Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases CHR subsidiary body
SUBCOMMISSION APPROVES RESOLUTIONS ON HUMAN-RIGHTS SITUATIONS IN BELARUS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, REJECTS MEASURE ON ALGERIA ON TIE VOTE
19 August 1998
Share
AFTERNOON
HR/SC/98/23***
19 August 1998
Panel also Adopts Chairman's Statement on Bhutanese Refugees
The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities adopted resolutions this afternoon expressing concern over reports of harassment of opposition leaders and human-rights defenders and over restrictions on free expression in Belarus; and calling upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to ensure respect for the right of citizens to leave and return to the country and to facilitate inquiries about the human-rights situation within its borders. The measure on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea went on to call for substantial international aid to alleviate famine there.
The resolutions were approved by secret ballot. A representative of Belarus spoke in opposition to the measure on his country.
In a Chairman's statement on ethnic Nepalese refugees from Bhutan, the Subcommission called for the status and origin of many of the people involved, who had been living in camps in eastern Nepal for up to seven years, to be sorted out by an appropriate verification procedure and urged the Governments of Bhutan and Nepal to negotiate in good faith towards a peaceful solution consistent with international human rights standards.
The Subcommission defeated on a tie vote, by secret ballot, a resolution on the human-rights situation in Algeria. That measure would have called, among other things, for the Government to ensure that no forces for which it was responsible were committing violations of human rights such as unlawful killings, disappearances, and torture in the course of the conflict with terrorists in the country.
*** This supercedes the prevvious transmission.
A draft resolution on the situation of human rights of Bahrain was withdrawn after an announcement by the Government of Bahrain that it had recently acceded to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and was studying the withdrawal of its reservation to article 20 of the document; and that it had agreed to extend an invitation to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for a preparatory visit to the country.
The meeting ended in the middle of a debate over a draft resolution on "human-rights defenders", and whether it should mention specific names and specific countries.
The gathering began with a spirited discussion among the Subcommission's experts on how countries were chosen to be the targets of resolutions, and whether the process was fair. One of the panel's members, Soli J. Sorabjee, said at one point, "Well, you have to start somewhere", and remarked that the debate reminded him of when tax evaders appeared in court and asked, "Why me?"
The Subcommission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 20 July, to continue action on draft resolutions under its agenda items 2, 3, and 4, and to carry on with discussion on issues related to administration of justice.
Action on Draft Resolutions, Statements
FAN GUOXIANG, Subcommission expert, said it was clear from the mandate of the Subcommission that the review and adoption of country situation resolutions should not be regarded as a central part of its work. The Commission on Human Rights' resolutions could not be misrepresented to imply that the Subcommission should continue and strengthen this exercise on country resolutions. The practice of criticizing a large number of countries in a single draft resolution on a selective basis was an exercise that many experts, Governmental and non-governmental organization observers could not endure. There was now a resolution to protect the work of human-rights defenders; while sympathizing with the aims of protecting human- rights workers and organizations; political motives could be hidden behind noble objectives; this exercise could be considered 'killing chickens to frighten monkeys'.
In a Chairman's statement on ethnic Nepalese refugees from Bhutan, the Subcommission said it had been aware of the plight of the approximately 90,000 individuals of Nepali ethnicity, the majority of whom asserted that they had previously lived in Bhutan but who had been residing within UNHCR-administered camps in eastern Nepal for as long as seven years, as well as others who were living outside the camps in Nepal and India; said it was aware that the actual status and origin of many of these people was a subject of dispute and should be sorted out by an appropriate verification procedure; expressed deep concern over the human-rights implications of this situation; was concerned about the ongoing resettlement programme in southern Bhutan that might affect some of the lands previously belonging to the refugees; and urged the two Governments concerned to negotiate in good faith towards a peaceful solution consistent with international human rights standards. The Statement suggested that the Governments involved avail themselves of technical assistance from Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees so as to facilitate a fair and lasting resolution which took into account representations on behalf of the displaced population and the principles of international law relating to non-discrimination; the right to return, the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of one's nationality; the reduction of statelessness; and the fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights.
KINGA SINGYE (Bhutan) said his delegation fully understood the concern of the Subcommission over the situation of the people in the camps in eastern Nepal. A lasting solution could be found in dialogue with the Government of Nepal. Given its small population, Bhutan was a preferred destination for many migrants from Nepal. It had absorbed many of them but could take in no more. The Government's legal attempts to check this illegal immigration had been presented as a violation of human rights. The camps were an attractive destination for many of these migrants. The two Governments would undertake a joint verification process that had already been agreed upon, and once this had been completed, the situation would be resolved as fast as possible. The two Governments had had several meetings at different levels, and the leaders of both countries had agreed that their Foreign Ministers would continue discussions. The members of the Subcommission would be interested to hear that the King had been subjected to a vote of confidence in the National Assembly and a new Council of Ministers had been elected. The Chairman of this Council was the Head of Government, and he had accorded the highest degree of priority to resolving the situation in the camps. Both Nepal and Bhutan wished to resolve the problem through a bilateral dialogue, and Bhutan sought the international community's support for this process.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission expert, said the Chairman's statement addressed the Subcommission's concerns and the concerns of the Government of Bhutan. He felt that standards of human rights must be taken into account in dealing with such circumstances, as well as international legal standards.
