Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases CHR subsidiary body
SUBCOMMISSION ENDS CONSIDERATION OF PROTECTION OF MINORITIES, STARTS DEBATE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
19 August 1998
Share
MORNING
HR/SC/98/22
19 August 1998
Expert to Prepare a Draft Resolution to Transmit Draft Convention on Protection from Enforced Disappearances to Commission on Human Rights
The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities this morning concluded its debate on the protection of minorities and started consideration of issues affecting the administration of justice and the human rights of detainees.
In the first part of the meeting, Eritrea and Ethiopia, and Armenia and Azerbaijan traded accusations of violations of human rights in their respective countries. Subcommission expert Soli Sorabjee echoed the remarks of many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) yesterday stating that it was in the field of religion that minorities experienced discrimination in its most acute form.
The Subcommission then heard its expert Louis Joinet introduce the report of the Working Group on the Administration of Justice. Mr. Joinet was asked to prepare a draft resolution to transmit the Working Group’s draft Convention on Protection from Enforced Disappearances to the Commission on Human Rights.
NGOs alleged serious violations in the administration of justice and violations of the rights of prisoners in several countries including, among others, Turkey, Peru, Tunisia, Iran, Yemen, Indonesia, China and Pakistan. Military tribunals, the situation of prisoners of war, states of emergency, torture and arbitrary detention were among practices criticised by NGOs. Pakistan was also alleged to be responsible for supporting terrorist organisations.
Subcommission experts and alternates Asbjorn Eide, Soli Sorabjee, Louis Joinet, and Halima Embarek Warzazi addressed the Subcommission.
Eritrea, Latvia, Armenia, Ethiopia, and Azerbaijan, spoke in right of reply, and the following NGOs also addressed the meeting: International Commission of Jurists, Transnational Radical Party, Christian Solidarity International, American Association of Jurists, International Association of Democratic Jurists, Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, Pax Romana, War Resisters International, International Educational Development, Interfaith International, Society for Threatened Peoples, International Institute for Peace, and Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation.
The Subcommission will reconvene at 3 p.m. this afternoon when it will vote on resolutions submitted under the following subjects: the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation and apartheid in all countries, with particular reference to colonial and other dependent countries and territories; thematic issues relating to the elimination of racial discrimination; and the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.
Documentation
Under the item on the administration of justice and human rights of detainees, the Subcommission has before a draft International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Forced Disappearances (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/WG.1/CRP.2/Rev.1). The draft Convention is prepared by the Working Group on the Administration of Justice. The draft Convention states, among other things, that the systematic or massive practice of forced disappearance constitutes a crime against humanity; that no order or instruction of any public authority may be invoked to justify a forced disappearance; that no statutory limitation shall apply to criminal proceedings and any punishment arising from forced disappearances; and that competent authorities shall have access to all places where there is reason to believe that persons deprived of their liberty might be found.
The draft Convention also proposes the establishment of a Committee against Forced Disappearances, composed of 10 independent experts, elected at a biennial meeting of States parties convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The States Parties shall submit to the Committee through the Secretary-General reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention. In connection with the submission of the first report of each State Party concerned, the Committee may make a visit to the territory under the control of that State Party. If the Committee receives reliable information that indicates that forced disappearance is being systematically or widely practised in the territory under the control of a State Party, the Committee may designate one or more of its members to make an inquiry, which may include a visit to the territory of the State Party concerned.
Statements
ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission expert, thanked the members of the Subcommission, the non-governmental organizations and the Governments that gave their opinions and
recommendations on the report of the Working Group on Minorities. Most speakers had encouraged the commentary that would be sent to Governments. The question of the difference between integration and assimilation was very important. The Media Seminar, mentioned by some non-governmental organizations and experts, had been very successful, and it was regrettable that it had not been discussed in the Working Group; however, the Working Group would issue its Working Paper as a report, and would be meeting again for this, and this time, the Media Seminar would be discussed. It was very important to note that the right to self-determination in UN practice had never been construed as the right of an ethnic group to self- determination. It was the right of a people to self- determination - it was not an ethnic right, democracy, not ethnocracy was the subject. If the right was taken from the point of ethnicity, this would be a tragedy.
SOLI SORABJEE, Subcommission expert, said one of the main causes of human-rights violations involving minorities was the persistence and maintenance of certain negative stereotypes about certain minorities; these prejudices were transmitted to the young, sown in the minds of the children, sometimes by parents and sometimes later on by teachers. The most important thing was that children were brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, and respect for freedom of religion or belief of others, as the relevant international instrument said. Although the schools and Governments had responsibilities here, the media also had an important role to play; he thought the seminar organized by various NGOs on this subject, and the report they had given to the Working Group on Minorities, was useful. He opposed the practices of some media in inciting hatred and intolerance in some regions of the world; codes of conduct should be set up and adhered to prevent such abuses; he did not mean restrictions on press freedoms; it was up to the media to consider the situation and act responsibly. His second thought was on the matter of propagation of religion; should the right to propagate one's religion include the right to force conversion on other people, however? Conversion was fine as long as it was not through force or fraud or deceit. But there also were countries that made illegal certain conversions from one religion to another; to him that was intolerance. It was in the field of religion that minorities experienced discrimination in its most acute form.
Rights of Reply
ANDEBRHAN WELDEGIORGIS (Eritrea), speaking in right of reply, said the statement of Ethiopia had contained vicious lies, baseless allegations, and outright fabrications; repetitions of lies did not make them truths; an example was the claim about the attack on the Mekelle air base; Eritrea had been distressed by the death of civilians during the air attack; it had been carried out at 3 p.m. in response to an air attack on Asmara International Airport launched from Mekelle at 2:10 p.m., in which 34 Eritrean civilians had been killed or wounded; the Ethiopian claim that the air raid was only in retaliation is a lie refuted by diplomats and journalists alike. Civilians had not been targeted. There were no Ethiopian citizens detained arbitrarily in Eritrea; the delegation had submitted verifiable third-party documents to that effect; their authenticity could easily be checked; the Ethiopian delegation, by contrast, had quoted only one document whose credibility was questionable, since one could not reach the authors, if they existed at all. The truth of the dispute could be verified by one simple method -- an on-site verification of the human-rights situations in both countries; Eritrea welcomed such a visit and challenged Ethiopia to issue a similar invitation.
