Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases CHR subsidiary body
SUBCOMMISSION ON PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONTINUES DISCUSSION ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
03 August 2001
Share
Subcommission on the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights
53rd session
3 August 2001
Afternoon
The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this afternoon continued to discuss and debate the administration of justice in all parts of the world, with Experts, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national delegations describing, among other things, the application of the death penalty.
Subcommission Expert Rajendra Kalidas Wimala Goonesekere said there was no question that it was wrong for a State on a given day and given time to deliberately take the life of a human being. He told a story about a man who had been jailed for killing someone, and after he served his sentence, he had been murdered by his victims' family. That showed, he said, that the idea of revenge was so ingrained in people that they could not accept any argument other than an eye for an eye.
Vladimir Kartashkin, an Alternate Expert, said there was a very dangerous trend in which a number of countries which had done away with the death penalty were re-introducing it. Some referred to public opinion in doing so, while others felt the death penalty would reduce the number of crimes committed. But experience had shown that capital punishment did not reduce serious crime, he said. And, on public opinion he added, the wisdom of a leader of a State lay in part in not always following public opinion. A national leader had to pay attention to principles of humanity and to the long-term good of his State.
Others spoke about the importance of an independent judiciary and prohibitions on the right to freedom of assembly. Instances of abuses within the administration of justice were mentioned in Bangladesh, Malaysia, India (Kashmir, Jumma, and Assam), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burundi, Rwanda, and Italy.
NGOs participating in the discussion were Liberation (joint statement with the Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace), the Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation, Ain O Salish Kendra (in a joint statement with the Transnational Radical Party) and the International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs. National delegations taking the floor were Tunisia, the Russian Federation, and Italy. Further, the delegations of Mauritania, Bahrain, and the Republic of Korea spoke in rights of reply. Experts Louis Joinet, Francoise Jane Hampson, Erica-Irene Daes, and Asbjorn Eide also participated in the discussion.
Subcommission members also discussed a draft resolution on the mass and flagrant violations of human rights which constituted crimes against humanity, and which took place during the colonial period, wars of conquest and slavery. The panel will continue discussions on the proposal next week.
When the Subcommission meets on Monday, 6 August at 10 a.m., it will continue its discussion on the administration of justice.
Statements
MARGARET BOWDEN, of Liberation, on behalf of the Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace, said the indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts had eagerly awaited the signing of the Peace Accord, as an instrument of hope for a better future. It had been hoped that the Peace Accord would be a tangible way of showing how the administration of justice could be seen to be redressing the human rights abuses of the past. These objectives had not been achieved. The main provisions not yet implemented included the return of refugees, and the withdrawal of all army camps from the Chittagong Hill Tracts. The Government=s failure to dismantle the camps contributed to the ongoing human rights violations against indigenous people there. These were committed on a daily basis, and there was a culture of impunity.
Another area related to the administration of justice was in Malaysia. The increasing number of incidents of arbitrary detention of civilians who protested against current government policies was garnering concern among the international community. Human rights groups viewed the Internal Security Act as a mechanism by which people who chose to protest peacefully could arbitrarily be arrested and detained, often without access to legal counsel. There was also concern about the increasing level of violence experienced by ordinary civilians in Jammu and Kashmir. Currently, under the occupation of approximately 700,000 Indian soldiers and paramilitary forces, the Kashmiris were seeking the recognition of their right to self-determination. Lastly, it was disturbing to see the level of violence increasing in the Indian state of Assam, and by the number of daily human rights violations that occurred. Human rights abuses, including pre-meditated killings and hostage taking of innocent people, were widespread.
R. PUNJABI,of the Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation, said the lofty ideals of the universal principles of human rights could not be guaranteed without ensuring the independence of judicial authorities. The nexus between the executive and the judiciary also had drawn the attention of concerned observers; executive powers had cast serious doubts about the process of selection, training and the conduct of the judiciary in many countries; and the atmosphere of uncertainty and repression created by State and non-State actors in many nations in South Asia had gravely paralysed judicial systems and raised questions about their legitimacy -- there had been murders of key witnesses, lawyers and judges which obviously intimidated people administering justice.