SOLI J. SORABJEE, Subcommission expert, said that the proposal was very constructive and a commendable effort. Bhutan had taken positive steps, and credit had to be given to that country and Subcommission expert Asbjorn Eide. If such solutions could be found to other situations, it would be good for everyone.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.5) on the situation of human rights in Belarus, adopted by a secret ballot of 17 in favour and 4 opposed, with 3 abstaining, the Subcommission expressed deep concern at reports that Belarusian authorities unlawfully imprisoned, detained, or otherwise harassed Belarusian political leaders, journalists, and human-rights defenders who attempted to exercise free expression by seeking to expose, criticize or otherwise comment on abuses of power by Government officials, resulting in a climate of fear and intolerance; at the concentration of legislative power in the executive branch of Government and a weak judiciary whose independence had been continuously undermined, such that the rule of law had not been preserved; called upon the Government to lift restrictions on freedom of expression which limited a citizen's right to criticise without incitement to violence and to comply with international human-rights law by protecting the integrity and rights of journalists and human-rights defenders by allowing them to investigate, publish, and report on abuses of power and violations of human rights about which they received information; to take the necessary steps to ensure the independence of the judiciary; encouraged the Government to continue its cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for the protection of human rights in Belarus; and decided to recommend that the Commission on Human Rights consider the situation of human rights in Belarus at its next session; and to invite international organizations to help promote human-rights protection in Belarus.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said that his problem was not with the content of the text but with the idea of the resolution in general. In his view, there was no need for such a text on Belarus. There was no norm of international human rights law that specifically protected the rights of journalists and human-rights workers. The amendment proposed by Subcommission expert David Weissbrodt made it even more difficult to accept paragraph 4.b. The amendment now recommended to the Commission to invite international organisations to deal with the situation in a given country. According to the text, some of these organizations had received the cooperation of the Government to work in the country. It appeared to him that in paragraph 1.b a judgement was being made about the concentration of legislative power in the executive of the country, and he did not believe that he or the Subcommission were in a position to make such a judgement.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Subcommission alternate, said he wondered, with a number of NGOs, why Belarus? When he read the agenda item which was violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, what had been discussed were massive and flagrant violations of human rights. A number of NGOs had spoken about massive and flagrant violations in different countries around the world, and this was why he wondered what criteria were used to choose the countries that would be subjects of resolutions. From a legal point of view, the Subcommission had the right to express its opinion on the violation of the freedom of expression, he did not know a single human rights instrument that lay out how the division of power should be observed. In a legal draft made by the Subcommission in the future, this might perhaps be the case. In the Commission on Human Rights, the case of arrests of journalists had been discussed and the situation in Belarus had been covered. However he still asked 'why Belarus'? Why were they not looking at other countries of the world where violations of human rights were taking place in a massive and flagrant manner. He had asked Mr. Weissbrodt why Belarus, but he had not received a satisfactory answer. It was necessary to define criteria for choosing which countries would be the subject of a resolution. In the voting process, his vote would depend on the answer he received from a sponsor or co-sponsor as to why Belarus.
LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission expert, said it often was difficult to describe why certain countries were chosen as targets for specific resolutions; the issues had to be put in perspective; as for Belarus, he had not been that familiar with the situation there until a month or so ago, but had since heard a number of credible reports from NGOs that seemed consistent and described a situation that seemed to call for action.
FRANCOISE HAMPSON, Subcommission expert, said that some countries had seen improvement of their human rights record, though some had not. There were three reasons for a resolution against Belarus: Belarus was a striking case of a country where the human rights record was getting worse; with regard to the concentration of power, the President had used this power to issue a number of decrees that had violated international norms of human rights and also the domestic order - he had provided for incommunicado detention of suspects, and human rights were violated in practice in Belarus and in the face of the law; finally, people both inside and outside the country had tried to improve the situation with no success. These were all reasons for a resolution against Belarus.
MR. SORABJEE said he was not impressed by the argument, "Why Belarus?" It reminded him of when he was in court and tax evaders said, "Why me?" Well, you had to start somewhere. There were severe restrictions on free expression and on journalists in Belarus, and that was a serious matter; and if judges could be removed by presidential decrees, if they had no secure tenure, then there was no independence of the judiciary; and that furthermore was a systemic failure in Belarus. He thought such matters and others deserved to be given weight.