ROMANS BAUMANIS (Latvia), speaking in right of reply, said that it wanted to respond to the statement of the Russian Federation. The issue of non-citizenship had been dealt with in the Lithuanian Parliament in accord with the recommendations of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s High Commissioner for National Minorities, the European Union and others. The Russian Federation held opinions that no one else shared.
NAZARIAN KAREN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said Armenia was not in conflict with any of its neighbouring countries, as claimed by Azerbaijan; this was a serious distortion of reality. The supposed Armenian aggression claimed against Azerbaijan was not the true situation; the Nagorno Karabakh issue was something different -- Azerbaijan had responded aggressively to Nagorno Karabakh Armenians' effort to exercise their right to self-determination. Armenians also had been subject to vicious pogroms in various Azerbaijani cities; other Armenians had been deported, and reported barbaric killings, such as burning people alive. Azerbaijan did not guarantee, clearly, the security and safety of other national groups; Armenians were not a minority in Nagorno Karabakh; they were a majority living in their own ancestral land.
MINELIK ALEMU (Ethiopia), speaking in right of reply, said he was pleased to have another opportunity to expose the never-ending harassment and persecution of Ethiopians in Eritrea at the hands of the Eritrean Government. Measures taken by the Ethiopian Government against a limited number of Eritreans had been necessitated because these individuals posed a threat to the safety of Ethiopians and the security of the country. Ethiopia was an open country, while Eritrea was closed and no relevant international agency was functioning there to help Ethiopian nationals being savaged by the Eritrean regime. The Eritrean regime was not only concocting lies but had tried to twist resolutions of the Organisation of African Unity and the UN Security Council. Findings of the OAU Fact Finding Committee of Ambassadors had clearly established that the Eritrean Government was the aggressor and the outlaw.
SIMA EIVAZOVA (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said that Armenia had claimed it never carried out any aggression or war against Azerbaijan; but then how could you explain four Security Council resolutions confirming that there was military conflict between the two countries, or three UN human-rights documents confirming it, or documents of many other human-rights organizations which confirmed aggression by Armenia against Azerbaijan. Armenians had arranged other massacres themselves to justify aggression against Azerbaijan. The representative of Armenia could falsify anything if he tried hard enough.
ANDEBRHAN WELDEGIORGIS (Eritrea), speaking in right of reply, said that the Ethiopian Delegation was peddling the lies of its Government in an attempt to cover up the violation of fundamental freedoms of Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin that was taking place in Ethiopia. Some group should be invited to both Eritrea and Ethiopia to verify the situation. Asmara International Airport had been bombed, and Eritrean aircraft had made 4 sorties. It was a fact that Ethiopia lost 14 military aircraft on the ground or in the air. If the Ethiopian delegation did not agree with this, they should go on record to say that their President was lying. Was Ethiopia willing to have an international visit - to date it had not accepted this as it was afraid and had things to hide.
NAZARIAN KAREN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said unfortunately the Azerbaijani representative had failed again to tell the truth; none of the four Security Council resolutions referring to the conflict had mentioned aggression by Armenia, for example, but had only referred to the struggle of Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh for self-determination. Such exaggerations and distortions of facts undermined the work of international fora and interfered with effective efforts to end the suffering of the people in Nagorno Karabakh.
MINELIK ALEMU (Ethiopia), speaking in right of reply, said the Eritrean Government was racist against Ethiopians. Two hundred and fifty eight Ethiopian deportees from the Eritrean port city of Assab, including 48 children, had arrived in Djibouti. The deportees had only been allowed to leave Eritrea after paying the Eritrean Government. International media had interviewed the deportees from Eritrea. The Eritrean Government had to be told that it could never wash away its blood stained hands.
SIMA EIVAZOVA (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said there was no need to repeat that Armenia had waged unprovoked war against Azerbaijan; it had occupied about 20 per cent of the territory of Azerbaijan; now about 1 million Azerbaijanis were displaced, with all their human rights violated. How, meanwhile, could Azerbaijan carry out aggression against its own territory and historical land, as Armenia claimed?
Statements
LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission expert and Chairman of the Working Group on the Administration of Justice, introduced the report of the Working Group. The Working Group had considered: questions related to the death penalty, where it was noted that 97 countries now had abolished the death penalty, either de jure or de facto; and Habeas Corpus, where there had been a general discussion and exchange of views on the document, and Subcommission expert and Chairman El Hadji Guisse had been requested to take into consideration in his future report to provide a list of initiatives that had been taken in other bodies. The Working Group had considered how to make the Convention of 1948 against Genocide more effective; they had agreed to change the wording of the document so that it would read: 'struggle against genocide: from the 1948 Convention to the International Criminal Court'. Item 5 on juvenile justice was deleted, and the privatisation of prisons, which had been on the agenda from 1989 was considered. Gross and massive violations of human rights were addressed by the Working Group, but there were problems of overlapping and duplication, and so this item had been deleted.
With regard to forced disappearances and the draft Convention on the Protection of All People Against Forced Disappearances; it had been difficult to agree on a method. The Working Group had felt that it would be disrespectful to consider that their new colleagues had to go along with what had been done two years earlier. Therefore they had re-examined the previous document. It could be considered that 17 people had participated in the Working Group, and following consultations they had reached a consensus on the whole document; as they had presented the Subcommission with a consensus it was to be hoped that it could be forwarded to the Commission on Human Rights. The Commission on Human Rights was especially concerned with issues related to article one: disappearances linked to non-State groups. A second point that had been considered was how to classify violations that were not systematic; for this they had drawn on the practice of the Court in Argentina that had judged the Argentinean generals. Following discussions with a number of States and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Working Group had maintained that the depository of the Convention remained the United Nations Secretary-General, and all functions remained in his hands. There was a general trend to limit reservations as far as possible especially with regard to human rights. With regard to the establishment of a Committee to examine questions under the draft Convention, there had been a lively debate. Once a State acceded to the Convention, if it entered no reservations, then any communications against it would be admissible before the Committee; if it entered reservations, it could remove those reservations at a later stage.
ARTUCIO ALEJANDRO, of the International Commission of Jurists, speaking on behalf of a number of other NGOs, said the draft Convention Against Enforced Disappearances was a good one, and it was hoped the Subcommission would approve the text and bring it to the Commission on Human Rights, and that from there it would go on to be adopted as a universal instrument by the General Assembly.