In many cases, the incumbent executives in many countries had deliberately brought about widespread changes in the judicial system by nominating sympathisers to top echelons, promoting yes-men and perpetrating an atmosphere of repression for dissenters. In one South Asian State it had been revealed that the executive dictated the judiciary to pronounce judgments in order to settle political scores against a former prime minister. Judicial independence ought to receive wider international emphasis, and there was an urgent need to address the de-democratization of some societies.
RAJENDRA KALIDAS WIMALA GOONESEKERE, Subcommission Expert, said the administration of justice and the death penalty were connected. There was a growing concern in several countries, including Sri Lanka, that the administration of justice was not being delivered. There was a feeling that serious crimes went unpunished or were not sufficiently punished. There was a feeling the investigatory skills had not been developed sufficiently enough to win convictions. And there was a feeling that the system was far too protective of persons who were confused. Several years ago, a judge of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka said he was presiding over a murder trial. The guilt of the accused was established, and he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. And after good time served, the man was released after serving six years. When the man was returning home, he was on a bus, and seven or eight people got on a bus, and dragged him off, and killed him. These were people who were related to the person who the man had killed, who had said that he had no right to kill their relative in the first place. One thing this showed was the idea of revenge was so ingrained in people that they could not accept any argument other than an eye for an eye.
In criminal justice, there was a burden of beyond reasonable doubt. There was a thought that it was better to let 10 guilty people to go unpunished than to let one innocent person be convicted. One could not take a chance in taking the life of a person. There had been so many cases of the violation of human rights, leading to torture and death, and very often, there were questions being raised about what to do with the violators. Victims were crying to have justice be done. There was no question that it was wrong for a State on a given day and given time to deliberately take the life of a human being. But thoughts had to be given to what to do with people who committed these crimes but were not being sentenced to death. Recently, there was an example in the United States of an inmate who did not make his final plea for clemency. He said he would rather die than live in prison. In Sri Lanka, the death penalty had by and large been suspended, and there was a large clamour to lift the suspension, and to kill people who offended society at large. There had to be attention paid to the conditions of prisons. If there was no death penalty, and prisoners could be confined to prison for life, there had to be concerns for their rights and conditions in prison.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Subcommission Alternate Expert, said he disagreed with a few things Mr. Goonesekere had said; in the world today there was a very dangerous trend -- a number of countries which had done away with the death penalty were re-introducing it. Some referred to public opinion in doing so, while others felt the death penalty would reduce the number of crimes committed. But experience had shown that capital punishment did not reduce serious crime; and as for public opinion, the wisdom of a leader of a State lay in part in not always following public opinion. A national leader had to pay attention to principles of humanity and to the long-term good of his State. Worse, there had been cases recently in which it had been realized only after an execution that the person killed was innocent. As for persons convicted of murder, he believed they should be kept in prison for life under a strict prison regime -- they were guilty of a serious crime and should be punished for it.
The principle of habeas corpus must be observed, Mr. Kartashkin said, and should be present in every country's legal code. Detention without a charge should not exceed two or three days. Yet there were cases where suspects were held for years without being formally charged, while investigations went on. Trials also took too long, in some cases -- again, in some situations they lasted years -- and the Subcommission perhaps should consider setting standards for how long trials should last.
As for the Ombudsmen, in the Russian Federation, such officials were elected for various regions, and in addition in those regions there also were committees for monitoring human rights. Ombudsmen looked at human rights questions only when all other recourse had been exhausted, while the committees could look at complaints at any stage. It would be a good idea if other countries might consider establishing both Ombudsmen's offices and such committees.
A. ZIAUDDIN, of Ain O Salish Kendra, in a joint statement with the Transnational Radical Party, said wrongs had to be made right to have any relevance. Afghanistan was a country bleeding to virtual annihilation, a State crumbling before the eyes of the world. The grave, systematic and widespread human rights abuses, and persistent violations of international humanitarian laws were overwhelming and well-documented. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan, in his recent report to the Human Rights Commission, provided details of the recurrent pattern of gross violations. The Secretary-General had repeatedly expressed his dismay, as had the General Assembly. The group welcomed the Secretary-General's statement and called upon the Subcommission to set up immediately an international crimes tribunal for the massive violations of human rights.
