SUBCOMMISSION CEREMONY MARKS FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

MORNING
HR/SC/98/30
26 August 1998

The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities focused this morning on the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, hearing an address from the High Commissioner for Human Rights calling for "courage, commitment and a sense of purpose" to make progress in putting the Declaration's principles into effect.

High Commissioner Mary Robinson said she did not use the word "celebrate" when referring to the fiftieth anniversary because as she looked around the world she saw little reason to celebrate. What she hoped for, she said, was that the anniversary would be used as a spur to reinvigorate efforts to promote human rights, and she challenged the Subcommission to use the occasion to deepen international commitment to the Universal Declaration's aims.

A series of Subcommission experts representing regional groups also spoke on the subject. Fan Guoxiang contended, as in previous years, that true respect for the Universal Declaration required greater emphasis on economic and development issues, greater focus on the duties and responsibilities attached to human rights, and greater respect for cultural diversity in the world. Asbjorn Eide said the Universal Declaration made it clear that peace could only be built on respect for human rights; he added that the next important step was realization of those rights -- a right was only a right if it could be effectively claimed. His opinion was echoed by Vladimir Kartashkin, who said that if the Subcommission were to examine practical measures for ensuring the implementation of the human rights instruments, this would be the best way of celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration.

Subcommission expert Ahmed Khalil said it was sometimes taken for granted that the Universal Declaration existed, but fifty years ago, it had been a real breakthrough; for example, only three African States had been members of the United Nations at the time. As the number of African members of the United Nations increased, their contribution to the elaboration of new declarations and covenants emanating from the Universal Declaration had increased as well. A. Salinas Rivera remarked that the Universal Declaration had played an important role in building the United Nations; it was an indication that all nations and peoples in the world aspired to certain principles. He said that efforts had to be redoubled to overcome serious situations which affected people who daily saw their rights and freedoms violated or not recognized.

Earlier in the morning, the Subcommission completed debate under its agenda item on "review of further developments in fields with which the Subcommission has been or may be concerned". Speakers focused on terrorism and human rights, and religious intolerance.

Subcommission experts or alternates Vladimir Kartashkin, Asbjorn Eide, Mustapha Mehedi, Soli .J. Sorabjee, Fan Guoxiang, Ahmed Khalil, A. Salinas Rivera, Francoise Jane Hampson, and Yozo Yokota spoke over the course of the meeting.

The following non-governmental organizations delivered statements: Interfaith International; International Council of Jewish Women; World Muslim Congress; Association for the Prevention of Torture; Pax Christi; International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education; and Franciscans International.

Observers for Sudan, Egypt, Turkey, Eritrea, Algeria, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan addressed the meeting. And Vietnam, Eritrea, and Ethiopia spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Subcommission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to act on draft resolutions and decisions tabled under its agenda items on organization of work, protection of minorities, freedom of movement, child rights, and "review of further developments".

Review of Further Developments in Fields with which the Subcommission has been or may be Concerned, Statements

CHARLES GRAVES, of Interfaith International, said the world community was aware of how religious intolerance adversely affected the general fabric of human society. The disastrous effects of religious intolerance had been noted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and some of the same tragic patterns were witnessed today in Kosovo. In Sri Lanka, religious intolerance fostered between Tamils
and Buddhists had led to death, war, economic and social disruptions. Religious intolerance was a blight upon society and presented a danger to human development. It was to be hoped that the social, economic and cultural effects of intolerance could be studied by the Subcommission. Just as religious intolerance had many negative effects, religious tolerance brought considerable positive results; efforts were being made to this end in Northern Ireland, and inter-religious co-existence was being given a chance in Bosnia. The peace process gave new hopes for co-existence among Israelis and Palestinians. It was evident that the effects of religious tolerance could be peace, social stability and more prosperous economic and cultural activity; a more extensive study of the effects of religious intolerance could bring new information to the Subcommission in its struggle against discrimination and intolerance; the Subcommission should study how different countries had succeeded in furthering religious tolerance, co-existence and multiculturalism and should use them as models.

