative paragraph 5.
GRACIBEL BU FIGUEROA (Honduras) said the delegation was concerned that in paragraph 4 there was only mention of a group of countries, all developing countries; it was an obligation of all States, without exception, to ensure the security of human-rights defenders. Honduras in recent years had made major efforts to enhance such security; it had adopted a law protecting such persons and requiring investigation of any harassment of them. It was clear to all that this resolution was still not mature, as shown by the many proposals, revisions, and amendments mentioned by experts. The matter should not come to a vote and instead consultations should be continued with the countries mentioned in the resolution regarding the persons mentioned.
A. HASSAN (Nigeria) said that in paragraph 4, mention had been made of Clement Nwankwo. The Nigerian delegation had no knowledge of Mr. Nwankwo having any problems with the Government of Nigeria. All they knew was that he had been deported from Switzerland last year.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.18) on developments in the situation in Mexico, adopted by a secret ballot with 12 in favour, 6 opposed and 6 abstentions, the Subcommission requested Mexican authorities to ensure full respect for the international instruments to which it was a party, and, to this end, attach highest priority to combatting impunity of perpetrators of serious human-rights violations, especially those suffered by numerous members of the indigenous populations, and to promoting the action of human-rights defenders and guaranteeing their safety; appealed to the signatories of the San Andrés accords to resume the process favouring dialogue; and requested the Commission on Human Rights to consider at its next session developments in the situation in Mexico.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission expert, said that while some parts of the draft resolution were clear, there were some value judgements with regard to the visits of Special Rapporteurs. He focused on the last preamble paragraph and the last operative paragraph. He was concerned by a new paragraph that was being introduced: preventive action on such a sensitive issue as human rights. If there was no definition, then the United Nations and the Subcommission did not have the authority to develop action in a general field where the action had to be based on criteria that had been established. However, this idea of preventive action caused him concern as the point of departure was probably more vague than those that existed for specific action for the Subcommission. To consider that a situation had become one that required preventive action was a value judgement. This draft resolution had been the subject of much discussion, but his vote on this paper, as submitted officially to the Secretariat, would be made in consequence of the points he had raised.
ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said there was not a persistent framework of human-rights violations in Mexico; there were, of course, abuses, but they were not officially sanctioned crimes and the authorities sought to punish and to eliminate any such violations; for that purpose they had established one of the most extensive ombudsman networks in the world and had extended legal protection and efforts to enforce them. Legal instruments had been enhanced and prompt responses were made to any complaints received; in a brief paper distributed to the Subcommission recently, several specific cases were described of authorities charged with human-rights being detained and brought to trial. The conflict in Mexico was limited to four of over 100 municipalities of Chiapas, which was one of over 30 states in the country. Major efforts had been made to rectify the conflict, including negotiations with armed, masked individuals who had declared war against the State; the Congress now had the task of deciding on reforms to the Constitution related to human-rights protection and of relevance to the conflict; the Government had made many appeals for dialogue and was in favour of dialogue; thematic rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights had been invited to visit Mexico, along with other human-rights experts; the International Committee of the Red Cross was present in the field, as were a number of internationally recognized NGOs; a commission had been set up to field human-rights complaints. The Government saw no justification for a resolution on Mexico under agenda item 2.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.4) on the concept and practice of affirmative action, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission decided to appoint its expert Marc Bossuyt as Special Rapportuer with the task of preparing a study on the subject to submit a preliminary report to the Subcommission at its fifty-first session; agreed with the suggestion of Mr. Bossuyt that he be authorized to request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to send out a questionnaire inviting submission of national documentation on the subject of affirmative action; and recommended a draft decision summarizing these aims to the Commission on Human Rights for adoption.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.6) on the rights of non-citizens, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission decided to entrust its expert David Weissbrodt with the preparation, without financial implications, of a working paper on the topic, and to take into account comments on the scope of such a study made during the fiftieth session of the Subcommission, for example, developments since the adoption in 1985 of the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who Are Not Nationals of the Country in Which They Live; overcoming impediments to ratification of the International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; discrimination between different groups of non-citizens; the implications of dual citizenship; and ways of contributing material on this topic to the upcoming World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said the rights of non-citizens should be the subject of an analysis, and Mr. Weissbrodt was entirely qualified to undertake such a study. In the working paper, he needed to take account of a series of studies done on the rights of migrant workers. The fact that there were countries that were likely to have problems in this sphere should not preclude taking a wide view of this subject.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.24) on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission declared all types of racism and xenophobia, such as ethnic cleansing, to be among the most serious violations of human rights; encouraged educational institutions, non-governmental organizations and the mass media to promote ideas of tolerance and understanding among peoples and between different cultures; supported the proposal for a preliminary analytical study on the objectives of the World Conference; recommended that topics for studies be considered using the materials developed by the Subcommission in the preparatory process and at the World Conference itself; decided to request one of its members, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro to prepare a paper on proposals for the work of the World Conference to be considered by the Subcommission at its fifty-first session; decided to carry out further studies without delay; suggested that the conference focus, among other things, on both situations of ethnic conflict and other patterns of discrimination; and recommended that the conference prepare a declaration and programme of action.