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission expert, said the draft Convention Against Enforced Disappearances, and the fact that it included groups, was laudable; it was important to reach a decision on whether the draft convention or parts of it could be non-derogable; there had been great discussion about whether reservations could be allowed; the matter had to be resolved; it was important to include in the material forwarded to the Commission on Human Rights the report of the working group so that it was clear how the discussions on the draft declaration had proceeded, so that they could see why the text had assumed the form it had.
AFIRM DJONBALIC, of the Transnational Radical Party, said the situation of justice in Tunisia was preoccupying; the system of justice was totally dependent on the political power in control; numerous observers and international NGOS that had visited recently had noted that it was characterized by political procedures; examples were procedures against the former president of the Tunisian Human Rights Association, Moncef Marzouki, and the president and vice-president of the Social Democratic Movement, Mohamed Moadda and Khemais Chammari; there also were about 2,000 prisoners in Tunisia today who had been condemned in political processes in which the fundamental rights of the defendant were systematically violated; the vice president of the Tunisian League for Human Rights, Khemais Ksilla, was sentenced to 3 years in prison just because he had made a public political declaration in which he explained why he was on a hunger strike in 1997; he was protesting the withdrawal of his passport because of his human-rights activities. Another questionable procedure was Article 307 bis of the Penal Code which allowed investigation of all Tunisians for political activities in foreign countries which were considered in Tunisia as criminal; while on the other hand the lack of independence of the judiciary system provided State agents with total impunity for acts committed during their work, such as torture or inhuman or degrading treatment; the Subcommission must call for proper rule of law in Tunisia. It also must investigate detention, disappearance and ill-treatment of medical and humanitarian personnel in Kosovo.
DAVID LITTMAN,of Christian Solidarity International, said the organization was taking the floor concerning the recognition of gross and large scale human-rights violations in Sudan. Child slavery was being carried out by the National Islamic Front, and was punishable under the 1948 Convention Against Genocide. In view of the ongoing famine in Sudan, there could be no doubt that all appeals had to be made to all UN bodies, including the Subcommission, to use a special procedure, at least a decision or a text from the Chairman, in the same way that a statement would be made on Kosovo. Christian Solidary International appealed to the Subcommission to make its voice heard, before the end of this session, on the famine that could strike at up to one million Sudanese. The Subcommission had to do something now.
MERCEDES MOYA, of the American Association of Jurists (AAJ), said the organization was interested in a convention on enforced disappearances being adopted rapidly, but the current draft required corrections in substance and form; article 6 regulating jurisdiction, for example, departed from precedents in other similar international instruments; it did not cover the possibility of holding trials in absentia against perpetrators in countries where the victims resided; jurisdiction in the other instruments could take place in the States of the victims; AAJ proposed a new paragraph that would reflect the paragraphs in the Inter-American Convention on Enforced Disappearances and the Convention against Torture. The organization also had difficulties with other articles, and would offer comments on them at the appropriate times. AAJ on overall supported the document and hoped it could be altered appropriately and adopted quickly. As for impunity for violators of economic, social and cultural rights, and follow-up measures on the topic, AAJ suggested that the Subcommission repeat its recommendation to the Commission on Human Rights on the matter, since the Commission had not acted on the last recommendation.
PARNIAN SARAMAD, of International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said that the situation in Iran had deteriorated in all ways. The number of public executions in the one year of Mohammad Khatami's Presidential mandate had been 250. The annual report of Amnesty International said that torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment continued to be imposed. Torture was widespread. The religious dictatorship had responded violently to an upsurge of discontent throughout the country. On 12 August, the Mullahs had voted a new law that banned publication in the media of any document that could engender a conflict between the sexes by defending the rights of women. Despite propaganda concerning the large number of new newspapers and magazines in Iran since the arrival of Khatami in the Presidency, no publication criticising the violation of human rights, torture, executions or assassinations had appeared. Rather than judging slogans and empty promises, taking into account the reality that prevailed in the country, it was clear that the differences between the two factions of the regime on human rights was for example on whether death by stoning should be in public or behind closed doors. The international community should show determination in this situation .
ARTUCIO ALEJANDRO, of the International Commission of Jurists, said Peru had in February incorporated into legislation a provision on crimes against humanity, to be tried in ordinary courts; but a decree had been approved by the executive branch that placed under military jurisdiction the trial of a set offenses that should be tried in civil courts; this decision contradicted the basic principles of the international human-rights treaties ratified by Peru; there was also untoward interference in the judiciary by the executive branch; magistrates had been removed improperly and in violation of the Constitution; cases of so-called "aggravated terrorism" had been placed in military courts, including cases that really had nothing to do with terrorism, including such offenses as simple robbery and murder, without premeditation, if uniforms were worn or weapons of war were used; the Subcommission should request the Government to try normal crimes in civil courts. In Tunisia, the courts were subject to political interference that was resulting in a lack of fair trials; the vice-president of the Tunisian League for the Defence of Human Rights had been improperly imprisoned after an unfair trial; the Subcommission should request the Tunisian authorities to guarantee that the justice system was kept immune from interference and pressure, and that human-rights defenders be treated according to fair-trial standards.
OZDEN MALIK, of Centre Europe-Tiers Monde said that the administration of justice was a barometer for the respect of human rights in a country. The organisation had recently published a report on conditions of detention in Turkish prisons. The report underscored a number of violations of human rights: right to life, right to information and communication, right to defence among others. The report also notes the impunity of those who violate the right to life; non respect of the mental and physical health of detainees; and arbitrary sanctions imposed on prisoners. Though some official measures had been taken to fight torture, in practice, nothing had changed. The arresting forces did not register the name of prisoners, nor the date of their arrest, and if they did, did it late. It was rare to see those who practices torture punished, and when they were, they escaped with risible punishments. Turkey was still governed by a Constitution that was the legacy of a coup d'etat of 12 September 1980. Was it possible to justify 20 years of a state of exception? Several thousand people had been judged or were waiting judgement from the State Security Tribunals; tribunals that had been condemned by many NGOs as being contrary to international conventions. As it recognised the jurisdiction of the European Court, the Turkish authorities should conform to the instruments of human rights of the Council of Europe unless it wished to see itself excluded from that body.
