SUBCOMMISSION ASKS EXPERTS TO CONDUCT STUDIES ON WEAPONS, RIGHT OF RETURN OF REFUGEES’ PROPERTY, AND NON-DISCRIMINATION

Subcommission on the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights
53rd session
16 August 2001
Afternoon


The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this afternoon adopted a number of resolutions and measures which, among other things, requested its members to carry out studies on human rights and weapons of mass destruction; the transfer and use of small arms in the context of human rights; the return of refugees’ or displaced persons’ property; and non-discrimination.

Concerning weapons, the Subcommission, by a show of hands vote of 21 in favour and 2 against, approved a decision that asked Subcommission Expert Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen to prepare a paper on human rights and weapons of mass destruction. In the report, he would assess the utility, scope and structure of a study on the real and potential dangers to the effective enjoyment of human rights posed by the testing, production, storage, transfer, trafficking, or use of weapons of mass destruction with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, including the use of weaponry containing depleted uranium.

Earlier, there was a prolonged debate about eliminating the reference to depleted uranium as Expert Francoise Jane Hampson argued that depleted uranium was part of the issue of conventional weapons. The draft amendment, however, was defeated by a hand count of 3 in favour, 14 against and 4 abstentions.

On small arms and light weapons, meanwhile, the Subcommission adopted without a vote a decision entrusting Alternate Expert Barbara Frey with the task of preparing a working paper on the topic.

Expert Fried van Hoof was asked to prepare a working paper on the study of non-discrimination as enshrined in article 2.2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

And the Subcommission approved without a vote a decision entrusting Expert Paulo Sergio Pinheiro to prepare a working paper on the return of refugees' or displaced persons' property.

On that topic, the Subcommission rejected a draft resolution by a show of hands vote of 9 in favour, 11 opposed and 3 abstentions after a lengthy debate. Among other things, the draft resolution would have confirmed that all those displaced had the right to return in safety and in dignity, and, where conditions were not yet in place, displaced persons could not be obliged to return; and would have confirmed that all those displaced had the right to adequate housing and property restitution or, should restitution not be possible, appropriate compensation.

On other subjects, the Subcommission approved, without a vote, a resolution urging international cooperation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It also approved, without a vote, a resolution outlining plans for its first-ever Social Forum next year. The resolution called for the Social Forum to meet every year, and determined that the theme of the Social Forum next year will be the relationship between poverty reduction and the realization of the right to food.

The Subcommission will hold the last plenary of its annual session at 4 p.m. on Friday, 17 August to complete action on remaining draft proposals.


Adoption of Measures on Weapons

In a measure (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/L.2) on human rights and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effect, adopted by a show of hands vote of 21 for and two against, the Subcommission decided to ask Expert Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen to prepare the working paper on the topic originally assigned to former Subcommission member Clemencia Forero Ucros, assessing the utility, scope and structure of a study on the real and potential dangers to the effective enjoyment of human rights posed by the testing, production, storage, transfer, trafficking, or use of weapons of mass destruction with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, including the use of weaponry containing depleted uranium, and to submit the working paper to the Subcommission at its fifty-fourth session.

The Subcommission rejected by a show of hands vote of 3 for and 14 against, with 4 abstentions, a draft amendment on L.2

In a measure (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/L.26) on the question of the transfer and use of small arms and light weapons in the context of human rights and humanitarian norms, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission decided to entrust Expert Barbara Frey with the task of preparing a working paper on the topic for submission to the Subcommission at its fifty-fourth session.

Consideration of a Draft Resolution on the Right to Return of Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees

A draft resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/L.39) on the right to return of internally displaced persons and refugees was defeated by a show-of-hands vote of 9 in favour, 11 opposed, and 3 abstaining. Under the draft resolution, the Subcommission, among other things, would have confirmed that all those displaced had the right to return in safety and in dignity, and, where conditions were not yet in place, displaced persons could not be obliged to return; would have confirmed that all those displaced had the right to adequate housing and property restitution or, should restitution not be possible, appropriate compensation; would have urged all parties to peace agreements and voluntary repatriation agreements to include the right to return in safety and dignity; would have urged all States to guarantee the free and fair exercise of the right to return and to develop effective and expeditious legal and other measures to ensure free and fair exercise of the right; would have urged States to restore full national protection to returning displaced persons; and would have reaffirmed the obligation of States to repeal laws and regulations which were inconsistent with the right to return.

Y.K.J. YEUNG SIK YUEN, Subcommission Expert, said preambular paragraph 3 of L.39 and operative paragraph 11 were unacceptable; as applied to the Ilois people formerly of the Chagos archipelago he saw that it could amount to limiting their right of return and inclining them to take instead offers of British nationality and compensation, but without the truly requisite free choice that should apply.

SOLI JEHANGIR SORABJEE, Subcommission Expert, said operative paragraph 11 had the potential for misuse; it was not clear if the islanders in question could really "voluntarily" exercise their right of choice.

ERICA IRENE DAES, Subcommission Expert, said this resolution was a humanitarian resolution. It had to be said that it was difficult to define compensation, but that would be pronounced by the competent national courts. Everything should be done to ensure that refugees had their property returned to them, and that was why this resolution should be passed.