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission expert, said that Mr. Weissbrodt had said that the draft resolution had been proposed by all of the regions of the Subcommission, but this was not necessarily so. If Subcommission expert Fisseha Yimer had co-sponsored a resolution, it did not mean that he represented her opinion, just because he was from the same region as herself.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ asked how many other countries had the same comments being made about them as were made about Belarus, yet were not subject to draft resolutions by the Subcommission? He would like to know more about the criteria under which Belarus was chosen; apparently Mr. Sorabjee had said there were systems intrinsically so bad that under them it was impossible to guarantee certain human rights; that idea, with all due respect, was flawed; when one thought that democracy was the only system that should be recognized under which human rights could be respected, then he himself had difficulties, since that was an attempt to homogenize the world; the world would continue to be different, with different systems, and there was no one way of inherently protecting human rights.
STANISLAU S. AGURTSOU (Belarus) said that he had to point out that in preparing the draft resolution on Belarus, the sponsors had used unverified facts, some of which were purely concocted. There had been no answer to the question of 'why Belarus ?'. In 1998, the country witnessed the work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s observer group. Belarus would do everything in its power to ensure that the work of this group was productive, would lead to dialogue with European structures, and would promote democratic structures in the country. This draft resolution might have negative results and even lead to the observer group being withdrawn from the country. Any country had problems with freedom of expression. In the history of the Subcommission, there had never been a case where it sided with the political opposition of a country - the representative of the Belarus opposition had spoken to the Subcommission on behalf of an NGO that had its headquarters in Washington. Violations of human rights were not overlooked by the Government, and the position and principles of the country would remain the same - the protection of human rights was the most important role of the State. These standards of human rights were being observed and would continue to be observed in Belarus. Believing that the Subcommission wished to further the aims of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, he hoped that the Subcommission would act wisely.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.7) on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, adopted by a secret ballot of 19 in favour and 4 opposed with 1 abstention, the Subcommission welcomed the participation by the Government of that country in the examination of the State's initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child; urgently called upon the Government to ensure full respect for article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which related to the right of anyone to leave any country, including his or her own, and to return; requested the Government to cooperate fully with the procedures and services established by the United Nations with the aim of ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights; strongly urged the Government to allow and facilitate inquiries concerning the current human-rights situation in the country and to allow publication and distribution of all findings inside the country; invited international human-rights and humanitarian organizations to devote greater attention to the human-rights situation in the country and to promote awareness internationally of the consequences of the food shortages and other economic hardships for the citizens of the country, and called upon them to provide substantial and effective assistance to the citizens of that country; and decided to recommend that the Commission on Human Rights consider the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea at its next session.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said he had problems of conscience with the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. He wondered what good would be done by adopting this text, and whether they could convince the country to cooperate more fully with the United Nations system. He thought there were better ways to do this. He had a problem with operative paragraph 5. Asking NGOs to devote more attention to a situation in a country could draw attention away from the situation in other countries; it was totally inappropriate for a decision of the Subcommission; it was totally irrelevant; and in fact, with this paragraph, the Subcommission was discriminating against certain countries. His vote would be determined by these considerations.
MRS. WARZAZI said she understood some of Mr. Alfonso Martinez's arguments about paragraph 5 of the resolution; perhaps the paragraph should be split into two, to call for publicization of the food shortage in the country, and to give a separate paragraph to the disastrous situation of famine in the country and urge the international community to give maximum help to the population, regardless of the political situation.
MR. SORABJEE said he was not comfortable with the reference about promotion of awareness of food shortages in paragraph 5; in his opinion it did not belong there and in fact blunted the meaning of the paragraph.
MR. GUOXIANG said he was not a co-sponsor of this draft resolution and had no intention to be so; his thinking was that perhaps if they singled out paragraph 5 and raised the question of food shortages, he could think about the resolution.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said none of the proposals about the resolution was sufficient to change his mind about it; he still had reservations about it.
AHMED AL-HADDAD (Bahrain) said that he was grateful to be able to address the Subcommission and to be able to reaffirm the solemn commitment of the Government of Bahrain to its obligations to promote, observe and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights had always been recognised by the Government, and had been the cornerstone of its policies. Bahrain believed wholeheartedly that the cause of human rights could only be advanced through international understanding and cooperation. It had a policy of unqualified cooperation with the UN human rights machinery. As part of this dialogue, it had always responded to requests made in connection with various procedures. The Government recognized that the progression of human rights and the development of society went hand in hand, and for the past three years Bahrain had ranked first in the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report in the Arab World. There were also two recent developments: the Government had recently acceded to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and was studying the withdrawal of Bahrain's reservation regarding article 20; and the Government had agreed to extend an invitation to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for a preparatory visit to Bahrain. He hoped that the draft resolution would be withdrawn.
MS. HAMPSON said the two recent developments referred to by the Government of Bahrain had been the result of a useful discussion with sponsors of the draft resolution; there had been a useful exchange with the Government and cooperation with human-rights mechanisms; on the basis of the agreement reached, she proposed that the draft resolution on Bahrain be withdrawn.
MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said since 1995, Algeria, in a major national dialogue between those parties that wanted to establish a state of law, had completed the transition to a pluralist democracy. The draft resolution appeared to run counter to the real situation in the country, and the sponsors had not given clear reasons for their methodology. The restoration of the electoral process had taken place in a pluralist context and with international observers. How could the creation of national mechanisms for the protection of human rights or the suspension of the death penalty not be mentioned? Algeria had presented its periodical reports to the various treaty bodies - 4 in the past 24 months. With regard to opening to the exterior, the Subcommission should request the report of the European Troika that had undertaken an information mission ten months ago. Numerous journalists and European intellectuals had described accurately the political situation in Algeria, the realities of the terrorism with which the country was confronted and had dismissed ill-founded allegations. On 22 July, the Algerian Government had received a UN delegation of eminent experts that had proceeded to a complete audit of the situation in Algeria, and this report would be ready at the end of the month. It was for that reason that he asked the sponsors of this resolution to suspend their text so that the Subcommission could consider the evolution of Algerian society.
MR. JOINET said he thought the resolution was an indication that the draft declaration on the rights of human-rights defenders should be adopted by the United Nations; he approved of the impact and importance of the resolution. He was concerned that although the persons named from Mauritania had been freed and so their names removed from the text of the resolution, he was not clear on whether their organization had been made legal; he would check on that matter.
PAOLO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Subcommission expert, said there was no reason to ask why certain States were present and others not. It was very important to draw attention to attacks against human-rights workers. In this way, the Subcommission could give support to the resolution that would be adopted at the next General Assembly.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said he respected some of the people included in resolution L. 13; they qualified as genuine human-rights defenders; as for whether this resolution and its content was a good way to proceed, he wondered if it was useful to mention a number of cases that often had nothing to do with one another, and which mentioned 17 or 18 countries, almost all in the Third World; it would have been possible to mention some developed countries, too; he wondered why this resolution was like that; the reason escaped him, but he supposed there was a reason, maybe even a good one. It seemed to him that the resolution set a new trend in which the Subcommission under item 2 looked at situations of specific persons, not only at situations in specific countries. He did not think that was a good approach; it was not fair but selective, as not all situations meriting mention could be mentioned within the limited space available; this kind of text was the best possible argument to give to those who argued for eliminating or "domesticating" the Subcommission. He also was concerned that the category of "human-rights defenders" was not very well defined; a human-rights defender for some was a terrorist for others; it was obvious that in some situations human-rights defenders carried out activities financed by foreign Governments with political motives.
YEUNG KAM YEUNG SIK YUEN, Subcommission expert, said he was one of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution. However, he did not know personally the names that were mentioned in paragraph 4. He noted that the main sponsor of this resolution, Mr. Bengoa had requested that two names be deleted. Earlier today he had met one of the people who was on the list of names in paragraph 4, so he wondered whether it would not be better to keep the form of the resolution while deleting the names.
MR. SORABJEE said he was in agreement with the spirit of the resolution, but thought the specifics were flawed; he also wondered about the undefined category of "human-rights defenders". Was a person who said he was committed to human rights but had been convicted of murder after a fair trial truly a "human-rights defender"? He thought the mention of names in the resolution was not a good idea; it seemed to be indiscriminate.
JOSE BENGOA, Subcommission expert, said he thought that this was not the place to discuss whether there was a definition of a human-rights defender. The people who had worked for many years to defend human rights knew who these people were. It was not the time, after so many years of discussing the subject, to raise questions about the existence of the category of human-rights defenders; they clearly existed. The resolution that was signed by the co-sponsors was the one that was in front of the Subcommission. There were people who were here in the Subcommission, and they were on the list because they could not return to their country - this was sufficient reason for them to be on the list. In operative paragraph 4, the same change should be done as in paragraph 1 so that there would be no doubt about the meaning of the text.
MR. JOINET said that when he had joined the Subcommission, Nelson Mandela was a terrorist; later he was a human-rights defender. He thought that perhaps Subcommission expert José Bengoa should consult his sources so that a number of names and curricula backing them up would be available for perusal by Subcommission members next year. A resolution without names seemed less strong to him; instead he thought the process could be improved so that next year there would be less debate over it.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said that Mr. Bengoa should not take badly what he had said about a definition of human-rights defenders because there was really no definition. There was not a definition of a terrorist, as a terrorist for one person could be a human-rights defender for another person. This gave rise to certain manipulations, and there was no category of human-rights defenders - officials in Governments could defend human rights. If this had been called the Declaration on the Rights of Human-Rights Defenders, there would have been far more problems.
MR. KARTASHKIN said perhaps the paragraph listing names could be voted on separately, but there was another difficulty; if the names were deleted, paragraph 6 also would have to be deleted since it called on the Commission on Human Rights to follow up on the persons mentioned.
HR/SC/98/23***
19 August 1998
Panel also Adopts Chairman's Statement on Bhutanese Refugees
The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities adopted resolutions this afternoon expressing concern over reports of harassment of opposition leaders and human-rights defenders and over restrictions on free expression in Belarus; and calling upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to ensure respect for the right of citizens to leave and return to the country and to facilitate inquiries about the human-rights situation within its borders. The measure on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea went on to call for substantial international aid to alleviate famine there.
The resolutions were approved by secret ballot. A representative of Belarus spoke in opposition to the measure on his country.
In a Chairman's statement on ethnic Nepalese refugees from Bhutan, the Subcommission called for the status and origin of many of the people involved, who had been living in camps in eastern Nepal for up to seven years, to be sorted out by an appropriate verification procedure and urged the Governments of Bhutan and Nepal to negotiate in good faith towards a peaceful solution consistent with international human rights standards.
The Subcommission defeated on a tie vote, by secret ballot, a resolution on the human-rights situation in Algeria. That measure would have called, among other things, for the Government to ensure that no forces for which it was responsible were committing violations of human rights such as unlawful killings, disappearances, and torture in the course of the conflict with terrorists in the country.
*** This supercedes the prevvious transmission.
A draft resolution on the situation of human rights of Bahrain was withdrawn after an announcement by the Government of Bahrain that it had recently acceded to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and was studying the withdrawal of its reservation to article 20 of the document; and that it had agreed to extend an invitation to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for a preparatory visit to the country.
The meeting ended in the middle of a debate over a draft resolution on "human-rights defenders", and whether it should mention specific names and specific countries.
The gathering began with a spirited discussion among the Subcommission's experts on how countries were chosen to be the targets of resolutions, and whether the process was fair. One of the panel's members, Soli J. Sorabjee, said at one point, "Well, you have to start somewhere", and remarked that the debate reminded him of when tax evaders appeared in court and asked, "Why me?"
The Subcommission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 20 July, to continue action on draft resolutions under its agenda items 2, 3, and 4, and to carry on with discussion on issues related to administration of justice.
Action on Draft Resolutions, Statements
FAN GUOXIANG, Subcommission expert, said it was clear from the mandate of the Subcommission that the review and adoption of country situation resolutions should not be regarded as a central part of its work. The Commission on Human Rights' resolutions could not be misrepresented to imply that the Subcommission should continue and strengthen this exercise on country resolutions. The practice of criticizing a large number of countries in a single draft resolution on a selective basis was an exercise that many experts, Governmental and non-governmental organization observers could not endure. There was now a resolution to protect the work of human-rights defenders; while sympathizing with the aims of protecting human- rights workers and organizations; political motives could be hidden behind noble objectives; this exercise could be considered 'killing chickens to frighten monkeys'.
In a Chairman's statement on ethnic Nepalese refugees from Bhutan, the Subcommission said it had been aware of the plight of the approximately 90,000 individuals of Nepali ethnicity, the majority of whom asserted that they had previously lived in Bhutan but who had been residing within UNHCR-administered camps in eastern Nepal for as long as seven years, as well as others who were living outside the camps in Nepal and India; said it was aware that the actual status and origin of many of these people was a subject of dispute and should be sorted out by an appropriate verification procedure; expressed deep concern over the human-rights implications of this situation; was concerned about the ongoing resettlement programme in southern Bhutan that might affect some of the lands previously belonging to the refugees; and urged the two Governments concerned to negotiate in good faith towards a peaceful solution consistent with international human rights standards. The Statement suggested that the Governments involved avail themselves of technical assistance from Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees so as to facilitate a fair and lasting resolution which took into account representations on behalf of the displaced population and the principles of international law relating to non-discrimination; the right to return, the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of one's nationality; the reduction of statelessness; and the fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights.
KINGA SINGYE (Bhutan) said his delegation fully understood the concern of the Subcommission over the situation of the people in the camps in eastern Nepal. A lasting solution could be found in dialogue with the Government of Nepal. Given its small population, Bhutan was a preferred destination for many migrants from Nepal. It had absorbed many of them but could take in no more. The Government's legal attempts to check this illegal immigration had been presented as a violation of human rights. The camps were an attractive destination for many of these migrants. The two Governments would undertake a joint verification process that had already been agreed upon, and once this had been completed, the situation would be resolved as fast as possible. The two Governments had had several meetings at different levels, and the leaders of both countries had agreed that their Foreign Ministers would continue discussions. The members of the Subcommission would be interested to hear that the King had been subjected to a vote of confidence in the National Assembly and a new Council of Ministers had been elected. The Chairman of this Council was the Head of Government, and he had accorded the highest degree of priority to resolving the situation in the camps. Both Nepal and Bhutan wished to resolve the problem through a bilateral dialogue, and Bhutan sought the international community's support for this process.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission expert, said the Chairman's statement addressed the Subcommission's concerns and the concerns of the Government of Bhutan. He felt that standards of human rights must be taken into account in dealing with such circumstances, as well as international legal standards.
SOLI J. SORABJEE, Subcommission expert, said that the proposal was very constructive and a commendable effort. Bhutan had taken positive steps, and credit had to be given to that country and Subcommission expert Asbjorn Eide. If such solutions could be found to other situations, it would be good for everyone.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.5) on the situation of human rights in Belarus, adopted by a secret ballot of 17 in favour and 4 opposed, with 3 abstaining, the Subcommission expressed deep concern at reports that Belarusian authorities unlawfully imprisoned, detained, or otherwise harassed Belarusian political leaders, journalists, and human-rights defenders who attempted to exercise free expression by seeking to expose, criticize or otherwise comment on abuses of power by Government officials, resulting in a climate of fear and intolerance; at the concentration of legislative power in the executive branch of Government and a weak judiciary whose independence had been continuously undermined, such that the rule of law had not been preserved; called upon the Government to lift restrictions on freedom of expression which limited a citizen's right to criticise without incitement to violence and to comply with international human-rights law by protecting the integrity and rights of journalists and human-rights defenders by allowing them to investigate, publish, and report on abuses of power and violations of human rights about which they received information; to take the necessary steps to ensure the independence of the judiciary; encouraged the Government to continue its cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for the protection of human rights in Belarus; and decided to recommend that the Commission on Human Rights consider the situation of human rights in Belarus at its next session; and to invite international organizations to help promote human-rights protection in Belarus.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said that his problem was not with the content of the text but with the idea of the resolution in general. In his view, there was no need for such a text on Belarus. There was no norm of international human rights law that specifically protected the rights of journalists and human-rights workers. The amendment proposed by Subcommission expert David Weissbrodt made it even more difficult to accept paragraph 4.b. The amendment now recommended to the Commission to invite international organisations to deal with the situation in a given country. According to the text, some of these organizations had received the cooperation of the Government to work in the country. It appeared to him that in paragraph 1.b a judgement was being made about the concentration of legislative power in the executive of the country, and he did not believe that he or the Subcommission were in a position to make such a judgement.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Subcommission alternate, said he wondered, with a number of NGOs, why Belarus? When he read the agenda item which was violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, what had been discussed were massive and flagrant violations of human rights. A number of NGOs had spoken about massive and flagrant violations in different countries around the world, and this was why he wondered what criteria were used to choose the countries that would be subjects of resolutions. From a legal point of view, the Subcommission had the right to express its opinion on the violation of the freedom of expression, he did not know a single human rights instrument that lay out how the division of power should be observed. In a legal draft made by the Subcommission in the future, this might perhaps be the case. In the Commission on Human Rights, the case of arrests of journalists had been discussed and the situation in Belarus had been covered. However he still asked 'why Belarus'? Why were they not looking at other countries of the world where violations of human rights were taking place in a massive and flagrant manner. He had asked Mr. Weissbrodt why Belarus, but he had not received a satisfactory answer. It was necessary to define criteria for choosing which countries would be the subject of a resolution. In the voting process, his vote would depend on the answer he received from a sponsor or co-sponsor as to why Belarus.
LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission expert, said it often was difficult to describe why certain countries were chosen as targets for specific resolutions; the issues had to be put in perspective; as for Belarus, he had not been that familiar with the situation there until a month or so ago, but had since heard a number of credible reports from NGOs that seemed consistent and described a situation that seemed to call for action.
FRANCOISE HAMPSON, Subcommission expert, said that some countries had seen improvement of their human rights record, though some had not. There were three reasons for a resolution against Belarus: Belarus was a striking case of a country where the human rights record was getting worse; with regard to the concentration of power, the President had used this power to issue a number of decrees that had violated international norms of human rights and also the domestic order - he had provided for incommunicado detention of suspects, and human rights were violated in practice in Belarus and in the face of the law; finally, people both inside and outside the country had tried to improve the situation with no success. These were all reasons for a resolution against Belarus.
MR. SORABJEE said he was not impressed by the argument, "Why Belarus?" It reminded him of when he was in court and tax evaders said, "Why me?" Well, you had to start somewhere. There were severe restrictions on free expression and on journalists in Belarus, and that was a serious matter; and if judges could be removed by presidential decrees, if they had no secure tenure, then there was no independence of the judiciary; and that furthermore was a systemic failure in Belarus. He thought such matters and others deserved to be given weight.