GARCIA PICOLA JOSEP, of Pax Romana, said there was continuing deterioration of the rule of law in Peru; it had gone on for years; there was violation of the division of powers; a supposed explosion of crime in some cities had been the subject of decrees that reproduced previous anti-terrorist legislation that had widely violated accepted legal standards; the concept of terrorism was distorted -- the new decrees introduced the idea of "aggravated terrorism" that encompassed a number of common crimes; there was an expansion of the jurisdiction of the military courts as opposed to civil courts; there was a presumption of guilt; there was the option of detention by the police without a judicial warrant, and possibility of incommunicado detention for 10 days; during investigation, judges were not allowed to grant any kind of freedom; reduced time limits tended to limit judicial investigation; there were limitations on calling witnesses. Trials could take place in prisons or military establishments; there were restrictions on the rights of defense; there was an increase in convictions, many resulting in very severe penalties. There were no longer "faceless judges" but there were "faceless investigations"; the Ombudsman of Peru had objected to these developments. The draft declaration on enforced disappearances was an important document, and could help to prevent offenses such as had occurred recently in Mexico.
MOKBIL SAEED, of War Resisters International, said that the conflicts of yesterday were the roots of the violations of today and would remain so as long as the causes were not uprooted. The proof of this lay in the state of human rights in Yemen. The Yemeni Government's violations of human rights had acquired the character of collective punishment with the missile and air bombardment of civilian homes. The deterioration could also be seen in the opposition of the Yemeni Government with regard to the creation of the International Criminal Court. The Yemeni Government should apply all the resolutions adopted by the Human Rights Commission in its last session. In April 1998, the Yemeni authorities had repressed a peaceful demonstration, killing two people; in June 1998, they had repressed peaceful demonstrations in different governates, resulting in 385 dead and wounded; and in July 1998, three foreign nuns had been murdered. An appeal was made to members of the Subcommission to adopt a resolution that would halt the human rights violations in Yemen and that would secure the release of detainees and stop all forms of torture.
MENEGAKIS ALEXANDRA, of International Educational Development, said the organization was deeply concerned by the arrests and detention of the royal family of Hawaii; the king, crowned on 22 February 1998, was a direct descendent of the royal family who ruled over an independent country illegally seized by representatives of the United States who were not authorized by the United States to carry out this seizure; in 1997, the king and queen were at a shopping area in Maui when persons who did not identify themselves tried to abduct them with no warrant; a police officer had slammed a phone out of the queen's hand, grabbed her hair, and slammed her into a wall when she tried to phone 911 for help; five other officers threw her to the floor and held her down; she was arrested, and still was undergoing treatment for her injuries; she recently was imprisoned for "first degree terrorist assault"; this was one of many cases of police violence against the Hawaiian royal family; they also faced charges of trespass on their own land; numerous other alleged offenses had been dismissed; district and circuit courts had denied them the right to raise cultural and religious claims, and they were not permitted to speak their native language. The Subcommission also should demand release from detention of Kurdish members of the National Assembly of Turkey, jailed for their political beliefs; Moluccans jailed in February in Indonesia after voicing their beliefs about self-determination should be released; and justice should be done following the gang rapes and human-rights violations against Indonesians of Chinese ethnicity.
PANDITA KASHINATH, of Interfaith International, said that the recognition that human rights violations were perpetrated by non-government entities should create the legal basis to hold the State responsible for adopting preventive measures. While there was no generally accepted list of international crimes, there was a general agreement on what types of violations of international law could be considered as international crimes. Crimes against humanity also had to be considered in the light of crimes against peace; the most general name for such crimes would be 'crimes against the peace and security of mankind'. Some States patronised or even inspired non-government entities and terrorist groups, and many of these entities wore a veneer of religion to find social legitimacy for the international crimes that they committed. Central and south Asia were among the regions where human rights violations were a direct result of international crimes such as genocide and ethno-religious cleansing of targeted groups; the situation in Tajikistan had arisen owing to frequent incursions made by armed non-government entities. Similarly in Jammu and Kashmir, externally sponsored non-government entities were perpetrating genocide of the small religious minority community of the Pandits of Kashmir. A mechanism needed to be evolved to strengthen the mandate of relevant agencies like the International Law Commission and the UN bodies to deal with this menace.
CHOEPHEL NGAWANG, of Society for Threatened Peoples, said there were many situations where States became parties to UN human-rights conventions yet flouted them; in China, since Beijing had ratified the Convention against Torture, 55 known Tibetan political prisoners had died from torture; more than 1,200 political prisoners, including 39 juveniles and 259 women, remained incarcerated in Tibet for non-violent expression of their political or religious beliefs; there was an emerging pattern of disappearances; Tibetans were being detained on political grounds; there was extensive use of administrative sentences and torture; there was continued sentencing on charges of "endangering state security" or "leaking state secrets", even though the word "counter-revolutionary" no longer existed in China's legal vocabulary; nuns and teachers were serving long prison sentences. The most well-known case was that of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 9-year-old boy regarded as the second highest spiritual leader of the Tibetan people and of Buddhists all over the world; he had now spent his last three birthdays in incommunicado detention and Chinese authorities refused to reveal his whereabouts; he was the world's youngest political prisoner. The Subcommission should issue a statement of concern over 11 Tibetan prisoners brutally killed by Chinese authorities and send a clear message to China to peacefully resolve its differences with the Tibetan people.
ATIQUE UR REHMAN, of the International Institute of Peace, said that states of emergency were almost always declared because of the insecurities of the rulers. In Pakistan, the Government had declared a state of emergency immediately after conducting nuclear tests in May 1998. States of emergency in almost every country of the world resulted in the grossest violations of human rights as the objective was always to suppress freedom of expression. It was heartening to note that the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and other democrats objected to the state of emergency. If a state of emergency was defined by denial of fundamental political rights, suspension of democracy, free press, freedom of association, expression and use of force to suppress protest, then the northern areas of Gilgit and Baltistan had been under a state of emergency for fifty years. In most countries an emergency was declared for a short period of time - could the Subcommission imagine what had happened to the human rights of the people of these areas at the hands of Pakistan?
ASHOK BHAN, of Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation, said there was a new breed of violence and crime against humanity -- "terrorism" and the fostering of alarm and terror; the acts of terrorist groups had become a grave concern of the world and the UN; but very little reaction was discernable from the international community in the case of violence, killing, and abuse of human rights of people in various parts of the globe and in particular in various parts of Jammu and Kashmir
in India, where Pakistani-sponsored terrorist groups killed innocent people and
committed massive violations of human rights. Many women and children had been
among the victims; the terrorists were trained and funded by Pakistan; in April, 26 Hindus had been massacred and as recently as 17 July another 16, including women and children, were shot dead. Pakistan deserved to be declared as a terrorist State, and the Subcommission was humbly urged to declare so; countries must be condemned and censured when they sponsored and encouraged terrorism overtly and covertly.