GODFREY PREWARE, Subcommission Expert, said that while he had been a co-sponsor of draft resolution L.39, he had withdrawn because of the additional information that had emerged in the interventions of his colleagues. He was aware of possible misinterpretations of several principles of the draft resolution, even as it was amended. The measure could create problems in certain quarters; it could be counterproductive.

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Subcommission Expert, said he favoured the draft resolution. There was a part of the draft resolution that was linked directly to several countries. The property of displaced people was a big issue in the organs of the United Nations. Nevertheless, it was a difficult and complicated issue. Housing restitution was an essential and decisive part affecting displaced people or refugees’ return to their countries and their homes. If they lost their property or their house, that was a fundamental impediment to the right to return.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Subcommission Expert, said she was completely bewildered by the claim that the draft resolution had political elements; every paragraph of the draft had been seen by and negotiated with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); in addition a preambular paragraph said that no aspect of the measure should be seen as affecting questions of sovereignty over any territory. Further, the measure stated clearly that compensation was possible only when there was no possibility of returning home, usually because the property had been destroyed. In Diego Garcia, in the Chagos archipelago, the property had not been destroyed. The measure, in effect, would require the United Kingdom to get rid of the military base and return the property to its original condition. The measure was designed to help literally millions of refugees and internally displaced persons.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission Expert, said this draft text could be applied to diverse situations. This one text wanted to solve the problems of refugees and internally displaced persons. In the United Nations history, there had always been different treatment of different groups. The roots of their problems were different. There were different causes in different countries. This was why if this text went to a vote, it should not be supported. This draft text should be withdrawn.

ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission Expert, said he was aware of Mr. Sik Yuen's concerns, which were serious and genuine. But he was also aware of the serious, important problems elsewhere in the world related to this matter, including in the former Yugoslavia. In the end, the qualifications and safeguards introduced into the draft resolution should be satisfactory to avoid any of the dangers genuinely voiced by Mr. Sik Yuen. Taking into account how important and urgent the issue was, he hoped the Subcommission would adopt the draft resolution.

FAN GUOXIANG, Subcommission Expert, said he would vote against the draft resolution because human rights and the right to return home were all very nice, but the term human rights could be misused. The more Mrs. Hampson explained her draft, the less it could be supported. Human rights were not vague -- they were something concrete.

SOO GIL PARK, Subcommission Expert, explaining his vote on L.39, said he had favoured the draft resolution out of serious concern for the well-being of refugees and internally displaced persons, and their need to have the right to return home in such regions as Europe and Africa. That did not mean he did not have concern for what Mr. Sik Yuen had said about what the measure might mean for people of his country.

Adoption of Resolution on International Cooperation Concerning Persons Guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/L.29) on international cooperation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission affirmed that within the framework for such cooperation, highest priority should be given, independently of the circumstances in which such violations were committed, to legal proceedings against all individuals responsible for such crimes, including former Heads of State or Government whose exile served as a pretext for their impunity; urged all States to cooperate to bring to trial and punish persons found guilty of crimes against humanity; reaffirmed the principles of international cooperation to that end recorded in General Assembly Resolution 3074 of 1973; affirmed that States had an obligation to cooperate in such matters, keeping in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and generally recognized norms of international law; and urged all Governments to implement relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and other United Nations bodies.

Adoption of Resolution and Measures on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

In a measure (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/L.44) on the return of refugees' or displaced persons' property, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission decided to entrust Expert Paulo Sergio Pinheiro with the preparation of a working paper on the return of refugees' or displaced persons' property, to be submitted to the Subcommission in order to enable it to take a decision at its fifty-fourth session on the feasibility of a comprehensive study on the subject.

In a measure (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/L.24) on the study of non-discrimination as enshrined in article 2.2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission decided to entrust Expert Fried van Hoof with the preparation of a working paper on non-discrimination to be submitted under the agenda item entitled "Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", in order to enable it to take a decision at its fifty-fourth session on the feasibility of a study on that subject.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/L.15) on the Social Forum, adopted without a vote, the Subcommission requested the Commission on Human Rights to authorize the holding in Geneva of a pre-sessional forum on economic, social and cultural rights before the fifty-fourth session of the Subcommission, to be known as the Social Forum, for two days, with the participation of ten members of the Subcommission, taking into account regional representation; decided that the Social Forum would meet every year with a mandate, among other things, to encourage interaction between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights; to follow up on situations of poverty and distitution throughout the world; to propose standards and initiatives of a juridical nature, guidelines and other recommendations; to follow up the agreements reached at major world conferences and the Millennium Summit; recommended that the Social Forum would address, among other things, the themes of the effect of international trade, finance and economic policies on income distribution, and the corresponding consequences on equality and non-discrimiantion at the national and international levels; analysis of international decisions affecting basic resources for the population; analysis of the impact of international trade, finance and economic policies on vulnearble groups; social and economic indicators and their role in the realization of economic, social and cultural rights; decided that the Social Forum in 2002 would address the theme of "the relationship between poverty reduction and the realization of the right to food"; requested Subcommission member Jose Bengoa to draft a preliminary working paper outlining the methdology and work of the Social Forum; decided to invite participation in the Forum by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council and other NGOs outside Geneva and particularly newly emerging actors in the South; and requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to find effective means of ensuring consultation, including electronic consultation, with the most vulnerable and on the selected theme to be discussed at the Social Forum.



* *** *