Pakistan was organically linked to the situation in Afghanistan, and had yet to deal with its own past. Pakistan was still unsure about its identity, and had been immersed in perpetual crisis, as the ethos of its existence in 1947 of a Muslim land for Muslims was demolished in 1971 with the emergence of Bangladesh. A full-scale genocide carried out by its army that wiped out three million souls, and raped 300,000 women, failed to keep Pakistan's integrity. Numerically, the Bangladesh genocide topped the list of genocides, right after the Holocaust. In Asia, no inhumanity thus far had surpassed the events of 1971. For a long time, the people of Bangladesh had demanded a trial of the perpetrators of the 1971 genocide. The ordinary Pakistanis were kept totally in the dark of the country's sordid past, but history recently caught up with Pakistan when the Hamoodur Rahman Commission report was leaked by an Indian newspaper. The Commission, headed by Pakistan's Chief Justice, recommended some top military commanders be put to trial, not for the atrocities committed by them, but for their alleged failures in military conducts.
Z. KALIMBA, of the International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs, said a very small per cent of the Rwandan and Burundian population were Batwas; they had no official power or representation in those countries, in violation of international standards against discrimination. In Burundi recently, because of the nine-year-long war, the international community had decided that Burundians should carry out negotiations; but these would be carried out without the presence of any Batwas. In addition, justice was not available to the Batwas, not even in principle -- some 10,000 Batwas had died during the Rwandan genocide, but they were never mentioned as victims of genocide. Many Batwas now languished in prisons with no judicial assistance, having been accused of having participated in massacres; a number of the 3,000 originally estimated to be so held now could not be found. What had happened to them?
Programmes of unity and reconciliation were being designed for Rwanda and Burundi, but without mention of the Batwas. The Subcommission should send an Expert to investigate the situation of the Batwas and to pressure these two Governments to change their position on the Batwas.
RIDHA KHEMAKHEM (Tunisia) said that since 1987, Tunisia had been promoting and consolidating human rights and fundamental freedoms within a framework of a global and multi-dimensional approach. The Government had set up a widespread network to implement such measures. The goal was a true democratic culture to strengthen political pluralism. Within the framework of criminal justice, many measures had been adopted, including an amendment pertaining to substitution sentences. Another reduced the time of detention. There was a law defining torture. Prisons and places of detention were improved. Further, the Government aimed at protecting the rights and physical well-being of the detainees. Compensation was paid to detainees who suffered at the hands of law enforcement officials. Tunisia was proud of its dedication to human rights, and was aware of the path it still had to travel.
VLADIMIR DOLGOBORODOV (the Russian Federation) said his delegation protested vehemently against the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of states of emergency; the Russian Federation was astonished and asked for an explanation for the chapter concerning it. The report said the President of the Chechen Federation had declared a state of emergency for 30 days -- mention of such a thing in a United Nations report amounted to violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of an independent nation. This was an attempt to legitimize the so-called Chechen regime.
The Office of the High Commissioner was reminded that only the President of the Russian Federation had the right to declare a state of emergency, and among other things he was required to inform the Duma immediately of such an act. It was extremely discouraging that the compilers of the report had not even taken the trouble to consult the primary source involved to determine the accuracy of such information.
MASSIMO LEGGERI (Italy) said the tragic events of Genoa during the G8 summit were raised earlier today. The problems that occurred in Genoa were certainly stronger than the ones in other areas where global conferences were taking place. The number of police in Genoa totalled 12,000. Despite peaceful protests, there were many groups who admitted to causing violence. The Heads of State participating in the G8 summit had noted the extreme violence by those groups, and the extreme damage that they had caused. Yesterday, the Government had taken a number of disciplinary measures. It was necessary that all actions were taken to assure public order. It was unfortunate that peaceful protestors were lumped together with those who wanted to make all global protests violent.
Rights of Reply
A representative of Mauritania, speaking in right of reply, said a non-governmental organization (NGO) had cast unfounded allegations against Mauritania by charging that there were arbitrary arrests, confiscations, and detentions and trials in undisclosed locations. If the NGO was referring to trials that had taken place in two major cities in the country, then it should be said that these were not isolated, secret places as the NGO described them, but accessible and known to all. The trials held there were public and observed standard safeguards; international lawyers and representatives of the independent press attended, and relatives were regularly allowed to visit those accused. Mauritania continued to pursue and improve its system of judicial rights.
A representative of Bahrain, exercising a right of reply, said Mr. Joinet had stated that not all political prisoners had been liberated in his country. But there was a Reuters report which showed that Bahrain had released all political prisoners. It was hoped that this would clear up any questions for the Subcommission.
LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission Expert, said he took note that indeed all the prisoners he had referred to in Bahrain had been released. Therefore the statement he made this morning was incorrect and should be amended.
A representative of the Republic of Korea, exercising a right of reply, said the current Government had taken drastic measures to enhance the right to free assembly, including approving the teacher's union. The Government allowed all labour union activities. But if the activities went beyond the legal boundaries, then they could be stopped by the police. The Government wanted to ensure that unions had the right to legal collective actions. If they respected the law and refrained from violent actions, they were allowed free assembly.
FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Subcommission Expert, said human rights in situations of emergency were a serious matter, as states of emergency had been in force for a long time in some countries, such as Egypt and Syria, where they had been in force since 1981 and 1963, respectively. The Human Rights Committee recently had made it clear that a state of emergency might only be applied in times of armed conflict; the Committee perhaps should strengthen its own mechanism for dealing with states of emergency, perhaps by appointing one of its members a Special Rapporteur on the subject, or by dealing regularly with the question of human rights during armed conflicts. The Subcommission had done what it could to prompt the international community to take a careful systematic approach to what occurred and what should be protected under states of emergency, but perhaps it should request more response on the matter from other bodies in the United Nations system.
ERICA-IRENE DAES, Subcommission Expert, said there were more than 65 armed conflicts going on in all parts of the world, and it was thought the Subcommission did not do sufficient work in this area. There was a suggestion to deal with the situation of States in armed conflicts.
ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission Expert, said serious human rights problems often arose in the context of tension and armed conflicts; one non-governmental organization had argued -- and he disagreed strongly -- that everything done in favour of freedom was legitimate and everything done in favour of repression was illegitimate. It was not that simple; it was a matter of how things were done. There were standards that should be observed, and, for example, Governments should avoid disproportionate force. Means and methods were of the essence. There was a need to reflect not only on standards but on mechanisms, and he felt there were serious gaps in terms of mechanisms for monitoring the disproportionate use of means and methods during violent conflicts. Often both parties gradually resorted to escalating violence and to methods from which they could not find an exit. The Subcommission perhaps could consider discussing next year methods for measuring excessive use of force.
* *** *
and Protection of Human Rights
53rd session
3 August 2001
Afternoon
The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this afternoon continued to discuss and debate the administration of justice in all parts of the world, with Experts, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national delegations describing, among other things, the application of the death penalty.
Subcommission Expert Rajendra Kalidas Wimala Goonesekere said there was no question that it was wrong for a State on a given day and given time to deliberately take the life of a human being. He told a story about a man who had been jailed for killing someone, and after he served his sentence, he had been murdered by his victims' family. That showed, he said, that the idea of revenge was so ingrained in people that they could not accept any argument other than an eye for an eye.
Vladimir Kartashkin, an Alternate Expert, said there was a very dangerous trend in which a number of countries which had done away with the death penalty were re-introducing it. Some referred to public opinion in doing so, while others felt the death penalty would reduce the number of crimes committed. But experience had shown that capital punishment did not reduce serious crime, he said. And, on public opinion he added, the wisdom of a leader of a State lay in part in not always following public opinion. A national leader had to pay attention to principles of humanity and to the long-term good of his State.
Others spoke about the importance of an independent judiciary and prohibitions on the right to freedom of assembly. Instances of abuses within the administration of justice were mentioned in Bangladesh, Malaysia, India (Kashmir, Jumma, and Assam), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burundi, Rwanda, and Italy.
NGOs participating in the discussion were Liberation (joint statement with the Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace), the Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation, Ain O Salish Kendra (in a joint statement with the Transnational Radical Party) and the International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs. National delegations taking the floor were Tunisia, the Russian Federation, and Italy. Further, the delegations of Mauritania, Bahrain, and the Republic of Korea spoke in rights of reply. Experts Louis Joinet, Francoise Jane Hampson, Erica-Irene Daes, and Asbjorn Eide also participated in the discussion.
Subcommission members also discussed a draft resolution on the mass and flagrant violations of human rights which constituted crimes against humanity, and which took place during the colonial period, wars of conquest and slavery. The panel will continue discussions on the proposal next week.
When the Subcommission meets on Monday, 6 August at 10 a.m., it will continue its discussion on the administration of justice.