HR/SC/98/22
19 August 1998
Expert to Prepare a Draft Resolution to Transmit Draft Convention on Protection from Enforced Disappearances to Commission on Human Rights
The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities this morning concluded its debate on the protection of minorities and started consideration of issues affecting the administration of justice and the human rights of detainees.
In the first part of the meeting, Eritrea and Ethiopia, and Armenia and Azerbaijan traded accusations of violations of human rights in their respective countries. Subcommission expert Soli Sorabjee echoed the remarks of many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) yesterday stating that it was in the field of religion that minorities experienced discrimination in its most acute form.
The Subcommission then heard its expert Louis Joinet introduce the report of the Working Group on the Administration of Justice. Mr. Joinet was asked to prepare a draft resolution to transmit the Working Group’s draft Convention on Protection from Enforced Disappearances to the Commission on Human Rights.
NGOs alleged serious violations in the administration of justice and violations of the rights of prisoners in several countries including, among others, Turkey, Peru, Tunisia, Iran, Yemen, Indonesia, China and Pakistan. Military tribunals, the situation of prisoners of war, states of emergency, torture and arbitrary detention were among practices criticised by NGOs. Pakistan was also alleged to be responsible for supporting terrorist organisations.
Subcommission experts and alternates Asbjorn Eide, Soli Sorabjee, Louis Joinet, and Halima Embarek Warzazi addressed the Subcommission.
Eritrea, Latvia, Armenia, Ethiopia, and Azerbaijan, spoke in right of reply, and the following NGOs also addressed the meeting: International Commission of Jurists, Transnational Radical Party, Christian Solidarity International, American Association of Jurists, International Association of Democratic Jurists, Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, Pax Romana, War Resisters International, International Educational Development, Interfaith International, Society for Threatened Peoples, International Institute for Peace, and Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation.
The Subcommission will reconvene at 3 p.m. this afternoon when it will vote on resolutions submitted under the following subjects: the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation and apartheid in all countries, with particular reference to colonial and other dependent countries and territories; thematic issues relating to the elimination of racial discrimination; and the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.
Documentation
Under the item on the administration of justice and human rights of detainees, the Subcommission has before a draft International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Forced Disappearances (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/WG.1/CRP.2/Rev.1). The draft Convention is prepared by the Working Group on the Administration of Justice. The draft Convention states, among other things, that the systematic or massive practice of forced disappearance constitutes a crime against humanity; that no order or instruction of any public authority may be invoked to justify a forced disappearance; that no statutory limitation shall apply to criminal proceedings and any punishment arising from forced disappearances; and that competent authorities shall have access to all places where there is reason to believe that persons deprived of their liberty might be found.
The draft Convention also proposes the establishment of a Committee against Forced Disappearances, composed of 10 independent experts, elected at a biennial meeting of States parties convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The States Parties shall submit to the Committee through the Secretary-General reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention. In connection with the submission of the first report of each State Party concerned, the Committee may make a visit to the territory under the control of that State Party. If the Committee receives reliable information that indicates that forced disappearance is being systematically or widely practised in the territory under the control of a State Party, the Committee may designate one or more of its members to make an inquiry, which may include a visit to the territory of the State Party concerned.
Statements
ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission expert, thanked the members of the Subcommission, the non-governmental organizations and the Governments that gave their opinions and
recommendations on the report of the Working Group on Minorities. Most speakers had encouraged the commentary that would be sent to Governments. The question of the difference between integration and assimilation was very important. The Media Seminar, mentioned by some non-governmental organizations and experts, had been very successful, and it was regrettable that it had not been discussed in the Working Group; however, the Working Group would issue its Working Paper as a report, and would be meeting again for this, and this time, the Media Seminar would be discussed. It was very important to note that the right to self-determination in UN practice had never been construed as the right of an ethnic group to self- determination. It was the right of a people to self- determination - it was not an ethnic right, democracy, not ethnocracy was the subject. If the right was taken from the point of ethnicity, this would be a tragedy.
SOLI SORABJEE, Subcommission expert, said one of the main causes of human-rights violations involving minorities was the persistence and maintenance of certain negative stereotypes about certain minorities; these prejudices were transmitted to the young, sown in the minds of the children, sometimes by parents and sometimes later on by teachers. The most important thing was that children were brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, and respect for freedom of religion or belief of others, as the relevant international instrument said. Although the schools and Governments had responsibilities here, the media also had an important role to play; he thought the seminar organized by various NGOs on this subject, and the report they had given to the Working Group on Minorities, was useful. He opposed the practices of some media in inciting hatred and intolerance in some regions of the world; codes of conduct should be set up and adhered to prevent such abuses; he did not mean restrictions on press freedoms; it was up to the media to consider the situation and act responsibly. His second thought was on the matter of propagation of religion; should the right to propagate one's religion include the right to force conversion on other people, however? Conversion was fine as long as it was not through force or fraud or deceit. But there also were countries that made illegal certain conversions from one religion to another; to him that was intolerance. It was in the field of religion that minorities experienced discrimination in its most acute form.
Rights of Reply
ANDEBRHAN WELDEGIORGIS (Eritrea), speaking in right of reply, said the statement of Ethiopia had contained vicious lies, baseless allegations, and outright fabrications; repetitions of lies did not make them truths; an example was the claim about the attack on the Mekelle air base; Eritrea had been distressed by the death of civilians during the air attack; it had been carried out at 3 p.m. in response to an air attack on Asmara International Airport launched from Mekelle at 2:10 p.m., in which 34 Eritrean civilians had been killed or wounded; the Ethiopian claim that the air raid was only in retaliation is a lie refuted by diplomats and journalists alike. Civilians had not been targeted. There were no Ethiopian citizens detained arbitrarily in Eritrea; the delegation had submitted verifiable third-party documents to that effect; their authenticity could easily be checked; the Ethiopian delegation, by contrast, had quoted only one document whose credibility was questionable, since one could not reach the authors, if they existed at all. The truth of the dispute could be verified by one simple method -- an on-site verification of the human-rights situations in both countries; Eritrea welcomed such a visit and challenged Ethiopia to issue a similar invitation.
ROMANS BAUMANIS (Latvia), speaking in right of reply, said that it wanted to respond to the statement of the Russian Federation. The issue of non-citizenship had been dealt with in the Lithuanian Parliament in accord with the recommendations of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s High Commissioner for National Minorities, the European Union and others. The Russian Federation held opinions that no one else shared.