ANDREE FARHI, of the International Council of Jewish Women, said the most insidious threat to human rights derived from a radicalization of relativist discourse that began in the 1970s; it was not unusual now to hear people say that human rights were just a western concept that could not be applied to other cultures; however, women everywhere were ready to defend their rights; in all cultures there was a universal foundation; cultures were a result of exchanges between groups; everywhere one found standards to protect the weak and the old, and to protect women. Who could say which rights were fundamental? All were related; how could one choose between free thinking and food? It was necessary to seize what was universal while respecting differences and promoting tolerance; that was especially important now when for the first time people all over the world were living the same history.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Subcommission alternate, said there was currently a paradoxical situation in international relations; while an overwhelming number of States had signed the
instruments for protection of human rights, and had taken on the associated obligations, a large number of other States were not parties to the covenants on economic, social and cultural or civil and political rights, despite the fact that they recognised the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What could be done to resolve this situation? How could the Subcommission encourage States to realize the need to sign these instruments? It was perhaps necessary to re-establish the working group to examine the States that had not ratified the two treaties. These States, perhaps numbering 30, could be asked to provide information about why they had not ratified instruments in the fields of human rights. If they did not provide information, the Subcommission could still consider the situation in these States, based on available information and the submissions of NGOs. The agenda of the Subcommission could include an item on “the observance of human rights and freedoms as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by States that have not ratified the basic human rights instruments”. This would not imply interference in the internal workings of States, as States had recognized the importance of the rights and freedoms set out in the Universal Declaration as being applicable to all. It would be a way to rectify the situation that had arisen in the United Nations where some States were monitored in the United Nations while other States, while recognizing the freedoms set out in the Universal Declaration, were not subject to such monitoring. The Subcommission was the best body to perform this task.

ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission expert, said Mr. Kartashkin's ideas were worth careful thought, especially in light of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

MUSTAPHA MEHEDI, Subcommission expert, supported Mr. Kartashkin's idea; the issue was how to obtain the highest number of ratifications from States on human-rights conventions; it was an awareness- or consciousness-raising operation among States. It would be a new initiative, a new move for the Subcommission. It was a new concept of the sort that the panel needed. As for implementation in the agenda of the Subcommission in the future, this idea deserved to have its place, perhaps not separately from other agenda items, but instead by inserting it into an item dealing with human-rights consciousness-raising.

SOLI J. SORABJEE, Subcommission expert, said this was an excellent suggestion; it was necessary to ask States why they were not ratifying human rights instruments. This would be a form of moral persuasion.

MAQBOOL AHMAD, of World Muslim Congress, said attention should be paid to the harmful consequences of the maligning terminology habitually used in the press and electronic media to describe Islam and its adherents; no keen observer could have failed to notice the currency of terms like "Islamists", "Islamic fundamentalism", "Islamic terrorism", "Islamic intolerance" and so on; features, documentaries, and even entertainment programmes not infrequently placed Islam and Muslims in a bad perspective, and the audience subliminally assimilated the message. The situation in Kosovo was an example; a genocidal war had been going on there for many months, but the international community had not cared; the show of tolerance and indulgence for the Serbian perpetrators of atrocities there was all too visible; the human rights of Muslim Kosovars had become irrelevant; in a similar situation elsewhere, at least in Europe, the international community would have acted differently, would have come promptly to the aid of the victims and would have punished the aggressors. Similar lack of respect for the human rights of Muslims was apparent in India, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. Work also should be done by the Subcommission on State terrorism, such as was practised by India in Kashmir and Serbia in Kosovo.

CLAUDINE HAENNI, of the Association for Prevention of Torture, referred to the status of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that only 105 of 193 States had ratified; it was the least ratified of the core international human rights instruments. Five of the major NGOs working against torture had joined forces for the speedy ratification of the Convention against Torture. At the beginning of February 1998, they had sent 156 letters to Permanent Missions in Geneva and New York, but had only received 5 replies from Haiti, the United Kingdom, Argentina, Cote d'Ivoire, and Marshall Islands. They were pleased to note that Indonesia would soon ratify the Convention against Torture. They commended Bahrain for its ratification. Attention was brought to the draft optional protocol to the convention; it established an international system of visits to places of detention without prior authorization from States Parties. The Subcommission should encourage States to ratify the Convention against Torture as well as to lift objections to article 20.