Statements
MARGARET BOWDEN, of Liberation, on behalf of the Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace, said the indigenous peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts had eagerly awaited the signing of the Peace Accord, as an instrument of hope for a better future. It had been hoped that the Peace Accord would be a tangible way of showing how the administration of justice could be seen to be redressing the human rights abuses of the past. These objectives had not been achieved. The main provisions not yet implemented included the return of refugees, and the withdrawal of all army camps from the Chittagong Hill Tracts. The Government=s failure to dismantle the camps contributed to the ongoing human rights violations against indigenous people there. These were committed on a daily basis, and there was a culture of impunity.
Another area related to the administration of justice was in Malaysia. The increasing number of incidents of arbitrary detention of civilians who protested against current government policies was garnering concern among the international community. Human rights groups viewed the Internal Security Act as a mechanism by which people who chose to protest peacefully could arbitrarily be arrested and detained, often without access to legal counsel. There was also concern about the increasing level of violence experienced by ordinary civilians in Jammu and Kashmir. Currently, under the occupation of approximately 700,000 Indian soldiers and paramilitary forces, the Kashmiris were seeking the recognition of their right to self-determination. Lastly, it was disturbing to see the level of violence increasing in the Indian state of Assam, and by the number of daily human rights violations that occurred. Human rights abuses, including pre-meditated killings and hostage taking of innocent people, were widespread.
R. PUNJABI,of the Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation, said the lofty ideals of the universal principles of human rights could not be guaranteed without ensuring the independence of judicial authorities. The nexus between the executive and the judiciary also had drawn the attention of concerned observers; executive powers had cast serious doubts about the process of selection, training and the conduct of the judiciary in many countries; and the atmosphere of uncertainty and repression created by State and non-State actors in many nations in South Asia had gravely paralysed judicial systems and raised questions about their legitimacy -- there had been murders of key witnesses, lawyers and judges which obviously intimidated people administering justice.
In many cases, the incumbent executives in many countries had deliberately brought about widespread changes in the judicial system by nominating sympathisers to top echelons, promoting yes-men and perpetrating an atmosphere of repression for dissenters. In one South Asian State it had been revealed that the executive dictated the judiciary to pronounce judgments in order to settle political scores against a former prime minister. Judicial independence ought to receive wider international emphasis, and there was an urgent need to address the de-democratization of some societies.
RAJENDRA KALIDAS WIMALA GOONESEKERE, Subcommission Expert, said the administration of justice and the death penalty were connected. There was a growing concern in several countries, including Sri Lanka, that the administration of justice was not being delivered. There was a feeling that serious crimes went unpunished or were not sufficiently punished. There was a feeling the investigatory skills had not been developed sufficiently enough to win convictions. And there was a feeling that the system was far too protective of persons who were confused. Several years ago, a judge of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka said he was presiding over a murder trial. The guilt of the accused was established, and he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. And after good time served, the man was released after serving six years. When the man was returning home, he was on a bus, and seven or eight people got on a bus, and dragged him off, and killed him. These were people who were related to the person who the man had killed, who had said that he had no right to kill their relative in the first place. One thing this showed was the idea of revenge was so ingrained in people that they could not accept any argument other than an eye for an eye.
In criminal justice, there was a burden of beyond reasonable doubt. There was a thought that it was better to let 10 guilty people to go unpunished than to let one innocent person be convicted. One could not take a chance in taking the life of a person. There had been so many cases of the violation of human rights, leading to torture and death, and very often, there were questions being raised about what to do with the violators. Victims were crying to have justice be done. There was no question that it was wrong for a State on a given day and given time to deliberately take the life of a human being. But thoughts had to be given to what to do with people who committed these crimes but were not being sentenced to death. Recently, there was an example in the United States of an inmate who did not make his final plea for clemency. He said he would rather die than live in prison. In Sri Lanka, the death penalty had by and large been suspended, and there was a large clamour to lift the suspension, and to kill people who offended society at large. There had to be attention paid to the conditions of prisons. If there was no death penalty, and prisoners could be confined to prison for life, there had to be concerns for their rights and conditions in prison.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Subcommission Alternate Expert, said he disagreed with a few things Mr. Goonesekere had said; in the world today there was a very dangerous trend -- a number of countries which had done away with the death penalty were re-introducing it. Some referred to public opinion in doing so, while others felt the death penalty would reduce the number of crimes committed. But experience had shown that capital punishment did not reduce serious crime; and as for public opinion, the wisdom of a leader of a State lay in part in not always following public opinion. A national leader had to pay attention to principles of humanity and to the long-term good of his State. Worse, there had been cases recently in which it had been realized only after an execution that the person killed was innocent. As for persons convicted of murder, he believed they should be kept in prison for life under a strict prison regime -- they were guilty of a serious crime and should be punished for it.