NAZARIAN KAREN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said Armenia was not in conflict with any of its neighbouring countries, as claimed by Azerbaijan; this was a serious distortion of reality. The supposed Armenian aggression claimed against Azerbaijan was not the true situation; the Nagorno Karabakh issue was something different -- Azerbaijan had responded aggressively to Nagorno Karabakh Armenians' effort to exercise their right to self-determination. Armenians also had been subject to vicious pogroms in various Azerbaijani cities; other Armenians had been deported, and reported barbaric killings, such as burning people alive. Azerbaijan did not guarantee, clearly, the security and safety of other national groups; Armenians were not a minority in Nagorno Karabakh; they were a majority living in their own ancestral land.
MINELIK ALEMU (Ethiopia), speaking in right of reply, said he was pleased to have another opportunity to expose the never-ending harassment and persecution of Ethiopians in Eritrea at the hands of the Eritrean Government. Measures taken by the Ethiopian Government against a limited number of Eritreans had been necessitated because these individuals posed a threat to the safety of Ethiopians and the security of the country. Ethiopia was an open country, while Eritrea was closed and no relevant international agency was functioning there to help Ethiopian nationals being savaged by the Eritrean regime. The Eritrean regime was not only concocting lies but had tried to twist resolutions of the Organisation of African Unity and the UN Security Council. Findings of the OAU Fact Finding Committee of Ambassadors had clearly established that the Eritrean Government was the aggressor and the outlaw.
SIMA EIVAZOVA (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said that Armenia had claimed it never carried out any aggression or war against Azerbaijan; but then how could you explain four Security Council resolutions confirming that there was military conflict between the two countries, or three UN human-rights documents confirming it, or documents of many other human-rights organizations which confirmed aggression by Armenia against Azerbaijan. Armenians had arranged other massacres themselves to justify aggression against Azerbaijan. The representative of Armenia could falsify anything if he tried hard enough.
ANDEBRHAN WELDEGIORGIS (Eritrea), speaking in right of reply, said that the Ethiopian Delegation was peddling the lies of its Government in an attempt to cover up the violation of fundamental freedoms of Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin that was taking place in Ethiopia. Some group should be invited to both Eritrea and Ethiopia to verify the situation. Asmara International Airport had been bombed, and Eritrean aircraft had made 4 sorties. It was a fact that Ethiopia lost 14 military aircraft on the ground or in the air. If the Ethiopian delegation did not agree with this, they should go on record to say that their President was lying. Was Ethiopia willing to have an international visit - to date it had not accepted this as it was afraid and had things to hide.
NAZARIAN KAREN (Armenia), speaking in right of reply, said unfortunately the Azerbaijani representative had failed again to tell the truth; none of the four Security Council resolutions referring to the conflict had mentioned aggression by Armenia, for example, but had only referred to the struggle of Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh for self-determination. Such exaggerations and distortions of facts undermined the work of international fora and interfered with effective efforts to end the suffering of the people in Nagorno Karabakh.
MINELIK ALEMU (Ethiopia), speaking in right of reply, said the Eritrean Government was racist against Ethiopians. Two hundred and fifty eight Ethiopian deportees from the Eritrean port city of Assab, including 48 children, had arrived in Djibouti. The deportees had only been allowed to leave Eritrea after paying the Eritrean Government. International media had interviewed the deportees from Eritrea. The Eritrean Government had to be told that it could never wash away its blood stained hands.
SIMA EIVAZOVA (Azerbaijan), speaking in right of reply, said there was no need to repeat that Armenia had waged unprovoked war against Azerbaijan; it had occupied about 20 per cent of the territory of Azerbaijan; now about 1 million Azerbaijanis were displaced, with all their human rights violated. How, meanwhile, could Azerbaijan carry out aggression against its own territory and historical land, as Armenia claimed?
Statements
LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission expert and Chairman of the Working Group on the Administration of Justice, introduced the report of the Working Group. The Working Group had considered: questions related to the death penalty, where it was noted that 97 countries now had abolished the death penalty, either de jure or de facto; and Habeas Corpus, where there had been a general discussion and exchange of views on the document, and Subcommission expert and Chairman El Hadji Guisse had been requested to take into consideration in his future report to provide a list of initiatives that had been taken in other bodies. The Working Group had considered how to make the Convention of 1948 against Genocide more effective; they had agreed to change the wording of the document so that it would read: 'struggle against genocide: from the 1948 Convention to the International Criminal Court'. Item 5 on juvenile justice was deleted, and the privatisation of prisons, which had been on the agenda from 1989 was considered. Gross and massive violations of human rights were addressed by the Working Group, but there were problems of overlapping and duplication, and so this item had been deleted.
With regard to forced disappearances and the draft Convention on the Protection of All People Against Forced Disappearances; it had been difficult to agree on a method. The Working Group had felt that it would be disrespectful to consider that their new colleagues had to go along with what had been done two years earlier. Therefore they had re-examined the previous document. It could be considered that 17 people had participated in the Working Group, and following consultations they had reached a consensus on the whole document; as they had presented the Subcommission with a consensus it was to be hoped that it could be forwarded to the Commission on Human Rights. The Commission on Human Rights was especially concerned with issues related to article one: disappearances linked to non-State groups. A second point that had been considered was how to classify violations that were not systematic; for this they had drawn on the practice of the Court in Argentina that had judged the Argentinean generals. Following discussions with a number of States and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Working Group had maintained that the depository of the Convention remained the United Nations Secretary-General, and all functions remained in his hands. There was a general trend to limit reservations as far as possible especially with regard to human rights. With regard to the establishment of a Committee to examine questions under the draft Convention, there had been a lively debate. Once a State acceded to the Convention, if it entered no reservations, then any communications against it would be admissible before the Committee; if it entered reservations, it could remove those reservations at a later stage.
ARTUCIO ALEJANDRO, of the International Commission of Jurists, speaking on behalf of a number of other NGOs, said the draft Convention Against Enforced Disappearances was a good one, and it was hoped the Subcommission would approve the text and bring it to the Commission on Human Rights, and that from there it would go on to be adopted as a universal instrument by the General Assembly.
HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission expert, said the draft Convention Against Enforced Disappearances, and the fact that it included groups, was laudable; it was important to reach a decision on whether the draft convention or parts of it could be non-derogable; there had been great discussion about whether reservations could be allowed; the matter had to be resolved; it was important to include in the material forwarded to the Commission on Human Rights the report of the working group so that it was clear how the discussions on the draft declaration had proceeded, so that they could see why the text had assumed the form it had.
