Experts of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights today joined non-governmental organizations and Pakistan in discussing agenda item 2 on the question of the violation of human rights around the world, the Sub-Commission’s limited mandate on this agenda item and whether it can be changed.

Many Experts suggested that the mandate of the Sub-Commission could be changed to strengthen its position with regards to taking to task specific countries. Francoise Jane Hampson said agenda item 2 should not be allowed to wither away, adding that the victims of violations of human rights in States not currently being considered by the Commission on Human Rights were waiting for members of the Sub-Commission to speak. Abdul Sattar disagreed with the restriction on resolutions on country situations by the Sub-Commission. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro said the Sub-Commission should not continue to complain that it was being deprived of the power to adopt resolutions as it had adopted a creative solution, namely the Chairperson’s statement, when dealing with country specific situations.

Gudmundur Alfredsson said there was another reason for the reduction of the value of this item on the agenda over the last few years and that was the increase of other UN monitoring procedures. Mohamed Habib Cherif said item 2 continued to be one of the most important points on the agenda, and all should work to strengthen the rule of law in all countries. Emmanuel Decaux agreed that this item should remain one of the highlights of the work of the Sub-Commission. Ibrahim Salama said the Sub-Commission should rethink its working methods and approaches. Marc Bossuyt also spoke on the role and mandate of the Sub-Commission, saying the decision on this item had been taken, apparently, in order to avoid politicization.

On other issues, Chin Sung Chung, speaking in the context of trafficking in persons, said further legal efforts, including binding international mechanisms, should be put in place to help the victims and prosecute the perpetrators of this gross violation of human rights.

On the situation in Iraq, El Hadji Guisse said the life of every person had been threatened by war in that country. Narrow nationalists and small selfish groups dictated human rights violations, Vladimir Katarshkin said, while Jose Bengoa said it was a time when bullets spoke more than words.

Returning to the issue of Iraq, David Rivkin said that there were cases of violations of human rights not just by Governments, but also by non-State actors who were engaged in acts of annihilation which violated human rights.

The Sub-Commission also heard from a number of non-governmental organizations about alleged violations in the Western Sahara, Pakistan, and Jammu and Kashmir, among others. The Representative of Pakistan also took the floor.

Non-governmental organizations addressing the Sub-Commission were the Mouvement International des Jeunes et Etudiants des Nations Unies, International Institute for Peace, World Peace Council, Association of American Jurists, World Muslim Congress, and the International Indian Treaty Council.

The Sub-Commission will hold its next public plenary at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 July.

Statements

M'HAMED MOHAMED CHEIKH, of International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, spoke of the serious violations of human rights in the Western Sahara, where the situation had become ever more grave, leading to the isolation of the region, which kept international opinion away from the area. No members of the press and media or humanitarian agencies could go there, and this was why the situation continued to deteriorate to the point of now being critical. The Moroccan Government was running a policy of oppression against a population that had never used violence. The situation of human rights in the area and the repressive measures of the Government clearly showed its dictatorial nature, which had sabotaged for 30 years all efforts to find a lasting solution. The intentions of the Government were to plunder the territory and to exploit the population to the greatest possible extent.

SHRI PRAKASH, of International Institute for Peace, said random and unwarranted violence against civilians, exemplified by the Al Qaeda brand of terrorism, had emerged as the prime violator of human rights of innocent civilians across the globe. At the national level, it was the systematic denial of basic rights to determine their destiny and be treated as equal citizens that impacted on the lives of individuals and groups. In the past few years, the international community’s attention had been focused on South Asia where the battle against international terrorism commenced with the decimation of the Taliban and the destruction of the camps of Al Qaeda. In that war against terrorism, by its very location, Pakistan had emerged as a key player. Since terrorism was a major threat to human rights in democratic nations, it was inevitable that the attention of the international human rights community would focus on Pakistan and its leadership to assess the nature of that ally.

SHABIR CHOUDHARY, of World Peace Council, said the Sindhi people of Pakistan had high hopes that the Sub-Commission and the Commission on Human Rights would one day help to achieve the legitimate rights of the people in the federal state of Pakistan. It was a very sad state of affairs in Pakistan that political, economic, cultural and human rights of Sindhis and other weak nationalities were flagrantly violated and denied the right of self-rule in their own province. Human rights forums in Sindh and abroad had repeatedly urged the federal Government of Pakistan to negotiate with the political parties of Sindh to solve the political, economic and human rights issues of Sindh, but the authorities had not heeded their calls. The Government should end racial discrimination against Sindhis and protect their human rights, including by restoring democracy, protecting human rights, and eliminating fundamentalism and religious extremism.

ANA VERA VEGA, of American Association of Jurists, said that the United States Supreme Court had recognized the right of prisoners in Guantanamo to appeal to a federal court against their detention. However, the prisoners continued to be deprived of their rights by the rejection of implementing the court decision. The world’s major military power continued to humiliate others throughout the planet. The manipulations in Haiti by France and the United States, the economic embargo against Cuba, and the deplorable military occupation of Iraq by the United States had been documented by non-governmental organizations. The United States continued to destabilize other regimes through coup d’états, such as the situation in Venezuela.

SADAR USMAN ALI KHAN, of World Muslim Congress, said the people of Jammu and Kashmir had been deprived of their human rights under the Indian occupation forces since 1947. In order to maintain its illegal occupation of Kashmir, the Indian security forces had let loose a reign of terror against the innocent Kashmiri people. The Indian army and para-military forces had adopted the use of barbaric and cruel techniques for suppressing the peaceful struggle of Kashmiris for their right to self-determination. Thousands of Kahmiri people had been killed through extra-judicial means in military raids on villages and towns; these raids were portrayed as government operations against militants. In fact, it was arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of life by government forces. The Indian forces had killed about 90,000 Kashmiris since 1989. Most of those were Kashmiri youth in their twenties of thirties killed in raids, fake encounters, counter-insurgency operations and in custody of the security forces. Forced and involuntary disappearances were another frequent type of human rights violations in Kashmir.

ANTONIO GONZALES, of International Indian Treaty Council, said there were several critical situations affecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples in different parts of the world, in particular in the Americas. In California, geothermal drilling threatened sacred places for the Pit River and Modoc Indian Nations and traditional practitioners from the Klamath, Karuk, Shasta, Wintu and other tribes. These drilling projects specifically violated articles 1, 18 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the United States was a signatory. The Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people should urgently make plans to investigate these matters and others promptly, and to report back to the Sub-Commission as soon as possible.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan) said the world today was confronted with numerous challenges in the field of human rights. Conflict, poverty, hunger and disease continued to hinder the realization of the human rights of a vast majority of mankind. The North-South divide had polarized international human rights institutions, particularly the Commission on Human Rights. The perspectives of the developing and developed countries on human rights issues, as well as their approaches for the realization of human rights and the implementation of international human rights standards remained divergent. Despite the recognition of the principle of the indivisibility of human rights, the need for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, did not get as much emphasis as civil and political rights.

Foreign occupation continued as a primary cause of many leading conflicts and a source of serious human rights violations. It was ironical that the just struggle of the people under occupation was often branded as terrorism. The negative profiling of Islam and Muslims was a matter of serious concern for the Islamic world, and effective measures were required to put an end to this practice. The Government of Pakistan was firmly committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, and had adopted effective legislative and executive measures for creating an enabling environment for the protection of the basic rights of the people as well as devising a system for implementation of international human rights standards. The Sub-Commission had an important task of exploring the ways and means to meet the human rights challenges faced by mankind. It was important that the human rights approaches were founded on the principles of justice and fair play. The implementation of international standards should take into account the diversity of cultural norms and values.

EL-HADJI GUISSE (Sub-Commission Expert) said peace that all people wanted to see had not been realized during the last 40 years. Peace was a human right of individuals. No legal provisions could be attached to the concept of peace. Peace was the foundation of the United Nations. All should enjoy the right to peace. Recently, one had come over a new concept of war – a pre-emptive war. No one could be safe against the application of the pre-emptive war. The United States started bombing Afghanistan in October 2001, and it continued to bomb Iraq with its coalition forces. The lives of all persons living in Iraq had been threatened by the war and no one was safe. The actions in Iraq had had a devastating effect. The war waged by the United States was greater than the two world wars combined. With regard to Africa, it was recognized that it was struggling to survive through its combat against poverty. However, the conflict had continued to ravage all efforts for development. The frontiers created by the colonialists were the main causes for instability and war for many African countries. The lack of infrastructure, violations of human rights and illiteracy had also been among the causes affecting the Continent and they had hampered economic development.

EMMANUEL DECAUX (Sub-Commission Expert) said this item had been and should remain one of the highlights of the work of the Sub-Commission. The Sub-Commission needed to be frank and clear-minded. Resolution 2004/60 of the Commission on Human Rights was clear, and the Sub-Commission had been called upon not to adopt anything concerning a specific country, but should continue to be able to discuss situations that had not been dealt with by the Commission and to continue to address urgent issues in any country. There was a list of countries that were off-limits, unless there was an emergency. It was a difficult but necessary task to undertake this annual balance sheet of the state of human rights in the world.

The previous session of the Sub-Commission had been overshadowed by the storm clouds of terrorism and war, but the situation got worse with the tragic terrorist attack which caused the deaths of Sergio Vieira de Mello and other United Nations staff. If the situation appeared less dark this year, it was undoubtedly due to two factors: freedom of information, an issue which the Sub-Commission did not speak enough about, had played an important role in revealing unacceptable situations. The second great reason for hope was the role of justice, and the great victories of international justice should be saluted.

However, the right to life remained under threat throughout the world. The Darfur crisis was the latest example of the fatal process in which time was always of the essence. The priority in this case was that of humanitarian action, but the weight of international criminal law should not be forgotten. Thus, the establishment of the International Criminal Court was also an encouraging sign. In the face of all menaces and crises, law should remain the safeguard of human rights. The role of all present, no doubt modest but still indispensable, was to preserve the rule of law for all.

VLADMIR KARTASHKIN (Sub-Commission Expert) said that when one was talking of human rights violations, this also referred to genocide and other forms of human rights violations. Narrow nationalists and small selfish groups dictated human rights violations. The international community, most particularly the Sub-Commission, should endeavour to prevent the human rights violations from occurring. New conventions and treaties, resolutions and decisions, researches and studies should be carried out to avert the occurring of human rights violations in any part of the world. The development of mechanisms should be developed to prevent such human rights violations. It was known that massive violations of human rights against minorities had been perpetrated. Additional clauses should be included in the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to further protect minorities. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture had allowed visits on the spot whenever allegations of torture were raised in any country. The implementation of the treaties by the States parties should be monitored. The Sub-Commission should take preventive measures against human rights violations. Such measures should include guarantees for peace, as said by the previous speaker. As the Secretary-General said, the work of the Sub-Commission should be reoriented towards prevention of human rights violations from happening.

JOSE BENGOA (Sub-Commission Expert) said the last year had not been a good one for human rights, and any impartial observer would have to agree that there were clear steps backward in the defense, promotion and protection of human rights. The human rights movement had lost a High Commissioner almost a year ago, and many human rights defenders had suffered the same fate. This showed that it was a time when bullets spoke more than words, and those who sought peace ended up in the middle of violence. There was a feeling among Sub-Commission Experts of tremendous powerlessness, with an imposed agenda and half-truths being force-fed to those present. There were huge set-backs in human rights, with practices such as torture prospering and flourishing, as shown by the photographs of those tortured by the representatives of Governments whilst carrying out their functions.

With respect to the defense of human rights as a positive global and rational goal, this could impede the slide down the slippery slope. The rights of the individual and human rights should be fought for vigorously, and this would not be easy. It was the task of those present, even though they held a limited mandate. The importance of the right to speak should not be ignored, even though the Sub-Commission did not have the opportunity of following up what it said in resolutions. Non-governmental organizations put forth cases of violations of human rights, thinking the Sub-Commission and its members could do something, and this was not the case. Experts should ask themselves whether there was any purpose in their actions since there was no follow-up, and should consider their current mandate.

There should be a re-study of human rights in the globalized world, and with a free mind. This was a major challenge, and was why the Sub-Commission had the mandate to study globalization in the context of economic, social and cultural rights. But now, there was the challenge of carrying this out in the context of all rights. This showed one of the major contradictions in what the Sub-Commission did. Civil society, the public and the press saw the world as ever more inter-related, and international bodies were being asked to react efficiently faced with this new world, but there was a gap between the expectations of the world and what international organizations had been given as a mandate, and the Sub-Commission should react to this, finding ways in which it could be efficient in the promotion and protection of human rights.

IBRAHIM SALAMA (Sub-Commission Expert) said that the Sub-Commission should rethink its working methods and approaches. Concrete suggestions should be brought forward on how to deal with specific country situations. The implementation parameters should be re-examined and thematic proposals should be made. A small group within the Sub-Commission should be constituted to come up with guidelines and principles of parameters. The problem of implementation and approach should be elaborated and identified. Dealing with country situations did not diminish the role of the Sub-Commission, as suggested by one non-governmental organization. The human rights dimension of conflicts should also be studied. Specific cases of jurisprudence could be taken into consideration in dealing with country situations.

MARC BOSSUYT (Sub-Commission Expert) said the decision on this item had been taken, apparently, in order to avoid politicization, which had impeded the work of the Sub-Commission. However, this remained to be proved. It was not clear whether those suffering from violations of human rights would be helped by these new rules - instead, it seemed as though it would be the Governments perpetrating these violations which would benefit. With respect to Iraq, there was no reason to regret that the Saddam regime was no longer in power. A ban on speaking on certain situations could only be a step backwards and a reversal in the fight against human rights violations. It was to be regretted that the war against Iraq had been undertaken under false pretences, and the risk of problems such as the treatment of prisoners who were denied the status of prisoner of war could not be underestimated.

It was to be hoped that the Iraqi people would soon find, along with their sovereignty, the respect for human rights to which they were entitled. What was clear was that it had not been proved that the fight against terrorism was not best served without respect for the rule of law in all States, without exception. The situation in the Middle East had only deteriorated over the last few years, and the situation of the peace process was to be deplored. The situation in Sudan was also of concern, and the international community should hold the Sudanese Government responsible. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, disorder, war, illnesses and poverty had caused innumerable victims. As for Burundi, it was to be hoped that the Arusha Agreements would bring peace to the country.

DAVID RIVKIN (Sub-Commission Expert) said that a number of governments and non-state actors were committing human rights violations. They were engaged in acts of annihilation. The non-state actors not only violated human rights but they were also engaged in hostage taking and other illegal acts. Forces based in Afghanistan had aggressed the United States by committing the incident of September 11. The Security Council had recognized the right of the United States to react against forces in Afghanistan, particularly those violating human rights. The regime of Afghanistan, the Taliban, had been a threat to the neighbouring countries. The present regime could not be considered as a perfect one because of the fact that killings and other human rights violations were still taking place.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON (Sub-Commission Expert) said the victims of violations of human rights in States not currently being considered by the Commission were waiting for members of the Sub-Commission to speak. Agenda item 2 could not be allowed to wither away. With regard to specific situations, in the context of extra-judicial and indiscriminate killings and disappearances, the situation in Columbia was of concern. In various violations including continued massacres, killings, disappearances, torture, kidnappings and threats by paramilitary forces, the evidence suggested the complicity of the armed forces who were themselves reportedly directly responsible for a significant increase in the number of serious human rights violations. This indicated that there was a consistent pattern of violations of human rights in the country. A second situation of relevance in the context of unlawful killings was in Indonesia, in the Aceh region where summary executions of civilians by Indonesian security forces, with no murder charges brought following civilian deaths during operations by the military, also revealed a consistent pattern of violations of human rights. A third situation concerned torture in Uzbekistan, where such practices were systematic, and also revealed a consistent pattern of violations of human rights.

These three situations had one thing in common: they were all justified by the authorities in terms of anti-terrorism measures. Another situation concerned a problem which was directly connected with the war on terrorism: the secret transfer of people from one State to another, often by the agency of a third. The number and range of States which had transferred people to custody of the United States, without any form of legal proceedings such as extradition, was truly remarkable in a depressing sense, as it included States of the North, South, East and West, States with a long tradition of respect for human rights, and others lacking such a tradition. Another type of transfer concerned the transfer of persons from the country of detention to a third State, most often courtesy of the United States. Human rights groups believed the number of those transferred thus to be in the thousands, and they had disappeared without a trace. States not only could but also should provide effective protection for persons in their jurisdiction. Nothing could better illustrate the danger of ignoring human rights law in the war on terrorism - for even States which traditionally had a good record of respect for human rights had become tainted.

ABDUL SATTAR (Sub-Commission Expert) said that abstention of the observers was a loss to the participation in the work of the body. They should be encouraged to continue to take an active part in the work of the Sub-Commission. In the past, the Sub-Commission used to reflect on the work of non-governmental organizations and other observer delegates in its report to the Commission. However, it was found to be repetitive since the same observers participated in the work of the Commission. He disagreed with the restriction of resolutions on country situations by the Sub-Commission. The Commission had adopted a resolution on the human rights situation in the Sudan only three months ago. However, the situation in Darfur had been exacerbated by the human rights violations of the inhabitants. The displaced persons from the area should be rehabilitated in their own areas.

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) said all countries were patients who were ill and suffered from human rights ailments. When one looked at the international community, it could be considered that every single country had problems, even though they differed. The long-standing democracies, the new democracies, dictatorships, all had their own problems. It was hard to speak of violations of human rights without naming names. The Sub-Commission should not continue to decry and to complain that it was being deprived of the power to adopt resolutions, and that it could not carry out thematic resolutions with the name of countries. Instead, it had adopted a creative solution, namely the Chairperson’s statement. It was time to stop shedding tears, and remember who and what the Sub-Commission was. Rather than just criticizing and denouncing countries, the Sub-Commission should be a steady help and friend to countries to help them overcome human rights violations, as suggested by Sergio Vieira de Mello. It was the concern for the human rights of victims that bound the Sub-Commission to civil society.

It was vital for the Sub-Commission to pay close attention to everything shared by non-governmental organizations as in the Sub-Commission they had a remarkable role, especially this year. In this context, the suggestions made in the discussion were absolutely essential for the future work of the body. The statements of the previous speakers, notably those of Mr. Katarshkin of creating mechanisms for prevention, and that of Mr. Salama of setting up a Working Group for dealing with statements under item 2, were all extremely valuable and important. The quality and number of statements under this agenda item had increased considerably, and this gave rise to hope for the discussion of the same agenda item next year.

CHIN SUNG CHUNG (Sub-Commission Expert) said that in the world where the ever-present dangers of extreme poverty and hunger, unsafe drinking water, environmental degradation, and endemic or infectious diseases killed millions of people, increasingly people, especially women and girls were being trafficking across the borders as well as within countries. The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children had provided the first international definition of trafficking in persons. Each country had to criminalize trafficking, and the protocol also provided provisions on the modes of investigation, prosecution and victim protection and assistance. Annually, more than 2 million persons around the world were being trafficked under the prolonged control of the traffickers. The international community had been combating trafficking in many ways. In the last several years, work had been undertaken at all levels to address various aspects of trafficking. Most of those initiatives, embracing broad categories of prevention, prosecution and protect and assistance affirmed a rights-based approach. The Sub-Commission should continue to work on the issue of trafficking in persons in order to enhance the abolition of trafficking in cooperation with the Commission on Human Rights.

GUDMUNDUR ALFREDSSON (Sub-Commission Expert) said item 2 now had reduced influence and a reduced role in deliberations, and not only with regard to Commission resolution 2004/60. There was another reason for the reduction of the value of this item, and that was the multiplication of other monitoring procedures, which had taken place in the United Nations human rights programme over the last few years, as these procedures continued to increase. Practically all human rights violations which had been spoken of by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the last two meetings were covered by other special procedures, including Special Rapporteurs.

The challenge of the Sub-Commission was to identify whether the applicable international standards and corresponding monitoring standards were good enough and accessible enough, and if not, how the situation could be improved. A small Working Group to examine the list of issues in this context, as suggested by Mr. Salama was a good idea. The statements made by NGOs on this issue were valuable and should be listened to, but it had been noted that there were many who were not present, and this indicated that they had also come to the conclusion that other procedures were also covering the issue.

Item 2 could possibly be expanded from not just addressing negative aspects of violations to addressing positive experiences, for example in the terms of implementation of new legislation, new institutions created, etc. Human rights education initiatives were spreading around the world, for example, and this could be meat for discussion, and could provide the Sub-Commission with valuable lessons as to what had and could be done in terms of resolutions.

MOHAMED HABIB CHERIF (Sub-Commission Expert) said agenda item 2 on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation in all countries, continued to be one of the most important points of the Sub-Commission. In the face of the threats and danger of human right violations, everybody should work to strengthen the rule of law in all countries.

Source: United Nations Office at Geneva