The principle of habeas corpus must be observed, Mr. Kartashkin said, and should be present in every country's legal code. Detention without a charge should not exceed two or three days. Yet there were cases where suspects were held for years without being formally charged, while investigations went on. Trials also took too long, in some cases -- again, in some situations they lasted years -- and the Subcommission perhaps should consider setting standards for how long trials should last.
As for the Ombudsmen, in the Russian Federation, such officials were elected for various regions, and in addition in those regions there also were committees for monitoring human rights. Ombudsmen looked at human rights questions only when all other recourse had been exhausted, while the committees could look at complaints at any stage. It would be a good idea if other countries might consider establishing both Ombudsmen's offices and such committees.
A. ZIAUDDIN, of Ain O Salish Kendra, in a joint statement with the Transnational Radical Party, said wrongs had to be made right to have any relevance. Afghanistan was a country bleeding to virtual annihilation, a State crumbling before the eyes of the world. The grave, systematic and widespread human rights abuses, and persistent violations of international humanitarian laws were overwhelming and well-documented. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan, in his recent report to the Human Rights Commission, provided details of the recurrent pattern of gross violations. The Secretary-General had repeatedly expressed his dismay, as had the General Assembly. The group welcomed the Secretary-General's statement and called upon the Subcommission to set up immediately an international crimes tribunal for the massive violations of human rights.
Pakistan was organically linked to the situation in Afghanistan, and had yet to deal with its own past. Pakistan was still unsure about its identity, and had been immersed in perpetual crisis, as the ethos of its existence in 1947 of a Muslim land for Muslims was demolished in 1971 with the emergence of Bangladesh. A full-scale genocide carried out by its army that wiped out three million souls, and raped 300,000 women, failed to keep Pakistan's integrity. Numerically, the Bangladesh genocide topped the list of genocides, right after the Holocaust. In Asia, no inhumanity thus far had surpassed the events of 1971. For a long time, the people of Bangladesh had demanded a trial of the perpetrators of the 1971 genocide. The ordinary Pakistanis were kept totally in the dark of the country's sordid past, but history recently caught up with Pakistan when the Hamoodur Rahman Commission report was leaked by an Indian newspaper. The Commission, headed by Pakistan's Chief Justice, recommended some top military commanders be put to trial, not for the atrocities committed by them, but for their alleged failures in military conducts.
Z. KALIMBA, of the International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs, said a very small per cent of the Rwandan and Burundian population were Batwas; they had no official power or representation in those countries, in violation of international standards against discrimination. In Burundi recently, because of the nine-year-long war, the international community had decided that Burundians should carry out negotiations; but these would be carried out without the presence of any Batwas. In addition, justice was not available to the Batwas, not even in principle -- some 10,000 Batwas had died during the Rwandan genocide, but they were never mentioned as victims of genocide. Many Batwas now languished in prisons with no judicial assistance, having been accused of having participated in massacres; a number of the 3,000 originally estimated to be so held now could not be found. What had happened to them?
Programmes of unity and reconciliation were being designed for Rwanda and Burundi, but without mention of the Batwas. The Subcommission should send an Expert to investigate the situation of the Batwas and to pressure these two Governments to change their position on the Batwas.
RIDHA KHEMAKHEM (Tunisia) said that since 1987, Tunisia had been promoting and consolidating human rights and fundamental freedoms within a framework of a global and multi-dimensional approach. The Government had set up a widespread network to implement such measures. The goal was a true democratic culture to strengthen political pluralism. Within the framework of criminal justice, many measures had been adopted, including an amendment pertaining to substitution sentences. Another reduced the time of detention. There was a law defining torture. Prisons and places of detention were improved. Further, the Government aimed at protecting the rights and physical well-being of the detainees. Compensation was paid to detainees who suffered at the hands of law enforcement officials. Tunisia was proud of its dedication to human rights, and was aware of the path it still had to travel.