AFIRM DJONBALIC, of the Transnational Radical Party, said the situation of justice in Tunisia was preoccupying; the system of justice was totally dependent on the political power in control; numerous observers and international NGOS that had visited recently had noted that it was characterized by political procedures; examples were procedures against the former president of the Tunisian Human Rights Association, Moncef Marzouki, and the president and vice-president of the Social Democratic Movement, Mohamed Moadda and Khemais Chammari; there also were about 2,000 prisoners in Tunisia today who had been condemned in political processes in which the fundamental rights of the defendant were systematically violated; the vice president of the Tunisian League for Human Rights, Khemais Ksilla, was sentenced to 3 years in prison just because he had made a public political declaration in which he explained why he was on a hunger strike in 1997; he was protesting the withdrawal of his passport because of his human-rights activities. Another questionable procedure was Article 307 bis of the Penal Code which allowed investigation of all Tunisians for political activities in foreign countries which were considered in Tunisia as criminal; while on the other hand the lack of independence of the judiciary system provided State agents with total impunity for acts committed during their work, such as torture or inhuman or degrading treatment; the Subcommission must call for proper rule of law in Tunisia. It also must investigate detention, disappearance and ill-treatment of medical and humanitarian personnel in Kosovo.
DAVID LITTMAN,of Christian Solidarity International, said the organization was taking the floor concerning the recognition of gross and large scale human-rights violations in Sudan. Child slavery was being carried out by the National Islamic Front, and was punishable under the 1948 Convention Against Genocide. In view of the ongoing famine in Sudan, there could be no doubt that all appeals had to be made to all UN bodies, including the Subcommission, to use a special procedure, at least a decision or a text from the Chairman, in the same way that a statement would be made on Kosovo. Christian Solidary International appealed to the Subcommission to make its voice heard, before the end of this session, on the famine that could strike at up to one million Sudanese. The Subcommission had to do something now.
MERCEDES MOYA, of the American Association of Jurists (AAJ), said the organization was interested in a convention on enforced disappearances being adopted rapidly, but the current draft required corrections in substance and form; article 6 regulating jurisdiction, for example, departed from precedents in other similar international instruments; it did not cover the possibility of holding trials in absentia against perpetrators in countries where the victims resided; jurisdiction in the other instruments could take place in the States of the victims; AAJ proposed a new paragraph that would reflect the paragraphs in the Inter-American Convention on Enforced Disappearances and the Convention against Torture. The organization also had difficulties with other articles, and would offer comments on them at the appropriate times. AAJ on overall supported the document and hoped it could be altered appropriately and adopted quickly. As for impunity for violators of economic, social and cultural rights, and follow-up measures on the topic, AAJ suggested that the Subcommission repeat its recommendation to the Commission on Human Rights on the matter, since the Commission had not acted on the last recommendation.
PARNIAN SARAMAD, of International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said that the situation in Iran had deteriorated in all ways. The number of public executions in the one year of Mohammad Khatami's Presidential mandate had been 250. The annual report of Amnesty International said that torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment continued to be imposed. Torture was widespread. The religious dictatorship had responded violently to an upsurge of discontent throughout the country. On 12 August, the Mullahs had voted a new law that banned publication in the media of any document that could engender a conflict between the sexes by defending the rights of women. Despite propaganda concerning the large number of new newspapers and magazines in Iran since the arrival of Khatami in the Presidency, no publication criticising the violation of human rights, torture, executions or assassinations had appeared. Rather than judging slogans and empty promises, taking into account the reality that prevailed in the country, it was clear that the differences between the two factions of the regime on human rights was for example on whether death by stoning should be in public or behind closed doors. The international community should show determination in this situation .
ARTUCIO ALEJANDRO, of the International Commission of Jurists, said Peru had in February incorporated into legislation a provision on crimes against humanity, to be tried in ordinary courts; but a decree had been approved by the executive branch that placed under military jurisdiction the trial of a set offenses that should be tried in civil courts; this decision contradicted the basic principles of the international human-rights treaties ratified by Peru; there was also untoward interference in the judiciary by the executive branch; magistrates had been removed improperly and in violation of the Constitution; cases of so-called "aggravated terrorism" had been placed in military courts, including cases that really had nothing to do with terrorism, including such offenses as simple robbery and murder, without premeditation, if uniforms were worn or weapons of war were used; the Subcommission should request the Government to try normal crimes in civil courts. In Tunisia, the courts were subject to political interference that was resulting in a lack of fair trials; the vice-president of the Tunisian League for the Defence of Human Rights had been improperly imprisoned after an unfair trial; the Subcommission should request the Tunisian authorities to guarantee that the justice system was kept immune from interference and pressure, and that human-rights defenders be treated according to fair-trial standards.
OZDEN MALIK, of Centre Europe-Tiers Monde said that the administration of justice was a barometer for the respect of human rights in a country. The organisation had recently published a report on conditions of detention in Turkish prisons. The report underscored a number of violations of human rights: right to life, right to information and communication, right to defence among others. The report also notes the impunity of those who violate the right to life; non respect of the mental and physical health of detainees; and arbitrary sanctions imposed on prisoners. Though some official measures had been taken to fight torture, in practice, nothing had changed. The arresting forces did not register the name of prisoners, nor the date of their arrest, and if they did, did it late. It was rare to see those who practices torture punished, and when they were, they escaped with risible punishments. Turkey was still governed by a Constitution that was the legacy of a coup d'etat of 12 September 1980. Was it possible to justify 20 years of a state of exception? Several thousand people had been judged or were waiting judgement from the State Security Tribunals; tribunals that had been condemned by many NGOs as being contrary to international conventions. As it recognised the jurisdiction of the European Court, the Turkish authorities should conform to the instruments of human rights of the Council of Europe unless it wished to see itself excluded from that body.
