Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases CHR subsidiary body
SUBCOMMISSION CONCLUDES EXAMINATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN ALL COUNTRIES
07 August 1998
Share
MORNING
HR/SC/98/8
7 August 1998
The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities concluded this morning its consideration of item 2 of its agenda, the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation and of apartheid in all countries.
India, Cyprus, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Armenia and Azerbaijan spoke in right of reply and defended their respective human rights records.
The Subcommission will reconvene in open session at 3 p.m. on Monday, 10 August, to discuss its working methods. On this occasion, Jacob Selebi, Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights who is also the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations Office at Geneva, will address the meeting.
Rights of Reply
RAJAMONY VENU (India), speaking in right of reply, said that the observer Government of Qatar, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), had made unwarranted references to Jammu and Kashmir which were an integral part of India, and hence had forgotten the appeal of the Chairman that Governments should avoid commenting on situations in countries other than their own. India totally rejected the baseless allegations in the statement of the OIC; India deeply regretted that the OIC allowed itself to be used for one-sided, biased statements at the urging of one particular country. India remained convinced that the statement had not reflected the opinions of the majority of the OIC States. India had the second largest Muslim population in the world and Muslims there lived in free and open fashion and as full participants in society. The principal impediment to the full enjoyment of human rights in Jammu and Kashmir remained the terrorism sponsored by one OIC member; the OIC, if it really wanted to help the situation, should urge that member to stop sponsoring such terrorism.
PETROS EFTYCHIOU (Cyprus), speaking in right of reply, said that he could not leave unanswered the statement made by the representative of Turkey. No amount of eloquence could diminish Turkey's responsibility for human rights violations in Cyprus. Turkey had invaded Cyprus in 1974, and had turned one third of the population of Cyprus into refugees. To state, as the Turkish representative had, that human rights were connected to intricate politics was a shocking pronouncement. Human rights were not a favour to be given on a whim and should never be a bargaining chip for negotiations. Resolutions from the United Nations Security Council made Turkey's responsibility for the situation in Cyprus abundantly clear. Instead of trying to defend the indefensible, Turkey would do better were it to start to listen to world opinion and remedy its ways.
WELDEGIORGIS (Eritrea), speaking in right of reply, said the Ethiopian delegate yesterday had repeated the usual lies and distortions with which it had been trying to mislead world opinion. He invited all to investigate the situation for themselves; they would see the real facts, the real truths; the root cause of the dispute lay in the violation of Eritrea's colonial boundaries; the Organization of African Unity (OAU) had investigated and had said it could not find any evidence of systematic maltreatment of Ethiopians in Eritrea; the United States State Department, meanwhile, had condemned yesterday the expulsion and detention of Eritrean citizens in Ethiopia.
MINELIK ALEMU GETAHUN (Ethiopia), speaking in right of reply, said that he wished to recount some additional horrific stories that would further show why the Eritrean Government should not even appear before the Subcommission, let alone accuse Ethiopia of human rights violations. Mr. Kahsai was a hard working person who had been trying to support a family of seven. He had been killed in the second air raid by the Eritrean warplanes on Mekelle. His son, who had found his body, remained mentally affected. Mrs. Ilfe had been forcefully evicted from Eritrea, she too had been killed in the second air raid. Mrs. Alemach lost her daughter in the raid. These stories demonstrated the hypocrisy of the Eritrean Government in talking about human rights and humanitarian laws.
KAREN NAZARIAN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said the statement yesterday by Azerbaijan contained facts and figures that could not be verified in any effective way; further the statement had served no useful purpose. If one understood the history of the conflict and what had happened to Armenians in the region, one knew that the contents of the Azerbaijani statement distorted history and truth. Ever since Azerbaijan had appeared on the world map, it had been associated with violations of human rights. The absurdity of the "decree" referred to, which actually had the gall to accuse Armenians of genocide, a travesty of the truth, led him to refer to the actual genocide carried out against Armenians in 1915, a horrible crime in which 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered by the Ottoman Empire. The Azerbaijani statement demeaned and misled the international community by trying to create an illusive image of genocide and thus diminishing the meaning of the notion of genocide.
SIMA EIVAZOVA (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said that in response to the words of Armenia, Azerbaijan had never had any territorial claims against any country although Armenia did. Azerbaijan had never started a war, Armenia had. Azerbajian had never occupied anyone's territory or destroyed the property of another country's citizens, though Armenia had. The Subcommission could decide who was guilty and who was not.
KAREN NAZARIAN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said Azerbaijan had again made a statement that was untrue; Armenia had never waged a war against Azerbaijan; Armenians had only struggled for their right to self-determination; these attempts of Azerbaijan were aimed at the politicization of the proceedings of human rights bodies.
SIMA EIVAZOVA (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said that it was her last address to the session. She wished to remind Armenia that there were four Security Council resolutions calling on Armenia to withdraw its forces from Azerbaijani territory. There were many other international resolutions in the same sense. Armenia's representative should have the conscience to fulfil the resolutions of the Security Council.