VLADIMIR DOLGOBORODOV (the Russian Federation) said his delegation protested vehemently against the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of states of emergency; the Russian Federation was astonished and asked for an explanation for the chapter concerning it. The report said the President of the Chechen Federation had declared a state of emergency for 30 days -- mention of such a thing in a United Nations report amounted to violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of an independent nation. This was an attempt to legitimize the so-called Chechen regime.
The Office of the High Commissioner was reminded that only the President of the Russian Federation had the right to declare a state of emergency, and among other things he was required to inform the Duma immediately of such an act. It was extremely discouraging that the compilers of the report had not even taken the trouble to consult the primary source involved to determine the accuracy of such information.
MASSIMO LEGGERI (Italy) said the tragic events of Genoa during the G8 summit were raised earlier today. The problems that occurred in Genoa were certainly stronger than the ones in other areas where global conferences were taking place. The number of police in Genoa totalled 12,000. Despite peaceful protests, there were many groups who admitted to causing violence. The Heads of State participating in the G8 summit had noted the extreme violence by those groups, and the extreme damage that they had caused. Yesterday, the Government had taken a number of disciplinary measures. It was necessary that all actions were taken to assure public order. It was unfortunate that peaceful protestors were lumped together with those who wanted to make all global protests violent.
Rights of Reply
A representative of Mauritania, speaking in right of reply, said a non-governmental organization (NGO) had cast unfounded allegations against Mauritania by charging that there were arbitrary arrests, confiscations, and detentions and trials in undisclosed locations. If the NGO was referring to trials that had taken place in two major cities in the country, then it should be said that these were not isolated, secret places as the NGO described them, but accessible and known to all. The trials held there were public and observed standard safeguards; international lawyers and representatives of the independent press attended, and relatives were regularly allowed to visit those accused. Mauritania continued to pursue and improve its system of judicial rights.
A representative of Bahrain, exercising a right of reply, said Mr. Joinet had stated that not all political prisoners had been liberated in his country. But there was a Reuters report which showed that Bahrain had released all political prisoners. It was hoped that this would clear up any questions for the Subcommission.
LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission Expert, said he took note that indeed all the prisoners he had referred to in Bahrain had been released. Therefore the statement he made this morning was incorrect and should be amended.
A representative of the Republic of Korea, exercising a right of reply, said the current Government had taken drastic measures to enhance the right to free assembly, including approving the teacher's union. The Government allowed all labour union activities. But if the activities went beyond the legal boundaries, then they could be stopped by the police. The Government wanted to ensure that unions had the right to legal collective actions. If they respected the law and refrained from violent actions, they were allowed free assembly.
FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Subcommission Expert, said human rights in situations of emergency were a serious matter, as states of emergency had been in force for a long time in some countries, such as Egypt and Syria, where they had been in force since 1981 and 1963, respectively. The Human Rights Committee recently had made it clear that a state of emergency might only be applied in times of armed conflict; the Committee perhaps should strengthen its own mechanism for dealing with states of emergency, perhaps by appointing one of its members a Special Rapporteur on the subject, or by dealing regularly with the question of human rights during armed conflicts. The Subcommission had done what it could to prompt the international community to take a careful systematic approach to what occurred and what should be protected under states of emergency, but perhaps it should request more response on the matter from other bodies in the United Nations system.
ERICA-IRENE DAES, Subcommission Expert, said there were more than 65 armed conflicts going on in all parts of the world, and it was thought the Subcommission did not do sufficient work in this area. There was a suggestion to deal with the situation of States in armed conflicts.
ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission Expert, said serious human rights problems often arose in the context of tension and armed conflicts; one non-governmental organization had argued -- and he disagreed strongly -- that everything done in favour of freedom was legitimate and everything done in favour of repression was illegitimate. It was not that simple; it was a matter of how things were done. There were standards that should be observed, and, for example, Governments should avoid disproportionate force. Means and methods were of the essence. There was a need to reflect not only on standards but on mechanisms, and he felt there were serious gaps in terms of mechanisms for monitoring the disproportionate use of means and methods during violent conflicts. Often both parties gradually resorted to escalating violence and to methods from which they could not find an exit. The Subcommission perhaps could consider discussing next year methods for measuring excessive use of force.
* *** *
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: