The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this morning concluded its review of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation, in all countries after hearing a series of statements by its Experts.

Several Experts highlighted the continued gross human rights violations being perpetrated in many parts of the world by States and non-state actors and urged all sides to refrain from violating the human rights of people. A number of Experts drew attention to the human rights violations in Darfur and the Middle East and called on the Sub-Commission to deal with these situations.

Yozo Yokota, Sub-Commission Expert, urged the Sub-Commission to pay attention to the former victims of HIV/AIDS and other transmittal diseases such as malaria who had been abandoned, constrained, left without appropriate care and mistreated, due to the lack of appropriate scientific knowledge.

Kalliopi Koufa, Sub-Commission Expert, said that reflection was required on resolution 2003/15 concerning the effects of measures to combat terrorism with an impact on human rights; this resolution provided a study of the compatibility of anti-terrorism laws with human rights and their impact on vulnerable groups with a view of creating guidelines.

El-Hadji Guissé, Sub-Commission Expert, recalled that the concept of pre-emptive war did not exist in the United Nations vocabulary and it would open the door for further violation of human rights.

Lalaina Rakotoarisoa, Sub-Commission Expert, said that where laws were silent under the shock of arms, the fight against terror should be carried out within the realm of law.

N.U.O. Wadibia-Anyanwu, Sub-Commission Expert, condemned the scourge of terrorism which violated all human rights, including the economic rights of all people. While terrorism should be combated by all means, the counter-terrorism laws put in place by some national governments also violated the human rights of citizens.

Chen Shiqiu, Sub-Commission Expert, said people around the world had continued to be victims of terrorism and with the pretext of counter-terrorism, many persons were being detained and tortured. The torturing of prisoners in Iraq was much shocking.

Antoanella-Iulia Motoc, Sub-Commission Expert, said what was being seen today was a phenomenon of fragmentation: of international law and of human rights, with many bodies addressing the same issues and providing different answers. The question was how to create a consistency in human rights.

Halima Embarek Warzazi, Sub-Commission Expert, said that in Palestine, terrorism was today given as a cover for massive and flagrant violations of human rights, to the extent that Israeli officers had risen up against their orders.

Miguel Alfonso Martinez, Sub-Commission Expert, said the principle of non-intervention which was clearly indicated in the United Nations Charter was being violated. The Charter allowed the use of force in cases of self-defence. The acts of humanitarian intervention and the use of force were unacceptable.

Gaspar Biro, Sub-Commission Expert, said while a number of positive developments had undeniably taken place in the past years in some particular areas of the promotion and protection of human rights, global trends still indicated a negative trajectory as far as the most serious violations and abuses were concerned.

Rui Baltazar Dos Santos Alves, Sub-Commission Expert, said that in spite of the declaration made by world leaders during the Millennium Summit, human rights violations continued to occur.

David Rivkin, Sub-Commission Expert, said with regard to the issue of self-defence, it was fair to point out that to the extent to which the United Nations Charter sanctioned the use of force in situations where an armed attack had not been suffered, and the relationship between article 51 and article 2, had prompted serious debate ever since the beginning of the United Nations system.

Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Sub-Commission Expert, said he supported the adoption of a resolution this year on human rights defenders. He suggested that urgent measures should be taken against the human rights violations in Darfur.

Ibrahim Salama, Sub-Commission Expert, said that the idea of making item 2 a laboratory and a detector of various situations where human rights were lacking could be a good solution. It could serve to detect where there were gaps and room for follow-up.

Mr. Yokota and Françoise Jane Hampson spoke in response to rights of reply made by observer States. Sri Lanka, Colombia, Uzbekistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Indonesia spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

At the end of the meeting, the Sub-Commission started considering its agenda item 5 on the prevention of discrimination. In that context, Mr. Yokota presented his expanded working paper on the topic of discrimination based on work and descent. In the inter-active dialogue which followed, only Mr. Rivkin spoke before the meeting concluded.

When the Sub-Commission reconvenes in a public plenary at 10 a.m. on Friday, 30 July, it will continue its debate on the prevention of discrimination.