GARCIA PICOLA JOSEP, of Pax Romana, said there was continuing deterioration of the rule of law in Peru; it had gone on for years; there was violation of the division of powers; a supposed explosion of crime in some cities had been the subject of decrees that reproduced previous anti-terrorist legislation that had widely violated accepted legal standards; the concept of terrorism was distorted -- the new decrees introduced the idea of "aggravated terrorism" that encompassed a number of common crimes; there was an expansion of the jurisdiction of the military courts as opposed to civil courts; there was a presumption of guilt; there was the option of detention by the police without a judicial warrant, and possibility of incommunicado detention for 10 days; during investigation, judges were not allowed to grant any kind of freedom; reduced time limits tended to limit judicial investigation; there were limitations on calling witnesses. Trials could take place in prisons or military establishments; there were restrictions on the rights of defense; there was an increase in convictions, many resulting in very severe penalties. There were no longer "faceless judges" but there were "faceless investigations"; the Ombudsman of Peru had objected to these developments. The draft declaration on enforced disappearances was an important document, and could help to prevent offenses such as had occurred recently in Mexico.
MOKBIL SAEED, of War Resisters International, said that the conflicts of yesterday were the roots of the violations of today and would remain so as long as the causes were not uprooted. The proof of this lay in the state of human rights in Yemen. The Yemeni Government's violations of human rights had acquired the character of collective punishment with the missile and air bombardment of civilian homes. The deterioration could also be seen in the opposition of the Yemeni Government with regard to the creation of the International Criminal Court. The Yemeni Government should apply all the resolutions adopted by the Human Rights Commission in its last session. In April 1998, the Yemeni authorities had repressed a peaceful demonstration, killing two people; in June 1998, they had repressed peaceful demonstrations in different governates, resulting in 385 dead and wounded; and in July 1998, three foreign nuns had been murdered. An appeal was made to members of the Subcommission to adopt a resolution that would halt the human rights violations in Yemen and that would secure the release of detainees and stop all forms of torture.
MENEGAKIS ALEXANDRA, of International Educational Development, said the organization was deeply concerned by the arrests and detention of the royal family of Hawaii; the king, crowned on 22 February 1998, was a direct descendent of the royal family who ruled over an independent country illegally seized by representatives of the United States who were not authorized by the United States to carry out this seizure; in 1997, the king and queen were at a shopping area in Maui when persons who did not identify themselves tried to abduct them with no warrant; a police officer had slammed a phone out of the queen's hand, grabbed her hair, and slammed her into a wall when she tried to phone 911 for help; five other officers threw her to the floor and held her down; she was arrested, and still was undergoing treatment for her injuries; she recently was imprisoned for "first degree terrorist assault"; this was one of many cases of police violence against the Hawaiian royal family; they also faced charges of trespass on their own land; numerous other alleged offenses had been dismissed; district and circuit courts had denied them the right to raise cultural and religious claims, and they were not permitted to speak their native language. The Subcommission also should demand release from detention of Kurdish members of the National Assembly of Turkey, jailed for their political beliefs; Moluccans jailed in February in Indonesia after voicing their beliefs about self-determination should be released; and justice should be done following the gang rapes and human-rights violations against Indonesians of Chinese ethnicity.
PANDITA KASHINATH, of Interfaith International, said that the recognition that human rights violations were perpetrated by non-government entities should create the legal basis to hold the State responsible for adopting preventive measures. While there was no generally accepted list of international crimes, there was a general agreement on what types of violations of international law could be considered as international crimes. Crimes against humanity also had to be considered in the light of crimes against peace; the most general name for such crimes would be 'crimes against the peace and security of mankind'. Some States patronised or even inspired non-government entities and terrorist groups, and many of these entities wore a veneer of religion to find social legitimacy for the international crimes that they committed. Central and south Asia were among the regions where human rights violations were a direct result of international crimes such as genocide and ethno-religious cleansing of targeted groups; the situation in Tajikistan had arisen owing to frequent incursions made by armed non-government entities. Similarly in Jammu and Kashmir, externally sponsored non-government entities were perpetrating genocide of the small religious minority community of the Pandits of Kashmir. A mechanism needed to be evolved to strengthen the mandate of relevant agencies like the International Law Commission and the UN bodies to deal with this menace.
CHOEPHEL NGAWANG, of Society for Threatened Peoples, said there were many situations where States became parties to UN human-rights conventions yet flouted them; in China, since Beijing had ratified the Convention against Torture, 55 known Tibetan political prisoners had died from torture; more than 1,200 political prisoners, including 39 juveniles and 259 women, remained incarcerated in Tibet for non-violent expression of their political or religious beliefs; there was an emerging pattern of disappearances; Tibetans were being detained on political grounds; there was extensive use of administrative sentences and torture; there was continued sentencing on charges of "endangering state security" or "leaking state secrets", even though the word "counter-revolutionary" no longer existed in China's legal vocabulary; nuns and teachers were serving long prison sentences. The most well-known case was that of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 9-year-old boy regarded as the second highest spiritual leader of the Tibetan people and of Buddhists all over the world; he had now spent his last three birthdays in incommunicado detention and Chinese authorities refused to reveal his whereabouts; he was the world's youngest political prisoner. The Subcommission should issue a statement of concern over 11 Tibetan prisoners brutally killed by Chinese authorities and send a clear message to China to peacefully resolve its differences with the Tibetan people.
ATIQUE UR REHMAN, of the International Institute of Peace, said that states of emergency were almost always declared because of the insecurities of the rulers. In Pakistan, the Government had declared a state of emergency immediately after conducting nuclear tests in May 1998. States of emergency in almost every country of the world resulted in the grossest violations of human rights as the objective was always to suppress freedom of expression. It was heartening to note that the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and other democrats objected to the state of emergency. If a state of emergency was defined by denial of fundamental political rights, suspension of democracy, free press, freedom of association, expression and use of force to suppress protest, then the northern areas of Gilgit and Baltistan had been under a state of emergency for fifty years. In most countries an emergency was declared for a short period of time - could the Subcommission imagine what had happened to the human rights of the people of these areas at the hands of Pakistan?
ASHOK BHAN, of Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation, said there was a new breed of violence and crime against humanity -- "terrorism" and the fostering of alarm and terror; the acts of terrorist groups had become a grave concern of the world and the UN; but very little reaction was discernable from the international community in the case of violence, killing, and abuse of human rights of people in various parts of the globe and in particular in various parts of Jammu and Kashmir
in India, where Pakistani-sponsored terrorist groups killed innocent people and
committed massive violations of human rights. Many women and children had been
among the victims; the terrorists were trained and funded by Pakistan; in April, 26 Hindus had been massacred and as recently as 17 July another 16, including women and children, were shot dead. Pakistan deserved to be declared as a terrorist State, and the Subcommission was humbly urged to declare so; countries must be condemned and censured when they sponsored and encouraged terrorism overtly and covertly.