DAVID WEISSBRODT, Subcommission expert, said the Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture needed and deserved greater support; it provided a very important source of support for non-governmental organizations, care-giving organizations, and other helpful groups. Supporting the fund was a way of aiding human rights that was non-accusatory and laudable from any angle.

JACQUES VITTORI, of Pax Christi International, said that the members of the World Trade Organization and the International Labour Office were in essence the same. The ILO conventions stipulated fundamental standards for labour. The positions of the same Governments within the WTO and the ILO appeared contradictory. The fundamental aim of the ILO was justice and peace. The report of the ILO on Myanmar was appalling. The particularity of the ILO Commission of Enquiry was that it could be subject of a court of enquiry at the International Court in the Hague - and if the Government of Myanmar did not respond, it would become taboo. The ILO had decided to set up another Commission of Enquiry on Nigeria. Israel did not apply international standards to Palestinians; there was a cocktail of rules against Arab workers in territories under Israeli military occupation. There was only one realistic way to stem terror which was to end the cause of terrorism; where people were repressed, there were acts of unders
tandable despair.

The representative of the International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education, said the objective of the founding fathers of the "lay school" was universality -- a school of thought that would be an instrument of social cohesion, a morality for everyone; many countries had lay systems of education; they helped to train young people in moral values and in respect for human rights. It was important to have intercultural and multi-cultural education; students should learn about the variety of cultures and the diversity of human groups; study of different forms of religion was essential. States must provide the means for education, tolerance, and understanding of the cultures and religions and others. Merely being "neutral" or uninvolved on the subject was not sufficient; convergence between cultures and religions should be taught.

ALESSANDRA AULA, of Franciscans International and the Dominicans, welcomed the pioneering role of the Subcommission on the question of landmines. New signs of hope and recognition had emerged with the adoption of the Ottawa Convention in December 1997 and the Nobel Peace Prize. While the Ottawa Convention was a remarkable achievement, much remained to be done; every State that had signed the treaty had to take action at the national level for it to become legally binding. States also had to ensure that the obligations contained in the treaty were fully implemented. People who survived landmine explosions usually faced a dismal future. The landmine debate was not simply about military strategy, it addressed the socio-economic nature of a specific weapons trade which killed thousands of civilians annually. The Subcommission was called on: to reaffirm its support for a total ban on production, stockpiling, transfer and use of landmines as well as total destruction of existing ones; to establish the appropriate measures to ensure the follow-up and implementation on this topic; and to reiterate its request to Governments and the international community to pursue an overall policy of prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration.

ABUELGASIM ABDELWAHID IDRIS (Sudan) said the Government had condemned all acts of terrorism committed by anyone; it had condemned the recent bombings in Nairobi and Dar el Salam; but last Thursday a flagrant act of State terrorism had been committed against Sudan when Khartoum was the scene of a surprise, unprovoked and unjustified air attack by the United States of America resulting in the total destruction of Alshifa Pharmaceutical Factory, extensive destruction of two neighbouring children's sweets-manufacturing plants, and the death and injury of innocent civilians. The United States claimed the attack was on the infrastructure of Osama Bin Laden, a man accused by the U.S. of being behind the bombings, and claimed the targeted factory was a chemical-weapons plant which was part of Bin Laden's network. However, the factory belonged solely to a Sudanese businessman; it produced badly needed and life-saving drugs for the people of Sudan; it engaged in export of medicines to neighbouring African countries; it could have been inspected by UN or other competent bodies at any time rather than be destroyed. The Government of Sudan had asked the UN Security Council and Secretary-General to send a team to investigate the allegations about the factory. As a concerned human-rights body, the Subcommission was obligated to make its voice heard when acts of terrorism were committed, whether by individuals or by States targeting innocent civilians or civilian installations.