Statements on Question of Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Including Policies of Racial Discrimination and Segregation, in all Countries

YOZO YOKOTA (Sub-Commission Expert) said he welcomed the adoption of Commission resolutions 2004/61 and 2004/13 on the situations in Burma and in Myanmar, and welcomed the work done on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. He also welcomed the second Decade on Human Rights Education, as stipulated in resolution 2004/71, as recommended by the Sub-Commission. As the programme for action of the First Decade emphasized, human rights education and training for the public and government officials of all types were extremely important and relevant for the full respect and protection of human rights. In this connection, the role and responsibility of the media was very important and pertinent. It was disappointing that the media of the world did not pay enough attention to the work of the United Nations human rights bodies and treaty bodies. The Sub-Commission could consider in the future commissioning one of its members to study this in greater detail.

The Sub-Commission in the past had paid specific attention to serious human rights violations related to victims of HIV/AIDS and other transmittal diseases such as malaria. Former patients and their family members had been abandoned, constrained, left without appropriate care and mistreated due to lack of appropriate scientific knowledge. It was hoped that the Sub-Commission would pay attention to this issue and possibly consider attributing a member to investigate this further.

In view of the debate held so far on the item regarding serious human rights violations committed in wars and other forms of violence, many of the interventions had criticized the serious human rights violations committed by one party in a conflict, without referring to those committed by the other party, and he said he wished to stress that serious human rights violations in conflict situations often took place involving both parties, and it was not the role of the Sub-Commission to say which side was right, but to criticize whatever human rights violations were committed by any party in a dispute. However good the objects and intentions of the fighters may be, this did not justify any serious human rights violations committed by any party.

KALLIOPI KOUFA (Sub-Commission Expert) said previous speakers had already covered the issue widely. Regarding the mentioning of resolution 2003/15 concerning the effects of measures to combat terrorism with an impact on human rights, this resolution provided a study of the compatibility of anti-terrorism on human rights and their impact on vulnerable groups with a view of creating guidelines. On the matter of this resolution, the Commission had appointed an expert to assist the High Commissioner for Human Rights in this regard. Reflection on the matter of this resolution was required. A brief introductory document on possible guidelines on this matter had been prepared, and would be provided as soon as possible. Further, the Secretariat had prepared comments from States on the counter-terrorism measures as stipulated in resolution 2003/15. The final report on human rights and terrorism would be put before the Sub-Commission under item 6c.

EL-HADJI GUISSE (Sub-Commission Expert) recalled that when he mentioned the issue of pre-emptive war when he took the floor yesterday, he had related it to human rights violations. The concept of pre-emptive war did not exist in the United Nations vocabulary and it would open the door for further violation of human rights.

LALAINA RAKOTOARISOA (Sub-Commission Expert) said it was impossible to speak of human rights without speaking of peace. Where laws were silent under the shock of arms, the fight against terror should be carried out within the realm of law; as it was when war was declared, human rights were violated, in particular the right not to be tortured and the right to life, and it was always civilians who became innocent victims. The judiciary would necessarily come into conflict with other powers, in particular in the case of policies which were taken to the courts for interpretation. The judiciary if it did not have a role could not aid democracy, which was not just the defense of society but that of the rights of the individual. Justice should not be politicized and should be independent and impartial because otherwise it became a means of legitimizing injustice.

The matter of domestic security had for a long time been left aside in international law: crimes had been national, and attempts to offer mutual aid between States had been limited to transnational crime and international terrorism. Criminal organizations were de facto powers, which devolved in competition. International criminal justice, with its concept of supranational justice, was a major step forwards against impunity. Freedom of expression was essential in promoting and protecting human rights. Civil society had a major role in this, and also in preventing violations of human rights. The media in its traditional role as educator could make a contribution to that protection.

