HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF THIRD PERIODIC REPORT OF MAURITIUS

20 March 1996

Press Release
HR/CT/455

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF THIRD PERIODIC REPORT OF MAURITIUS

19960320 Also Approves List of Questions for Nigeria

Serious attempts were being made in Mauritius to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, experts of the Human Rights Committee, the Covenant's monitoring body, stated this morning, as they concluded consideration of that country's third periodic report.

However, some experts noted, there was always a problem in juridical systems that did not automatically incorporate the Covenant as a part of domestic law. There must be a way of guaranteeing that Covenant rights would be implemented. In Mauritius, there was no recourse to guarantee all the rights ensured by the Covenant.

Several experts expressed particular concern with implementation in Mauritius of article 19 of the Covenant, which relates to freedom of expression. The Government had made it a crime to disseminate false news and that should be reconsidered, they said. Further, the restrictions placed on the distribution of books and films was also problematic.

Satisfaction was expressed over abolition of the death penalty in Mauritius, seen by several experts as the most important of many positive developments in the human rights situation in the country. As a multiracial, multicultural society, Mauritius was complimented on the harmony between its communities.

While the constitutional reform regarding gender was welcome, there was a need for further review of provisions regarding equality in education, employment and other areas, experts said. The provision for "personal laws" in the Constitution was also considered inappropriate, as it gave support to outdated, traditional attitudes, in a situation where the requirements of equality must be given priority.

Questions and observations were made by Committee experts from the United Kingdom, Australia, India, Israel, Ecuador, France, Cyprus, United States, Italy, Egypt, Hungary, Venezuela, Japan, Germany, Jamaica and Costa Rica.

Human Rights Committee - 1a - Press Release Hr/CT/455 1478th Meeting (AM) 20 March 1996

The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of Mauritius, Abdool Razack Mohamed Ameen Peeroo, and M.D. Seetulsing, of the Ministry of Justice, replied to additional questions posed by Committee experts.

Also this morning, the Committee approved the list of questions to be presented to Nigeria regarding its initial report. Nigeria had submitted that report in response to the Committee's decision of 29 November 1995 for an urgent report in the aftermath of the trials and execution of Ken Saro Wiwa and other members of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People.

During the discussion, the Chairman announced that Nigeria would make itself available to the Committee for one day only. As many Committee members were concerned that the delegation would seek to "filibuster" to avoid answering the questions that had led to the Committee's November decision, it was decided that those matters would be addressed first. Then, if there was insufficient time to consider the balance of Nigeria's report, the Committee would do so at its July session in Geneva.

Among those addressing the question, the expert from the United Kingdom stressed the urgent need for the Committee to produce a report on the matter, as there were currently three more groups of people waiting to go through exactly the same process as did those members of the Ogoni movement.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to begin consideration of the fourth periodic report of Spain.

Committee Work Programme

The Human Rights Committee met this morning to continue its consideration of the third periodic report of Mauritius on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The delegation of Mauritius was expected to continue responding to questions raised by expert members of the Committee. (For background on the report of Mauritius, see Press Release HR/CT/453, of 19 March.)

Reply by Mauritius

M.D. SEETULSING, of the Ministry of Justice of Mauritius, said breach of peace was not considered a very serious offence. Prosecution for breach of peace could apply to an unruly individual that had behaved improperly against his neighbours. There were very few cases of contempt of court. Journalists could also be prosecuted for that offence. Concerning the tenure of judges, he said there was a possibility formerly that a retiring judge could get a contract of four years; however, that provision might be amended.

Concerning public gathering and the need for a notice of seven days for those meetings to be held, he said it was possible for the police to accept a shorter period. The Constitution was the supreme law of the Government. Efforts were being made to gradually incorporate provisions that were not yet included. There were only a few provisions of the Covenant that were still not part of Mauritian law. A case involving the Indian Ocean International Bank showed that a person could not be held in custody after a certain period of time. The whole purpose of the provisional information clause was to give more rights to the detainee.

He said in the recent past, there had not been many requests for political asylum. New extradition treaties were currently being negotiated with some countries. The decision of the magistrate in deportation cases was not final; it could be appealed and be taken before the Supreme Court. Mauritius retained the right to silence of the accused, so it was preserved under the law. The Ombudsman had wide powers to investigate; there was no provision for automatic compensation. A person who claimed his/her rights had been violated could go to the civil courts to present a case.

Concerning a case involving monetary deposit a candidate had to make when he stood for election, he said it had been raised to an amount that was too high. The Supreme Court, then, had decided that it should remain at 250 rupees, as it previously was. Reservations to articles 11 and 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women had been withdrawn; the monitoring body of that Convention had been informed in January 1995.

Human Rights Committee - 4 - Press Release HR/CT/455 1478th Meeting (AM) 20 March 1996

ABDOOL RAZACK MOHAMED AMEEN PEEROO, Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Mauritius, said his country had ratified nearly all the Conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) relating to fundamental rights and freedoms. However, it had communicated with the ILO regarding certain problems that might crop up and was awaiting guidance from that body.

Lord JOHN MARK ALEXANDER COLVILLE, expert from the United Kingdom, said the delegation had not addressed the question regarding the exceptional provision in Mauritian law which permitted the holding of a person for up to seven days without being charged.

ELIZABETH EVATT, expert from Australia, also asked for clarification regarding the book, The Rape of Sita. It seemed that, while there was no "formal" ban, there was an operative ban. Was that self-censorship? Was it banned or not banned, available or not available?

THOMAS BUERGENTHAL, expert from the United States, said his question regarding "aggravated prison default" had apparently been misunderstood. He had not asked what the grounds were for imposition of the penalty, but whether the prisoner could appeal to a judicial body when he was found guilty of that offence.

Mr. SEETULSING, of the Ministry of Justice of Mauritius, said the provision on the holding of a person for seven days were really exceptional. Guarantees were provided, and cases falling under those provisions had not occurred "for years now". Public notice was given of the detention. Not more than 14 days from the commencement of the detention, the case was reviewed. The person was also afforded the opportunity to consult with legal representatives. The provisions cited would only apply in very extreme cases. Any additional information would be forwarded to the Committee.

Regarding The Rape of Sita, he said it did sound strange that there was no formal banning of the book. However, the former Prime Minister said the book should not be sold. That statement gave a lot of publicity to the book and the author received an international prize for the book. It was simply the use of the name "Sita" which was objectionable. The book did deal with discrimination against women.

If ever there had been a prosecution, it would have fallen under the Criminal Code, he said. However, it would have been difficult to prove that the author intended to stir up racial hatred. It might be that the author had no intention of insulting any community. However, several religious organizations did protest vehemently regarding the title of the book. To avoid any social disruption, the Government said the book should not be sold. However, whoever wished to read it could do so. One had to remember that Mauritius was a small developing country.

Human Rights Committee - 5 - Press Release HR/CT/455 1478th Meeting (AM) 20 March 1996

In response to Mr. Buergenthal's question, he said the disciplinary board's decision was not final and could be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Mr. PEEROO, Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Mauritius, said he had given an interview to a daily in Mauritius regarding human rights issues and the activities of the Human Rights Committee. The newspaper concerned had given wide publicity to the matter. The Prime Minister had participated in the launching of the Indian Ocean Institute for Human Rights and Democracy. On that occasion, he announced a series of reforms and stressed that the implementation of human rights required more than speech- making.

Ms. EVATT, expert from Australia, said she had been concerned whether there would be review by a court if one was subject to the seven-day detention law. She would appreciate clarification on that point in any further information to be provided.

Final Observations

PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BHAGWATI, expert from India, congratulated the delegation on the frank manner it had conducted the dialogue with the Committee. That demonstrated the Government's respect for human rights and for the Committee. There were some human rights problems, however, which caused concern. There were no guidelines on the question of securing the tenure of judges; the decision was left to the Government. He was glad to learn that the Government was thinking about discontinuing that provision.

Also, he said, the question of legal aid was not clear, adding that it should be a matter of right and not of bounty. He urged the Government to disseminate, particularly to human rights organizations, the contents of the report before submission to the Committee. Also arrangements should be made for lawyers to visit prisoners. Concerning solitary confinement and handcuffing, he said the terms for their application were not precisely defined. It was good to know that the required seven-day notice for public gathering could be reduced. He expressed satisfaction over the information just provided concerning ILO conventions.

DAVID KRETZMER, expert from Israel, said it was clear that attempts were being seriously made in Mauritius to implement the Covenant, including by abolishing the death penalty. He welcomed the gender amendment to the Constitution, however, discrimination on the grounds of personal law was a cause for concern. Mauritius should consider abolishing regulation which could allow personal law to be implemented.

On article 19, which concerns freedom of expression, he said the crime of dissemination of false news should be reconsidered and should only be

Human Rights Committee - 6 - Press Release HR/CT/455 1478th Meeting (AM) 20 March 1996

applied on the burden of proof. He expressed concern about the restriction on the distribution of books. Restriction must be provided by law, according to article 19, but de facto restriction was being implemented. While he was sympathetic to the need to implement restrictions in a multicultural and multiethnic society, the right of veto was a disturbing one. The Government should reconsider the restriction on the publication of books and distribution of films; proper legislation should be drafted consistent with article 19 of the Covenant.

JULIO PRADO VALLEJO, expert from Ecuador, expressed concern over torture and mistreatment by the police. The report and the response did not contain mechanisms that would stop that practice. Action must be taken for that to be discontinued. The police force must be trained, including in the area of human rights. Also, limitation on the freedom of expression was a reason for concern. Very substantial reform was necessary in that regard in Mauritius. He expressed the hope that the liberalization of broadcasting policy announced by the Government would take place soon. The regulation on false information did affect the right to free information and the Government should guarantee that the criminal code did not become an impediment to the implementation of the rights of the Covenant.

CHRISTINE CHANET, expert from France, said a number of concerns remained with regard to the report of Mauritius. There was always a problem in juridical systems which did not automatically incorporate the Covenant into domestic law. There must be a way of guaranteeing that Covenant rights would be implemented. In Mauritius, there was no recourse to guarantee all the rights ensured by the Covenant.

Although all citizens should be able to vote on an equal footing, inhabitants in the smaller island did not vote, she said. Imprisonment for non-payment of a debt ran counter to Covenant provisions. The question of censorship was a very serious matter. There should be some review process. The Covenant stipulated that all limitations to the freedom of expression must be covered by law and must conform to certain specified criteria.

ANDREAS V. MAVROMMATIS, expert from Cyprus, cited the commitment of the new Government to look into the human rights situation with a view to improving it where necessary. On the freedom of expression, the Government should review its anachronistic libel laws. The last vestiges of imprisonment for debt should be eliminated. If recourse to the Privy Council was a remedy to be exhausted, it was the duty of the Government to provide legal aid, if that was in the interest of justice, even though there were firms of lawyers in London who would do it pro bono.

Mr. BUERGENTHAL, expert from the United States, congratulated Mauritius on its admirable human rights record and on its commitment to continually

Human Rights Committee - 7 - Press Release HR/CT/455 1478th Meeting (AM) 20 March 1996

strengthening the human rights situation there. Nevertheless, a lot of work needed to be done on the questions of freedom of expression and censorship. Noting that the police apparently had the power to issue licenses for public meetings, he said the enjoyment of human rights must not be left to the goodwill of public authorities.

Ms. EVATT, expert from Australia, cited the positive developments in the human rights situation in Mauritius, a country where multi-cultural co- existence appeared to be successful. However, there were some concerns. The report did not follow up adequately on the concerns expressed during the Committee's previous review. There were also some outdated and inappropriate laws and attitudes. She cited the excessive detention permitted under the Constitution. If it was not used, it should not be there.

While the constitutional reform regarding gender was welcome, there was a need for further review of provisions regarding equality in education, employment and other areas, she said. There would be a need for affirmative action programmes. The provision for "personal laws" in the Constitution seemed inappropriate. Such a provision gave support to outdated, traditional attitudes, in a situation where the requirements of equality must be given priority. Programmes of a positive nature were necessary. She welcomed the new initiative regarding domestic violence.