In a measure on globalization in the context of the increase in incidents of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, the Subcommission decided to entrust its expert Joseph Oloka-Onyango to prepare a working paper on the topic for submission at the Subcommission's fifty-first session, as a contribution to the preparation for the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.2) on promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission recommended that the Commission on Human Rights authorize the appointment of its expert El-Hadji Guissé as Special Rapporteur to conduct a detailed study on the subject, taking also into account questions related to the right to development, in order to determine the most effective means for reinforcing activities in this field; and recommended a draft decision to that effect to the Commission for adoption.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said he did not know if there was prior authorization by the Commission on Human Rights that would allow them to undertake the study. The procedure had to be clear, it was not the Commission that would authorise, it was the Economic and Social Council. So the Commission had to be asked to endorse the proposal, and recommend it to the Economic and Social Council.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.3) on the relationship between the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development, and the working methods and activities of transnational corporations, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission supported the Declaration on the Right to Development and underlined its multidimensional, integrated and dynamic character, and considered that it should constitute a basis for work undertaken on the relationship between human rights and the activities of transnational corporations; and decided to establish, for a three-year period, a sessional working group of the Subcommission composed of five of its members to examine this relationship; to examine, receive, and gather information, including any working paper prepared by a member of the Subcommission, on the subject; to analyse the compatibility of the various international human-rights instruments with the various investment agreements, regional as well as international, including in particular the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; to make recommendations and proposals relating to the methods of the work and activities of such corporations; and to prepare each year a list of countries and transnational corporations, indicating, in U.S. dollars, their gross national product or financial turnover, respectively; and to consider the scope of the obligation of States to regulate the activities of transnational corporations, where their activities had or were likely to have a significant impact on the enjoyment of human rights, both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, of all persons within their jurisdiction;
MR. JOINET requested that there be some recognition of the need to collect information on the situation of different groups, such as trade unions, so that there would be a rebalancing with regard to economic and social rights.
SOLI J. SORABJEE, Subcommission expert, said he strongly supported the amendment L.20 proposed by Ms. Hampson to resolution L.3.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said the amendment proposed by Ms. Hampson was a positive one and he was in a position to accept it. The greatest merit of this amendment was that it reiterated something that had been introduced into their discussions: although they were dealing with economic, social and cultural rights, they should not forget the effect that might result on political and civil rights.
ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission expert said that it was important to deal with violations of economic, social and cultural rights, and even if the forum for this was not agreed now, the need to deal with this issue had to be agreed.
MR. BENGOA said transnational corporations often were not seen as including financial institutions; if the co-sponsors would agree, he thought financial institutions should be added to the ranks of transnational corporations under the terms of the resolution, since the greatest impact came from the operation of international financial firms. In general, it was not very clear what the aim of the recommendations and conclusions of the working group would be; there needed to be an obvious aim; he did not think it was possible to address recommendations to corporations individually.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said that Mr. Bengoa's point was important, but the work undertaken by the Working Group would determine in which direction it would focus. The Working Group should take account of Mr. Bengoa's concern.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.8) on transmission of Subcommission resolution 1996/22 to the Secretary-General, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission, recalling its resolution on the "Tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development", in which it requested the Secretary-General to invite all relevant UN agencies and bodies to step up their action to promote international cooperation for realization of the right to development and to provide him with information thereon, and requested him annually to transmit to the Subcommission the information received, decided to request again that the Commission on Human Rights transmit the full text of the resolution to the Secretary-General.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.16) on the right to food, adopted unanimously, the Subcommission decided, without a vote, to request its expert Asbjorn Eide to review and update, without financial implications, his study on the topic submitted in 1987, and decided to request Mr. Eide to complete, without financial implications, the review and update of the report and to submit the final version of the updated study to the Subcommission at its fifty-first session.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.17) on forced evictions, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission strongly urged Governments to undertake immediately measures to eliminate the practice of forced evictions; strongly urged them to protect all persons who were currently threatened with forced evictions and to adopt all necessary measures giving full protection against arbitrary or unreasonable forced eviction, based upon effective participation, consultation and negotiation with affected persons or groups; recommended that all Governments provide immediate restitution, compensation, and/or appropriate and sufficient alternative accommodation or land, consistent with their wishes, rights, and needs, to persons and communities that had been forcibly evicted; and recommended that Governments ensure that any eviction whether forced or not, was carried out in a manner that did not violate human rights.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.19) on the situation of migrant workers and members of their families, adopted unanimously, the Subcommission considered that international migratory movements were steadily increasing because poverty was growing in a large number of developing countries and use of foreign labour in developed countries was continuing despite claims that there was an economic crisis; regretted once again the contradiction between the free movement of goods and the liberalization of trade in services and financial transactions encouraged by transnational corporations and international financial institutions, and the increasingly draconian restrictions imposed on the movement of individuals; considered that it was the responsibility of States to combat and put an end to all acts of violence resulting from racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia directed against migrant workers and their families; appealed to competent authorities of receiving countries as well as to members of civil society to pay particular attention to protection and defence of women migrant workers; expressed its conviction that migrant workers contributed not only to the economic progress of the States where they were employed but also to the enrichment of cultural life of the receiving societies and the establishment of an atmosphere of mutual knowledge and understanding and peaceful co-existence; drew attention to the need for States to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; appealed to Governments to ratify International Labour Office conventions 97 and 143; appealed to Governments, especially receiving States, to adopt comprehensive civil anti-discrimination legislation; considered that the misuse of information technology, particularly towards incitement of racism and racial violence, should be monitored; and appealed to Governments to establish appropriate legal and other forums and institutions to address the problems of migrants a
nd to provide access to them for migrant workers.