MOUNIR ZAHRAN (Egypt) welcomed the fact that Subcommission experts had expressed their opinions and had sought an overall view of the matters under consideration. Due importance should be attached to the work of NGOs. Ms. Koufa had said that terrorism was a hurdle on the road to the full enjoyment of human rights, and destruction of civilian institutions would only lead to more grave violations of human rights. Islam was a religion of tolerance; it was mentioned in the holy Koran that logical arguments had to be used in any dialogue. Terrorism was extremely grave, and this was why international legitimacy had to be followed. In view of the latest attacks and their consequences which threatened the right to secure life, the Government of Egypt had once again asked for an international conference at the highest level that could deter individuals and Governments that had been involved in such acts. Unlawful use of force should not be condoned according to the Charter of the United Nations, and this principle needed to be defended. Regarding illegal trafficking of arms, all counties of the world were called on to dismantle weapons of mass destruction. The same applied to landmines; they should be taken away, and the responsibility was that of the Governments that had implanted them in the first place.

MURAT SUNGAR (Turkey) said it was becoming more and more accepted in international law that non-State actors should be held accountable in criminal courts for violations of human rights; the International Criminal Court would try individuals implicated in gross violations of human rights. Terrorism was unfortunately becoming routine; it aimed at the territorial integrity and security of States, destabilized legitimately constituted Governments, and undermined democracy. He wondered if anyone in the room knew that only 45 days before the recent atrocities in Kenya, Tanzania, and Northern Ireland, a terrorist PKK bomb exploded in a busy shopping centre in Istanbul, killing seven and injuring more than one hundred people; probably not; for some reason the international media did not care about Turkey. Meanwhile, certain countries continued to provide safe haven for selected terrorists and use them to destabilize their adversaries. Turkey would continue to fight terrorism in strict conformity with human-rights standards; it meanwhile hoped the Subcommission, despite the recent unfortunate delay, would carry out its planned, in-depth study on terrorism.

AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea) said that Ethiopia was threatening to deprive hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians of Eritrean origin of their Ethiopian citizenship. Since the signing of the Declaration of Human Rights millions of men and women had turned in vain to the United Nations and its various agencies and commissions which had been created to safeguard their rights. The failure of the UN system to live up to these expectations and to become a meaningful agency for the promotion of human rights had encouraged many irresponsible Governments to commit even more atrocities. The root cause of weakness lay in the legal, structural and procedural deficiencies of the various agencies, particularly the Subcommission. Shortcomings of the Subcommission included the
fact that it did not view all victims equally and that it had politicized human rights by having an abiding interest only on selected issues. It was important to ascertain that members of the Subcommission acted in their personal capacity in fact as well as in theory. There was information that the Ethiopian Government would extend its atrocities to all of the 300,000 ethnic Eritreans living in Ethiopia.

MOHAMED HASSAINE (Algeria) said terrorism was a worldwide threat; the problem had emerged in Algeria although it was alien to the principles of the Algerian people; it continued to claim a great many innocent victims -- children were beheaded, women raped, young girls abducted. Nonetheless these attacks had failed to deter Algeria from building a vibrant society based on respect for human rights. The combat of terrorism in Algeria was an example for the world; much remained to be done and the world had to united in response to the unacceptability of terrorist violence; statements of condemnation must be matched with effective action and cooperation. The struggle against terrorism must be within international law; terrorism must be judged without selectivity and must not be justified or explained away; the first sources -- the commanders, the financial sources, and arms supplies -- must be acted against, along with the support networks. The Subcommission's study on terrorism must be carried out in depth and with full support from the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights.