HR/SC/98/8
7 August 1998
The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities concluded this morning its consideration of item 2 of its agenda, the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation and of apartheid in all countries.
India, Cyprus, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Armenia and Azerbaijan spoke in right of reply and defended their respective human rights records.
The Subcommission will reconvene in open session at 3 p.m. on Monday, 10 August, to discuss its working methods. On this occasion, Jacob Selebi, Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights who is also the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations Office at Geneva, will address the meeting.
Rights of Reply
RAJAMONY VENU (India), speaking in right of reply, said that the observer Government of Qatar, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), had made unwarranted references to Jammu and Kashmir which were an integral part of India, and hence had forgotten the appeal of the Chairman that Governments should avoid commenting on situations in countries other than their own. India totally rejected the baseless allegations in the statement of the OIC; India deeply regretted that the OIC allowed itself to be used for one-sided, biased statements at the urging of one particular country. India remained convinced that the statement had not reflected the opinions of the majority of the OIC States. India had the second largest Muslim population in the world and Muslims there lived in free and open fashion and as full participants in society. The principal impediment to the full enjoyment of human rights in Jammu and Kashmir remained the terrorism sponsored by one OIC member; the OIC, if it really wanted to help the situation, should urge that member to stop sponsoring such terrorism.
PETROS EFTYCHIOU (Cyprus), speaking in right of reply, said that he could not leave unanswered the statement made by the representative of Turkey. No amount of eloquence could diminish Turkey's responsibility for human rights violations in Cyprus. Turkey had invaded Cyprus in 1974, and had turned one third of the population of Cyprus into refugees. To state, as the Turkish representative had, that human rights were connected to intricate politics was a shocking pronouncement. Human rights were not a favour to be given on a whim and should never be a bargaining chip for negotiations. Resolutions from the United Nations Security Council made Turkey's responsibility for the situation in Cyprus abundantly clear. Instead of trying to defend the indefensible, Turkey would do better were it to start to listen to world opinion and remedy its ways.
WELDEGIORGIS (Eritrea), speaking in right of reply, said the Ethiopian delegate yesterday had repeated the usual lies and distortions with which it had been trying to mislead world opinion. He invited all to investigate the situation for themselves; they would see the real facts, the real truths; the root cause of the dispute lay in the violation of Eritrea's colonial boundaries; the Organization of African Unity (OAU) had investigated and had said it could not find any evidence of systematic maltreatment of Ethiopians in Eritrea; the United States State Department, meanwhile, had condemned yesterday the expulsion and detention of Eritrean citizens in Ethiopia.
MINELIK ALEMU GETAHUN (Ethiopia), speaking in right of reply, said that he wished to recount some additional horrific stories that would further show why the Eritrean Government should not even appear before the Subcommission, let alone accuse Ethiopia of human rights violations. Mr. Kahsai was a hard working person who had been trying to support a family of seven. He had been killed in the second air raid by the Eritrean warplanes on Mekelle. His son, who had found his body, remained mentally affected. Mrs. Ilfe had been forcefully evicted from Eritrea, she too had been killed in the second air raid. Mrs. Alemach lost her daughter in the raid. These stories demonstrated the hypocrisy of the Eritrean Government in talking about human rights and humanitarian laws.
KAREN NAZARIAN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said the statement yesterday by Azerbaijan contained facts and figures that could not be verified in any effective way; further the statement had served no useful purpose. If one understood the history of the conflict and what had happened to Armenians in the region, one knew that the contents of the Azerbaijani statement distorted history and truth. Ever since Azerbaijan had appeared on the world map, it had been associated with violations of human rights. The absurdity of the "decree" referred to, which actually had the gall to accuse Armenians of genocide, a travesty of the truth, led him to refer to the actual genocide carried out against Armenians in 1915, a horrible crime in which 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered by the Ottoman Empire. The Azerbaijani statement demeaned and misled the international community by trying to create an illusive image of genocide and thus diminishing the meaning of the notion of genocide.
SIMA EIVAZOVA (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said that in response to the words of Armenia, Azerbaijan had never had any territorial claims against any country although Armenia did. Azerbaijan had never started a war, Armenia had. Azerbajian had never occupied anyone's territory or destroyed the property of another country's citizens, though Armenia had. The Subcommission could decide who was guilty and who was not.
KAREN NAZARIAN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said Azerbaijan had again made a statement that was untrue; Armenia had never waged a war against Azerbaijan; Armenians had only struggled for their right to self-determination; these attempts of Azerbaijan were aimed at the politicization of the proceedings of human rights bodies.
SIMA EIVAZOVA (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said that it was her last address to the session. She wished to remind Armenia that there were four Security Council resolutions calling on Armenia to withdraw its forces from Azerbaijani territory. There were many other international resolutions in the same sense. Armenia's representative should have the conscience to fulfil the resolutions of the Security Council.