N.U.O.WADIBIA-ANYANWU (Sub-Commission Expert) recalled that according to one article published in a newspaper, in Uganda, it was alleged that children as young as six years old were forcibly conscripted by the Lord’s Resistance Army and used as slaves or fighters. Another article went further to compare the air time devoted to the Iraqi war and the Israel-Palestinian conflict and came to the painful conclusions that over the past four years the Israel-Palestinian conflict had caused some 4,000 deaths and, according to the United Nations, 15,000 displaced people. In the meantime, the Darfur conflict, in less than a third of that time, had caused 30,000 deaths and over a million persons displaced. What was needed was not the elaboration of international instruments but what was important was a political will to implement those instruments by national governments. Trafficking in women was another threat that affected human rights, an issue which the new High Commissioner for Human Rights had highlighted during her intervention. The Expert condemned the scourge of terrorism which violated all human rights. It also violated the economic rights of all people wherever they were found. While terrorism should be combated by all means, the counter-terrorism put in place by some national governments also violated the human rights of citizens.

ANTOANELLA-IULIA MOTOC (Sub-Commission Expert) said a lot of discussion had been heard under this agenda item, which had been quite controversial for the last five years, and perhaps the critics of the Sub-Commission could say that the existential issues discussed by the Sub-Commission were proof that it was going through an adolescent crisis. The Sub-Commission was showing instead that it was a lively body, going through change. The discussion had shown in fact the interest of the Sub-Commission in human rights as a whole.

In the year 2000, there had been a reform of item 2 as proposed. Resolutions were removed, and there was only one form of sanction left, which many colleagues found weak: name and shame. This however was an important way of sanctioning States. Another change that was often overlooked was that the 1502 procedure was taken away, and information provided under that procedure was no longer available. This was an important change, as it affected the credibility of statements, since it limited the information that statements were based upon. Experts did not know exactly what the relationship with the Commission would be, nor what the definition of human rights was under item 2, as opposed to other items. A beginning had been made to define the term, but it was not enough.

What was being seen today was a phenomenon of fragmentation: of international law and of human rights, with many bodies addressing the same issues and providing different answers. The question was how to create a consistency in human rights. It was a difficult issue, as in human rights, as in international law, there was no single authority who had the final word. For the Sub-Commission, the authority was the Commission, but for others it was not clear who had the final word on controversial human rights issues. The initiatives of colleagues regarding a Working Group under the Sub-Commission on item 2 were fully supported.

CHEN SHIQIU (Sub-Commission Expert) said that after the reform of the Sub-Commission, it was decided that county names should not be mentioned during any negotiations on draft resolutions or decisions. The Sub-Commission was not able to adopt resolutions on country situations, which should not frustrate it in its work. With regard to Iraq, one could not talk of the extent of destruction made against the people and the country’s infrastructure. The destructive action was still continuing. Concerning the conflict between Israel and Palestine, the Palestinians continued to be victims of the violation of their human rights. As regards terrorism, people around the world continued to be victims of terrorism. With the pretext of counter-terrorism, many persons were being detained and tortured. The torturing of prisoners in Iraq had been shocking. The issue of extreme poverty was still a subject of discussion with the situation showing no regression.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI (Sub-Commission Expert) said the serious situation experienced by all as soon as the television was turned on should be at the centre of the attention of all persons, notably the serious events taking place in the African continent. There had been a serious deterioration in human rights there over the last year. The Sub-Commission for years had pointed its finger at countries which belonged only to the third world, as western countries treated all these other countries as bad pupils who needed to be taught what the appropriate behaviour was. Many third world countries had decided to become good pupils, and had implemented the measures of the United Nations. Much remained to be done, but the political will was there; however, the knights of human rights seemed to have forgotten the lessons that they had championed.

The world had been told that war was bad, but tyranny was worse; the world would be unliveable if all took it upon themselves to put an end to tyrants or to prevent them from carrying out their actions. The goal of the war in Afghanistan had been to end the tyranny of the Taliban, but they were a direct result of the United States arming of the mujaheddin after the Soviet invasion of the country. Even after the United States’ invasion of the country, security still did not exist, drug trafficking had never been as prosperous, and women continued to suffer from discrimination. As for the Iraqi people, who were promised democracy, freedom, and a prosperous future, the television showed an insecure country, riddled with death, pain, murders, and a lack of economic health.

Again, in Palestine, terrorism was today given as a cover for massive and flagrant violations of human rights, to the extent that Israeli officers had risen up against their orders. The situation was reminiscent of what was said in 1938 in the context of the Arab revolt against the British: “When it was said that the Arabs were the aggressors and that we defend ourselves, it is only half true. With regards to security and daily life, we defend ourselves, but in political terms, we are the aggressors and they are defending themselves.”

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Sub-Commission Expert) said he endorsed the opinions of other Experts who said that human rights were going through difficult times. There was a crisis in the world with regard to equality. The principle of non-intervention which was clearly indicated in the United Nations Charter was being violated. The Charter allowed the use of force in cases of legitimate defence. Genocide against the Palestinian people was being perpetrated. One could talk of good and bad terrorism. Through political manipulation, some States had tried to change regimes that they did not like, which was a flagrant violation of international law and international humanitarian laws. One should ask, from the procedural point of view, about the prisoners detained in Guantanamo. The silence observed in that regard was unacceptable. The Commission on Human Rights expressed concerns on selective violations of human rights. In 60 years of its existence, the Commission was unable to express concern about human rights violations in some regions of the world. The best thing the Sub-Commission could do was to continue to defend the respect for human rights. The acts of humanitarian intervention and the use of force were unacceptable.

GASPAR BIRO (Sub-Commission Expert) said while a number of positive developments had undeniably taken place in the past years in some particular areas concerning the promotion and protection of human rights, global trends still indicated a negative trajectory, as far as the most serious violations and abuses were concerned. If this was correct, the challenge was higher than ever for advocates of human rights, including the Sub-Commission. Regarding this agenda item, there should be frank recognition that the Sub-Commission was unprepared to deal in a comprehensive way with country situations. Country resolutions were in fact measures taken by the relevant bodies on consumed events, which served as a basis for future actions.

The promotion and protection of human rights encompassed, among others, the notion of prevention, which was one of the most important aspects and activities aimed at the implementation and guaranteeing of norms and regulations on human rights. Notwithstanding its complex nature, ranging from education to early warning mechanisms, sometimes the mere sensibilisation of a like-minded public could have a role. It was suggested that while continuing the activities within the mandate defined by the Commission, the Sub-Commission could call upon observer partners to provide it with information on facts, events, settings and situations which could affect in the future the realization of human rights in a particular country, region, or determined social sphere. The task would thus be to gather relevant information, analyze and eventually prioritize it in a human rights perspective. The Sub-Commission could become a focal point for all the different bodies and mandates related to the prevention and early warning of human rights violations.

The proposal was therefore to address as a matter or priority under item 2 the issue of prevention, in its largest sense, including what country violations could teach on this issue.

RUI BALTAZAR DOS SANTOS ALVES (Sub-Commission Expert) said that in spite of the declaration made by world leaders during the Millennium Summit, human rights violations continued to occur. It was a fact that gross and systematic violations of human rights continued to occur in many parts of the world. This had been extensively covered both by non-governmental organizations and observers. Most of the gross and systematic violations of human rights occurred during conflicts as it was again extensively indicated by many interventions made during the debate. Protection of human rights, even during peace, was a very complex task that required above all political will as well as other capacities from States. The State should have a strong and efficient judiciary system, update its legislation, train adequately the law enforcement agencies, provide education, provide health care, and provide food security. Countries coming out of conflict situations often had before them major challenges such as the consolidation of peace and democracy, and the promotion of socio-economic development.

DAVID RIVKIN (Sub-Commission Expert) said with regard to human rights problems faced today and the extent to which they stemmed from excessive use of force, it was interesting to point out that if an impartial observer had listened to the previous speeches, he would think that humanitarian intervention was foisted on developing countries by those already developed. The Secretary-General had himself spoken in favour of humanitarian interventions, and it was in fact a legal right and an intervention. The last 50 years of experience in the human rights field had been largely characterized by a move away from an expansive concept of sovereignty, in which the State could do anything to its citizens, to a more restrictive form incorporating international norms and standards. Humanitarian intervention was of course to be used judiciously, as the ultimate sanction against States who had engaged in egregious abuse of their citizens.

With regard to the issue of self-defense, it was fair to point out that the extent to which the United Nations Charter sanctioned the use of force in situations where an armed attack had not been suffered, and the relationship between article 51 and article 2, had prompted serious debate ever since the beginning of the United Nations system. There were a number of people who took a robust view as to when use of force was permitted, for example when a reasonable expectation of attack was given. Excessive reluctance to use force only encouraged violations of human rights, and this was what had allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power. However, it was useful to distinguish between policy issues related to the use of force, and more legal issues.

PAULO SERGIO PINHERO (Sub-Commission Expert) said he supported the adoption of a resolution this year on human rights defenders. Several of the experts had made the point that item 2 continued to be a vital part of the agenda. Country violations made the Sub-Commission discussions of mechanisms, standards and studies more concrete and more practical. He thought of item 2 as sort of the “laboratory” for the Sub-Commission’s think tank. It was where new ideas could emerge by examining the country violations that were occurring and by identifying new patterns, gaps where new mechanisms or new implementation activities could take place, and preventive mechanisms that could better head off those problems. He suggested that urgent measures should be taken against the human rights violations in Darfur.

IBRAHIM SALAMA (Sub-Commission Expert) said the statements heard this morning showed that the debate had moved away from item 2. It had become an existential and political discussion, and an interesting list had been given of where the Sub-Commission was heading. A move could be made from name and shame to describe and shame. A thematic topic based on specific developments could be a solution. The idea of making item 2 a laboratory and a detector of various situations where human rights were lacking could also be a good solution. It could serve to detect where there were gaps and room for follow-up.

Item 2 could be divided into two points: points of concern, and positive points, including good practices which could be recommended. In theory, the Sub-Commission could examine situations which the Commission was not examining. With regard to prevention (including norms and follow-up), a breakdown and a refocusing could be a possibility. Each session could draw up a short list of topics to bring to the attention of the Commission with regard to follow-up. The Sub-Commission could remind States of their duty of incorporating norms and standards to which they were signatory into their domestic legislation.

A new approach to item 2 could be clarified perhaps by consulting with observers and the Bureau, and this would give added value to the work of the Commission on Human Rights. A specific breakdown of what would be dealt with under this item would aid in the work of both the Sub-Commission and the Commission.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Sub-Commission Expert) said that the concept of humanitarian intervention was not new. That concept was in fact an idea of demolishing the international norm. The principle of sovereignty was considered too obsolete by some people, which was not true. On the issue of legitimating intervention, it was an abuse of human intelligence. There was a movement of ideas on the issue of humanitarian action. The idea of going to war against tyrants could not be accepted, including the idea of making the concept of sovereignty obsolete.

Right of Reply

SUGEESHWARA GUNARATNA (Sri Lanka), speaking in a right of reply, said that with regard to the Asian Resource Centre’s statement, the Sub-Commission on Monday had decided unanimously in its wisdom not to consider the proposal of the Centre. The defense of human rights was a shared responsibility that needed to be addressed with shared attention and commitment. The work of the Sub-Commission on standards of human rights was appreciated, and Sri Lanka would cooperate fully. The fictional issues raised by the Asian Resource Centre were slanderous. There was no collapse of any situation in Sri Lanka, and in fact the international community had applauded the efforts to find a lasting solution for peace and to promote and protect human rights. It was requested that the views of the Government of Sri Lanka on the proposal of the Asian Resource Centre be retained, and the Government of Sri Lanka was unwavering in its commitment to human rights and its treaty obligations.

ANA MARIA PRIETO ABAD (Colombia), speaking in a right of reply, said that there had been a significant reduction in attacks in the country since the High Commissioner for Human Rights had presented the report on Colombia. The allegations against human rights violations committed by State agents were under investigation and the perpetrators would be brought to justice. The illegal self-defence groups would also be dismantled. The peace efforts of Colombia had been supported by the Inter-American Organization. The country also continued to develop the democratic process and to strengthen peace.

BADRIDDIN OBIDOV (Uzbekistan), speaking in a right of reply, said with regard to the statement made by Ms. Hampson, it was to be regretted that although she had never been to the country, she had given a non-objective perception of the situation there. Uzbekistan was the only country in the whole post-Soviet group to invite the Special Rapporteur on torture to visit it, and it hoped to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur in the future. All forms of torture were condemned, and isolated incidents were not evidence of systematic abuse. The Government of Uzbekistan had implemented a number of measures for the implementation of the Convention against Torture, and had liberalized the justice system. To monitor human rights for prisoners, international non-governmental organizations had visited prisons, as had the International Committee of the Red Cross. All allegations of violations of human rights were investigated by the courts. On cases of deaths in prisons, these were unconfirmed and unverified allegations, and had been followed up.

KIM YONG HO (Democratic People’s Republic Korea), speaking in a right of reply to clarify his delegation’s position on the resolution by the Commission on Human Rights 2004/13 which one expert had referred to, said his country did not recognize the resolution. The resolution was irrelevant to the promotion and protection of human rights, and was just motivated by the purpose of politization of the human rights forum. The sponsors of that draft resolution proceeded not from the human rights prospective but from the political purpose to put pressure on his country, following persuasion by the United States. Tabling the draft was totally inconsistent with the established practices in the Commission.

REDA SUARTHO (Indonesia), speaking in a right of reply, said that with regard to the statement made by Ms. Hampson on the situation in Aceh, Ms. Hampson was regarded as an objective Expert by the Government of Indonesia, yet her statement had been listened to with dismay. Her statement had been based mostly on a statement made by Human Rights Watch which was an expert in manipulating the media and the public. The goal of the mission in Aceh was to protect the rights of the people in Aceh. For years, residents in Aceh had been subjected to violence in the name of parochial Islamist ideology, which was greatly different to the policies of pluralistic Indonesia. The economic situation was slowly improving, and the local government was returning to normal. The promotion and protection of human rights was high on the national agenda in the context of current reform and democratisation. Indonesia was still far from perfect, but was working on creating democratic institutions. The police and the military had been reformed; there was a liberal media and an outspoken civil society, but certain quarters continued to judge Indonesia by the yardstick of the past, and it was important to look at the full process in order to have a coherent picture of what was going on.

YOZO YOKOTA (Sub-Commission Expert) referring to the statement made by the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said his position with regard to the Commission resolution 2004/13 was different than that of the delegation.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON (Sub-Commission Expert) said with regard to the sources of what she had said, this had been given in the written version of the text, and she had ensured that copies were distributed. Two points had been raised: in the statement of Colombia it was said that the situation should not have been referred to, as it was a national situation. The countries considered by the Commission did not include Colombia, and therefore Ms. Hampson had been free to refer to that country. Another legal point had been raised, both by a Government and a colleague, and Ms. Hampson was in complete agreement that human rights were being violated in Colombia by all parties, and international criminal law was applicable to all these parties, although human rights law was different. Members of the Sub-Commission who were interested in discussing the problem of agenda item 2 could meet on Monday, 2 August to discuss what could be the content of any resolution that could be made with regard to the future of the agenda item. With regard to the issue raised by Ms. Koufa, counter-terrorism should be discussed under item 6, and not item 2. The Sub-Commission could do something in the way of guidelines, but only if what was contributed was value-added. It would be premature for the Sub-Commission to be looking at guidelines this year until it had the report of the High Commissioner on the topic of guidelines.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI (Sub-Commission Expert) said the Sub-Commission never intended to deprive anyone of the right to speak. Armed groups played an important role in violating human rights. In the Sub-Commission, it was taken into consideration that armed groups committed human rights violations, including in the form of terrorism. It was essential to continue dialogue on any issue in the Sub-Commission.

Documents on the Prevention of Discrimination

Under its agenda item on the prevention of discrimination, the Sub-Commission has before it the report of the Working Group on Minorities (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/029)on its tenth session. The report details the organization of the session, the revision undertaken during the session of the promotion and practical realisation of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities; an examination of possible solutions to problems involving minorities, including the promotion of mutual understanding between and among minorities and governments; recommendations of further measures, as appropriate, for the promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities; the future role of the Working Group, and; decisions and recommendations made by the Group.

It will also review the report of the Working Group on Minorities on its visit to Finland

( E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/29/Add.1), from 17 to 20 January 2004 at the invitation of the Government. The Group noted that with regard to the autonomy in the Aland Island, all parts involved, the local Swedish-speaking self-government and the State have developed a common ground for the peaceful resolution of conflicts and sought the balance between minority protection and the sovereign and territorial integrity of the State. It also observed that there existed in Finland a comprehensive legislative framework and monitoring mechanisms for minority protection. It recommends that the Government consider the establishment of a relevant advisory body to look at integration issues of the Russian-speaking community.

The Sub-Commission will consider the final report on indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/30). The report contains a discussion of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources as applied to indigenous peoples and takes into consideration, among other things, additional comments made by governments and members of the Sub-Commission and data received from representatives of indigenous communities and organizations.

Also before it is an addendum to the report on indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/030/Add.1) which contains four annexes to the report: examples of legal regimes regarding indigenous peoples and natural resources in various parts of the world; analysis of international law concerning permanent sovereignty over natural resources and indigenous peoples; relevant conclusions, guiding principles and recommendations from the working paper on indigenous peoples and their relationship to the land, and; a selected bibliography, United Nations resolutions, relevant cases and legal standards concerning indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources.

The Sub-Commission also will be considering an expanded working paper (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/031) on discrimination based on work and descent. The paper focuses on three aspects: first, a compilation of information available from treaty bodies in the form of State party reports or concluding observations, with regard to legal, judicial administrative and educational measures taken by the Governments concerned; secondly, it attempts to identify additional communities affected by discrimination based on work and descent, including diaspora communities; thirdly, it presents a proposed framework for a draft set of principles and guidelines for the elimination of discrimination based on work and descent for the consideration of the Sub-Commission. It further recommends that the Sub-Commission appoint a Special Rappporteur who would undertake a further study on the elimination of discrimination based on work and descent, focussing on the finalisation of a draft set of principles and guidelines, in cooperation with relevant treaty bodies, special procedures and United Nations agencies.

There is also a written submission (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/045) by the World Health Organization on the promotion and protection of human rights concerning WHO initiatives and activities of relevance to the agenda of the Sub-Commission’s fifty-sixth session. The submission includes general information on the relationship between health and human rights; information with relevance to agenda item 4 on economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health, human rights and extreme poverty, and human rights and globalization; agenda item 5 on prevention of discrimination, including racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, the prevention of discrimination and protection of indigenous peoples, and the prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities; and agenda item 6 on other human rights issues, including women and human rights.

Statement on the Prevention of Discrimination

YOZO YOKOTA (Sub-Commission Expert), presenting the expanded working paper on the topic of discrimination based on work and descent ((E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/031), said the background leading to the Working Paper was a resolution by the Commission which declared that discrimination based on descent was against human rights law. Communities discriminated against based on work and descent had been identified, mostly in Africa, and it had proved to be more widespread than previously believed.

The Working Paper was composed of four parts: the first section described various measures including legal and administrative taken by the Governments concerned. The account given in this section was incomplete, and it should be understood as a step in the process of analysis of what Governments were doing to remedy this situation. The countries mentioned should not be viewed as problem countries, but as countries that had done work to remedy discrimination. However, further efforts needed to be made. The second section described additional communities affected by this form of discrimination, as well as commonly found types of discrimination including prohibition of marriage and of places of worship and employment. The third section proposed a framework for guidelines and initiatives for the elimination of this form of discrimination. The paper also indicated the need for further research, the need for an analysis of discriminatory customs and institutions, the need for public awareness raising and education, and the need to correct discrimination, among other things. The fourth concluding section made three specific proposals, including the appointment of a Special Rapporteur and that specific guidelines and proposals be drawn up in cooperation with all other human rights bodies and treaty bodies.

Inter-Active Dialogue

DAVID RIVKIN (Sub-Commission Expert) said that it was important to deal with all aspects of human rights within the Sub-Commission. The excellent work done by Mr. Yokota had identified further work to be done on the issue of discrimination based on descent and work. Receiving information from countries on the dimension of the discrimination on the issue was important but many non-governmental organizations were unable to get the information they required. A number of governments, such as Japan and India, had been making efforts to resolve this problem of discrimination in their countries.

Source: United Nations Office at Geneva