FAUSTO POCAR, expert from Italy, said the abolition of the death penalty was the most important of many positive developments in the human rights situation in Mauritius. He hoped the Government would continue to work towards ever-improved protection of the Covenant rights in Mauritius.

OMRAN EL-SHAFEI, expert from Egypt, welcomed the abolition of the death penalty and the enlargement of anti-discrimination laws to include gender. He said the dialogue did not give much attention to the rules prevailing in emergency situations, and whether there had been an encroachment on Covenant rights in such situations. As a multi-racial, multi-cultural society, Mauritius must be complimented on the harmony between its communities.

TAMAS BAN, expert from Hungary, said there had been a fruitful dialogue on the report. The delegation's response to a fairly large number of questions from the Committee was impressive. Mauritius had made progress in ensuring Covenant rights. The Committee had been informed of the organization of a human rights unit in the Ministry of Justice; the establishment of a legal reform committee; and the fact that a presidential committee will reconsider legal aid and delay in justice issues.

It was strange that in a truly democratic society there should be fear of free speech, leading to the de facto ban of books, the punishment of publication of false statements and the presence of stringent criminal laws

Human Rights Committee - 8 - Press Release HR/CT/455 1478th Meeting (AM) 20 March 1996

threatening freedom of expression, he said. Some of the measures taken recently went too far. The authorities should reconsider their approach to the freedom of expression. Nevertheless, the overall situation in Mauritius was a matter of satisfaction.

MARCO TULIO BRUNI CELLI, expert from Venezuela, expressed satisfaction at the frank replies given by the delegation of Mauritius. Major strides had been made, including the abolition of the death penalty. However, the Covenant was not directly applied in Mauritius but only enjoyed "indicative or persuasive value", and a number of its articles had not yet been worked into domestic law. While the Covenant set no deadline for the incorporation of such rights, it did speak of "timely measures".

NISUKE ANDO, expert from Japan, said that while Mauritius had a good human rights record, certain problems remained. He supported the views expressed by previous speakers regarding freedom of expression. De facto limitations were sometimes worse than legal limitations. Further progress was needed by the Government in that area.

As the economic structure diversified, problems would continue to arise with regard to the protection of labour union rights and the rights of workers in general, he said. Further progress was needed in that area. In the Oriental tradition, he said "no law may be the best law". Nevertheless, laws sometimes indicated guidelines for behaviour and there was no reason to prevent good laws from being enacted that promoted human rights.

ECKART KLEIN, expert from Germany, said the issue of discrimination on the grounds of sex had been addressed on the legal plane through amendments to the Constitution and the enactment of new laws. However, the freedom of expression issue had not been satisfactorily addressed. The prohibition of books and movies was a matter of concern, as was the law on the publication of false news. It was questionable whether the publication of false news, as such, could be prohibited under the Covenant. The Government should rethink the issue very carefully.

LAUREL FRANCIS, expert from Jamaica, said he associated himself with the concerns expressed by the other members of the Committee. He drew attention to such positive developments in Mauritius as the abolition of the death penalty. The delegation of Mauritius could feel proud of having discharged its mandate with high confidence.

FRANCISCO JOSE AGUILAR URBINA, expert from Costa Rica and Committee Chairman, said there was a gap regarding implementation of the Covenant in Mauritius. He was also concerned about the restrictions on free expression. There was a de facto censorship in place, as evidenced by the public interdiction of The Satanic Verses and The Rape of Sita. The multi-ethnic and

Human Rights Committee - 9 - Press Release HR/CT/455 1478th Meeting (AM) 20 March 1996

multicultural "melting pot of peoples" in Mauritius was something to which many States had aspired. Nevertheless, there must be a constant updating of legislation to ensure non-discrimination. Mauritius was one of the few countries that had "declared peace on the world". That was a welcome move.

Mr. SEETULSING, of the Ministry of Justice of Mauritius, expressed appreciation to the Committee. All the comments made by Committee members would be forwarded to the Government. Given the particular situation in his country, everything would be done to give serious consideration to all those comments.

* *** *