MINELIK ALEMU (Ethiopia) said he had presented factual accounts of the blatant discrimination based on religion and belief and the arbitrary deprivation of the nationality of Ethiopian nationals by the Eritrean Government in the Ethiopian territories it continued to occupy by force. The Eritrean Government forces had desecrated and vandalised holy places in their concerted acts of intimidation and harassment. Parish priests had locked up churches and fled with the people as the Eritrean forces came in, and churches in the area continued to be in grave danger. The Eritrean Government had imposed Eritrean nationality on the Ethiopian people in the occupied areas. The farmers of the areas under occupation were prevented from carrying out their daily activities until they took Eritrean citizenship, failure to do so meant that an Ethiopian family was left to starve. The Eritrean regime was set on telling the Subcommission lies and fabrications. However, their manoeuvres were hopeless as it was obvious that the Eritrean Government was an outlaw that launched unprovoked aggression against the sovereignty of Ethiopia. The speaker brought to the attention of the Subcommission a resolution by the African Parliament on the subject.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said she wished to elaborate on efforts made by the Government to protect all minorities in the country; those efforts had been extensive and concerted; a special cell had been set up in the Prime Minister's office to monitor alleged human-rights violations of minorities; an inter-communal dialogue had begun under the Chairmanship of the Federal Minister for Minorities Affairs to explore ways to prevent any abuses and to ensure provision of civic amenities to minority neighbourhoods, directives had been issued to concerned departments at federal and provincial levels to convene meetings and take action on a priority basis; the Ministry of Law and Justice had been directed to consider appointing minority defence counsels whose services would be made available to protect the rights of minorities; and an inter-ministerial meeting had been held to formulate a joint strategy focusing on minorities. A national Commission for Minorities also existed at the federal level. Pakistan unequivocally condemned all acts, methods, and practices of terrorism; Pakistan itself had been a victim of terrorism, including State-sponsored terrorism; it looked forward to the Subcommission's study on terrorism.

KAREN NAZARIAN (Armenia) said that violations of human rights took on different forms depending on the society in which they took place. It was obvious that human rights and fundamental freedoms could only be exerted in a peaceful environment. Today conflicts rarely crossed international borders. He wished to focus on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue; the fundamental aspects of the problem had not been properly laid out and considered, and this was why it had not been solved. This conflict had its roots far in the past. Under alien domination that violated its fundamental human rights, the population of Nagorno-Karabakh had expressed its right to self-determination. Though the right to self-determination was expressed in a wide range of international instruments, Azerbaijan had applied the principle of inviolability of borders which was not applicable in this situation. By denying the right to self-determination of Nagorno-Karabah, Azerbaijan had violated human rights and endangered peace and security in the whole region. Insufficient democratic control was detrimental to social and economic stability.

EMIL ALIEV (Azerbaijan) said human rights were the foundation of human existence and co-existence and were universal and indivisible; as a result of the continuing occupation of Azerbaijan and the presence of some 1 million refugees and displaced persons there, the country had struggled even harder to build a democratic society that was extremely respectful of human rights; it had ratified several international human-rights instruments; a Constitution had been adopted which incorporated the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The basic tasks of the Government included development of programmes in human rights and development of a plan for further projects in the field; the death penalty had been abolished; other human-rights "infrastructure" would be developed.

Right of Reply

HOANG HUU HAI (Vietnam), speaking in right of reply, said that he wished to respond to statements made on Monday by a number of NGOs. These statements had left him with the conviction that the authors were misusing the Subcommission to spread irresponsible allegations against Vietnam without respecting the minimum rules of decency. Such statements did not reflect genuine concern for human rights.

AMARE TEKLE (Eritrea), speaking in right of reply, said Ethiopia again had given a statement full of lies and distortions; the delegation was just like the Government; it was trying to divert attention from the Government's dastardly acts; meanwhile Eritrea was accused of dastardly acts which simply had not occurred; Eritrea repeated its invitation for international visits to Eritrea; he had yet to hear Ethiopia issue such an invitation; why not?