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission expert, said that Mr. Weissbrodt had said that the draft resolution had been proposed by all of the regions of the Subcommission, but this was not necessarily so. If Subcommission expert Fisseha Yimer had co-sponsored a resolution, it did not mean that he represented her opinion, just because he was from the same region as herself.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ asked how many other countries had the same comments being made about them as were made about Belarus, yet were not subject to draft resolutions by the Subcommission? He would like to know more about the criteria under which Belarus was chosen; apparently Mr. Sorabjee had said there were systems intrinsically so bad that under them it was impossible to guarantee certain human rights; that idea, with all due respect, was flawed; when one thought that democracy was the only system that should be recognized under which human rights could be respected, then he himself had difficulties, since that was an attempt to homogenize the world; the world would continue to be different, with different systems, and there was no one way of inherently protecting human rights.
STANISLAU S. AGURTSOU (Belarus) said that he had to point out that in preparing the draft resolution on Belarus, the sponsors had used unverified facts, some of which were purely concocted. There had been no answer to the question of 'why Belarus ?'. In 1998, the country witnessed the work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s observer group. Belarus would do everything in its power to ensure that the work of this group was productive, would lead to dialogue with European structures, and would promote democratic structures in the country. This draft resolution might have negative results and even lead to the observer group being withdrawn from the country. Any country had problems with freedom of expression. In the history of the Subcommission, there had never been a case where it sided with the political opposition of a country - the representative of the Belarus opposition had spoken to the Subcommission on behalf of an NGO that had its headquarters in Washington. Violations of human rights were not overlooked by the Government, and the position and principles of the country would remain the same - the protection of human rights was the most important role of the State. These standards of human rights were being observed and would continue to be observed in Belarus. Believing that the Subcommission wished to further the aims of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, he hoped that the Subcommission would act wisely.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/L.7) on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, adopted by a secret ballot of 19 in favour and 4 opposed with 1 abstention, the Subcommission welcomed the participation by the Government of that country in the examination of the State's initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child; urgently called upon the Government to ensure full respect for article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which related to the right of anyone to leave any country, including his or her own, and to return; requested the Government to cooperate fully with the procedures and services established by the United Nations with the aim of ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights; strongly urged the Government to allow and facilitate inquiries concerning the current human-rights situation in the country and to allow publication and distribution of all findings inside the country; invited international human-rights and humanitarian organizations to devote greater attention to the human-rights situation in the country and to promote awareness internationally of the consequences of the food shortages and other economic hardships for the citizens of the country, and called upon them to provide substantial and effective assistance to the citizens of that country; and decided to recommend that the Commission on Human Rights consider the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea at its next session.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said he had problems of conscience with the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. He wondered what good would be done by adopting this text, and whether they could convince the country to cooperate more fully with the United Nations system. He thought there were better ways to do this. He had a problem with operative paragraph 5. Asking NGOs to devote more attention to a situation in a country could draw attention away from the situation in other countries; it was totally inappropriate for a decision of the Subcommission; it was totally irrelevant; and in fact, with this paragraph, the Subcommission was discriminating against certain countries. His vote would be determined by these considerations.
MRS. WARZAZI said she understood some of Mr. Alfonso Martinez's arguments about paragraph 5 of the resolution; perhaps the paragraph should be split into two, to call for publicization of the food shortage in the country, and to give a separate paragraph to the disastrous situation of famine in the country and urge the international community to give maximum help to the population, regardless of the political situation.
MR. SORABJEE said he was not comfortable with the reference about promotion of awareness of food shortages in paragraph 5; in his opinion it did not belong there and in fact blunted the meaning of the paragraph.
MR. GUOXIANG said he was not a co-sponsor of this draft resolution and had no intention to be so; his thinking was that perhaps if they singled out paragraph 5 and raised the question of food shortages, he could think about the resolution.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said none of the proposals about the resolution was sufficient to change his mind about it; he still had reservations about it.
AHMED AL-HADDAD (Bahrain) said that he was grateful to be able to address the Subcommission and to be able to reaffirm the solemn commitment of the Government of Bahrain to its obligations to promote, observe and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights had always been recognised by the Government, and had been the cornerstone of its policies. Bahrain believed wholeheartedly that the cause of human rights could only be advanced through international understanding and cooperation. It had a policy of unqualified cooperation with the UN human rights machinery. As part of this dialogue, it had always responded to requests made in connection with various procedures. The Government recognized that the progression of human rights and the development of society went hand in hand, and for the past three years Bahrain had ranked first in the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report in the Arab World. There were also two recent developments: the Government had recently acceded to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and was studying the withdrawal of Bahrain's reservation regarding article 20; and the Government had agreed to extend an invitation to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for a preparatory visit to Bahrain. He hoped that the draft resolution would be withdrawn.
MS. HAMPSON said the two recent developments referred to by the Government of Bahrain had been the result of a useful discussion with sponsors of the draft resolution; there had been a useful exchange with the Government and cooperation with human-rights mechanisms; on the basis of the agreement reached, she proposed that the draft resolution on Bahrain be withdrawn.
MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said since 1995, Algeria, in a major national dialogue between those parties that wanted to establish a state of law, had completed the transition to a pluralist democracy. The draft resolution appeared to run counter to the real situation in the country, and the sponsors had not given clear reasons for their methodology. The restoration of the electoral process had taken place in a pluralist context and with international observers. How could the creation of national mechanisms for the protection of human rights or the suspension of the death penalty not be mentioned? Algeria had presented its periodical reports to the various treaty bodies - 4 in the past 24 months. With regard to opening to the exterior, the Subcommission should request the report of the European Troika that had undertaken an information mission ten months ago. Numerous journalists and European intellectuals had described accurately the political situation in Algeria, the realities of the terrorism with which the country was confronted and had dismissed ill-founded allegations. On 22 July, the Algerian Government had received a UN delegation of eminent experts that had proceeded to a complete audit of the situation in Algeria, and this report would be ready at the end of the month. It was for that reason that he asked the sponsors of this resolution to suspend their text so that the Subcommission could consider the evolution of Algerian society.
MR. JOINET said he thought the resolution was an indication that the draft declaration on the rights of human-rights defenders should be adopted by the United Nations; he approved of the impact and importance of the resolution. He was concerned that although the persons named from Mauritania had been freed and so their names removed from the text of the resolution, he was not clear on whether their organization had been made legal; he would check on that matter.
PAOLO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Subcommission expert, said there was no reason to ask why certain States were present and others not. It was very important to draw attention to attacks against human-rights workers. In this way, the Subcommission could give support to the resolution that would be adopted at the next General Assembly.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said he respected some of the people included in resolution L. 13; they qualified as genuine human-rights defenders; as for whether this resolution and its content was a good way to proceed, he wondered if it was useful to mention a number of cases that often had nothing to do with one another, and which mentioned 17 or 18 countries, almost all in the Third World; it would have been possible to mention some developed countries, too; he wondered why this resolution was like that; the reason escaped him, but he supposed there was a reason, maybe even a good one. It seemed to him that the resolution set a new trend in which the Subcommission under item 2 looked at situations of specific persons, not only at situations in specific countries. He did not think that was a good approach; it was not fair but selective, as not all situations meriting mention could be mentioned within the limited space available; this kind of text was the best possible argument to give to those who argued for eliminating or "domesticating" the Subcommission. He also was concerned that the category of "human-rights defenders" was not very well defined; a human-rights defender for some was a terrorist for others; it was obvious that in some situations human-rights defenders carried out activities financed by foreign Governments with political motives.
YEUNG KAM YEUNG SIK YUEN, Subcommission expert, said he was one of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution. However, he did not know personally the names that were mentioned in paragraph 4. He noted that the main sponsor of this resolution, Mr. Bengoa had requested that two names be deleted. Earlier today he had met one of the people who was on the list of names in paragraph 4, so he wondered whether it would not be better to keep the form of the resolution while deleting the names.
MR. SORABJEE said he was in agreement with the spirit of the resolution, but thought the specifics were flawed; he also wondered about the undefined category of "human-rights defenders". Was a person who said he was committed to human rights but had been convicted of murder after a fair trial truly a "human-rights defender"? He thought the mention of names in the resolution was not a good idea; it seemed to be indiscriminate.
JOSE BENGOA, Subcommission expert, said he thought that this was not the place to discuss whether there was a definition of a human-rights defender. The people who had worked for many years to defend human rights knew who these people were. It was not the time, after so many years of discussing the subject, to raise questions about the existence of the category of human-rights defenders; they clearly existed. The resolution that was signed by the co-sponsors was the one that was in front of the Subcommission. There were people who were here in the Subcommission, and they were on the list because they could not return to their country - this was sufficient reason for them to be on the list. In operative paragraph 4, the same change should be done as in paragraph 1 so that there would be no doubt about the meaning of the text.
MR. JOINET said that when he had joined the Subcommission, Nelson Mandela was a terrorist; later he was a human-rights defender. He thought that perhaps Subcommission expert José Bengoa should consult his sources so that a number of names and curricula backing them up would be available for perusal by Subcommission members next year. A resolution without names seemed less strong to him; instead he thought the process could be improved so that next year there would be less debate over it.
MR. ALFONSO MARTINEZ said that Mr. Bengoa should not take badly what he had said about a definition of human-rights defenders because there was really no definition. There was not a definition of a terrorist, as a terrorist for one person could be a human-rights defender for another person. This gave rise to certain manipulations, and there was no category of human-rights defenders - officials in Governments could defend human rights. If this had been called the Declaration on the Rights of Human-Rights Defenders, there would have been far more problems.
MR. KARTASHKIN said perhaps the paragraph listing names could be voted on separately, but there was another difficulty; if the names were deleted, paragraph 6 also would have to be deleted since it called on the Commission on Human Rights to follow up on the persons mentioned.