MINELIK ALEMU (Ethiopia), speaking in right of reply, said the Eritrean Government’s own figures had established that 130,000 Eritrean nationals were known to reside in different parts of Ethiopia, and these nationals participated in the referendum on the independence of Eritrea in 1993. Answers had been given as to why the Ethiopian Government had been forced to ask a limited number of Eritrean nationals to leave Ethiopia; the question of arbitrary deprivation of nationality could not arise as one could not be deprived of something he had never had in the first place. The Eritrean Government had been disseminating heavily inflated figures hoping to attract international attention. It was futile to challenge the Eritrean regime to produce facts, as it was known that the figures presented were fictitious. However much it tried, the Eritrean Government would never be able to wish away the horrific crimes it had committed against Ethiopian citizens.

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

MARY ROBINSON, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said it was important that the Subcommission was taking time to reflect on the achievements and shortcomings of the past 50 years of international efforts to promote and protect human rights. She did not use the word "celebrate" because as she looked around the world she saw little cause to celebrate. But the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration provided a unique opportunity; it was necessary to have the courage, commitment, and sense of purpose to begin with new energy to make progress in human rights. She challenged the panel to see how the anniversary could be used to reinvigorate world commitment to human rights. She hoped that one outcome of the anniversary would be adoption by the General Assembly in December of the draft declaration on "human-rights defenders". It was important to support better the mechanisms and treaty bodies established to aid human rights over the past 50 years. The challenge was a daunting one, if one looked around the world; she looked to the Subcommission to provide leadership.

FAN GUOXIANG, Subcommission expert, welcomed the presence of the High Commissioner at the Subcommission. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights represented the aspirations of peoples all over the world against tyranny and oppression and determination to promote social progress and a bright future. The realization of human rights had never been a vague and static conception. As the developmental process had continued, a large number of newly independent nations had become members of the United Nations. In 1968, the Proclamation of Teheran recognized the unprecedented changes that were going on in the world and laid special emphasis on gross denials of human rights under the policy of apartheid. The acknowledgement and implementation of the right to self-determination and the right to development represented two grandiose achievements in promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. Nearly 20 years after the Proclamation of Teheran had declared that "the widening gap between the economically developed and developing countries impedes the realization of human rights in the international community", the General Assembly had adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development that proclaimed that this right was an inalienable right. The universal acceptance of the value and importance of human rights had been demonstrated by a wide-ranging attachment of all regions and by an increasing respect of all peoples the world over. Along with the development of the last two decades, new human rights issues had evolved including the indivisibility of economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights. In their efforts for peace and economic development, various countries would inevitably have to face up to different human rights problems marked by their own features. The world was moving to a multi-polar system and diversified views elaborated on human rights were positive in nature.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Subcommission expert, representing members of the Eastern European Group, said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights together with the Charter of the United Nations were among the most important documents in the history of international relations. The adoption of the Universal Declaration had been a complicated process; the former Soviet Union had objected to the adoption of such a declaration. However, since that time, the situation had changed dramatically. The Declaration was recognized by States as containing compulsory elements of law. Practically no one called into doubt that all human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and had to be observed by all countries of the world. Many countries of the world referred in their constitutions to provisions of the Universal Declaration; Russia, in its Constitution had set out the whole list of human rights. In the Russian Federation, 1998 had been declared the year of human rights; a plan had been drawn up that provided for the adoption of new legislation in human rights and the ratification of those international instruments not yet ratified by the State. Not only should the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be examined, but it was also important to examine practical measures to ensure its implementation. For this reason, it was necessary to establish a working group to examine why many countries had not ratified international human rights instruments. If the Subcommission were to examine practical measures for ensuring the implementation of the human rights instruments, this would be the best way of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission expert, representing members of the Western Group, said the Universal Declaration was the most important ever adopted by the United Nations or by any inter-governmental organization. It had made clear that peace could only be built on respect for human rights; its preamble said that "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and unalterable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace of the world". Among other outcomes of the Universal Declaration had been that it had restored and consolidated a process of normative development which had emerged in some societies during the 17th and 18th centuries but which had since increasingly been confronted by illiberal collectivist ideologies; it had broadened and given substance to the twin concepts of freedom and equality and their interrelationship; it had significantly expanded the content of human rights when compared to traditional notions, and thereby had overcome some of the criticisms which in the past had been made of notions of "civil" or "natural" rights; it had declared that these rights were made to be universal in scope, to be enjoyed by everyone everywhere in the world; and it had made compliance with human rights a legitimate concern of international law and relations. The next important step was realization of rights -- a right was a right only if it could be effectively claimed. He believed that the Subcommission was a good forum for combining both constructive criticism and cooperation, Mr. Eide said; there were so many tasks that the group agreed on; he did not believe that there was polarization in the body between the first and the third world.

AHMED KHALIL, Subcommission alternate expert, representing members of the African Group, said that all the experts were working hand in hand to promote human rights around the world, regardless of their areas of origin. It was sometimes taken for granted that the Universal Declaration existed. Fifty years ago, it had been a real breakthrough; for example, only 3 African States had been members of the United Nations at the time. As the number of African States increased in the membership of the United Nations, their contribution to the elaboration of new declarations and covenants emanating from the Universal Declaration had increased. Referring to the African contribution to these international agreements, he wished to stress that Africa was not at all falling behind. The whole planet was trying to achieve its common goals. The majority of African constitutions now contained references to the Universal Declaration. Although no one had any illusions about the state of human rights throughout the world, at least there were criteria and declarations in which State obligations were clearly specified. There was a visible need for everyone to undergo human rights education, this was applicable to individuals as well as collectives;
this was how it was seen in Africa. Though there was not a great deal to celebrate, what had been achieved so far should not be minimalized. Africa would continue to be one among other continents undertaking the ongoing task of achieving a common understanding on this universal subject.

A. SALINAS RIVERA, Subcommission alternate expert, representing members of the Latin American and Carribean Group, said the anniversary was a good opportunity to consider the Universal Declaration's importance in building the United Nations; all nations and peoples in the world aspired to have the Universal Declaration's principles in common; the Universal Declaration was a heritage for future generations and reflected a desire for a better world. Efforts had to be redoubled to overcome serious situations which affected people who daily saw their rights and freedoms violated or not recognized; people had to look within themselves, without prejudice, and ask where they were failing; why was the Universal Declaration not translated into reality? It was time to cast rhetoric aside and effectively come to the aid of those who needed it.

SOLI J. SORABJEE, Subcommission expert, said the world had come a long way since 1948. One thing was clear; the spirit of human rights had inspired people all over the world; human rights jurisprudence was becoming acceptable; and the human rights record of a State was becoming of concern to the international community. As the record of the last 50 years was examined, there were many miles to go "before we could sleep", there were many aspects that needed to be improved. At all times it should be remembered that there was nothing eastern, western, northern or southern about the Declaration; it was universal. The Subcommission should take up the challenge that the High Commissioner had put before them to make the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the Magna Charta for all mankind.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Subcommission expert, said there were less than four months before the General Assembly marked the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration. Would it not be good if between today and 10 December, each State could ratify one more human-rights treaty, remove one more reservation to a human-rights treaty, and accept one more human-rights mechanism? That would be a fitting way to mark the anniversary.

MUSTAPHA MEHEDI, Subcommission expert, said that one of the drafters of the Universal Declaration had asked what use the Universal Declaration would be if huge parts of mankind could not read. This was very important especially with regard to the full flourishing of the human personality and other elements of the Universal Declaration. The central problem in the Universal Declaration was how to ensure that it was widely known; if it was not transposed in social awareness, it would remain a dead document.

YOZO YOKOTA, Subcommission alternate expert, said it was important to focus on the problem of reservations to human-rights instruments, as suggested by Mr. Kartashkin; if too much effort was focused on universality of accession without attention to reservations, the process was undermined. It also was important to pay attention to the legal character of the Universal Declaration -- it was a widespread view that the Universal Declaration was only something adopted by the General Assembly, but not law; but he felt the Subcommission rightly considered it to be international law, and beyond that, the highest form of international law. Perhaps the Subcommission should try to come up with some grounds for asserting this.