COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS VOTES FOR SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON NIGERIA; RESOLUTION ON CHINA FAILS TO COME TO A VOTE
Press Release
HR/CN/804
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS VOTES FOR SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON NIGERIA; RESOLUTION ON CHINA FAILS TO COME TO A VOTE
19970416 Measures Approved on Situations in Haiti, Guatemala, Iran, Lebanon, Former Yugoslavia, Zaire, Sudan(Reissued as received.)
GENEVA, 15 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights decided this afternoon to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Nigeria, citing concern at wide spread abuses of citizens, lack of judicial safeguards, and an absence of progress on announced democratic reforms.
The move came as the main United Nations human rights body voted on a number of draft resolutions on specific situations around the world. Among other measures, the Commission terminated the mandate of its independent expert on assistance to Guatemala in the field of human rights, but requested the Secretary-General to send a mission at the end of the year to review implementation of the peace agreements recently signed between parties to the long-running civil conflict in the country.
Meanwhile, mandates of Special Rapporteurs on situations of human rights in the former Yugoslavia, Zaire, and Sudan were extended, as was the mandate of the Special Representative on the situation in Iran as the Commission approved resolutions focusing on states of affairs in those countries.
A resolution on the situation of human rights in China did not come to a vote, as in previous years. Instead a no-action motion on the measure was adopted by a roll-call vote of 27 in favour, and 17 opposed, with nine abstaining. It was the seventh time a draft resolution had been tabled on China; none has ever been approved by the Commission. A representative of China commented that some Western countries had a bad habit of lecturing developing countries on human rights. A lengthy debate ensued on whether or not no-action motions were an obstruction or procedural dodge of the Commission's right and obligation to discuss human-rights issues on their merits.
The Commission decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Nigeria through a measure that expressed deep concern at widespread continuing violations in the country, noting that additional persons among those detained were to be tried by the same flawed judicial process that had led to the arbitrary execution of last year of the internationally known writer Ken Saro-Wiwa and his associates; that the Government, despite earlier commitments, refused to cooperate with the Commission and had prevented two Special Rapporteurs from visiting the country; that popular support for democratic reforms had led to little action by the Government. It further called upon the Government of Nigeria to ensure that all trials were held fairly and promptly and in conformance with international standards. The resolution on Nigeria was passed by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour, 6 opposed, with 19 abstentions.
Defeated was a proposed amendment by a group of African nations that would have replaced appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the situation in Nigeria with a call for Nigeria to invite Commission thematic Special Rapporteurs on the independence of judges and lawyers and on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions to visit the country without delay. The amendment was rejected by a roll-call vote of 24 opposed, 20 in favour, with nine abstentions.
A representative of Nigeria said the Government wished to assure the Commission of its commitment to a programme of democratic transition.
On the situation of human rights in Iran, the Commission welcomed the request of the Government for technical assistance and advisory services from the High Commissioner for Human Rights/Centre for Human Rights, but expressed concern at continuing violations of human rights, in particular the large number of executions in apparent absence of respect for internationally recognized safeguards; at cases of torture and cruel treatment, including amputation and public executions; at grave breaches of the human rights of the Bahai'is and situations of discrimination against other minorities; at the continuing threat to the life of the writer Salman Rushdie; and at violations of the rights to assembly, expression, thought, opinion, and the press. It called on the Iranian Government, among other things, to eliminate discrimination against women and to refrain from violence against members of the Iranian opposition living abroad. It extended for another year the mandate of its Special Representative on Iran. The resolution was adopted by a roll-call vote of 26 in favour and seven opposed, with 19 abstentions.
A representative of Iran said the country had done its utmost to reach consensus on a resolution but had found neither political will nor courage to do so on the part of the sponsors, who could not come into tune with reality and had "coloured glasses". If such an "egocentric trend" continued, it would be very detrimental as it might cause countries to stop cooperating with Special Representatives, he said.
- 3 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
In a resolution on the situation of human rights in southern Lebanon and Western Bekaa, the Commission deplored continued Israeli violations in the area, in particular abduction and arbitrary detention of civilians, destruction of dwellings, confiscation of property, expulsion of persons from their land, and bombardment of peaceful villages and civilian areas; and called upon Israel to end such practices as air raids and the use of prohibited weapons such as fragmentation bombs. As if previous years, the Commission called for Israel's immediate withdrawal from all Lebanese territories. It further said Israel was obligated to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international humanitarian organizations operating in the region to visit periodically Israel detention centres in the occupied territories in Lebanon. The measure was passed by a roll-call vote of 51 in favour, with 1 opposed -- the United States -- and one abstention.
A representative of Israel termed the measure "totally one-sided and cockeyed", and said it did not take into account the activities of terrorist groups who used southern Lebanon as a base for launching attacks against Israel. Lebanon had not acted to restrain such groups, the representative said.
In reference to the former Yugoslavia, the Commission urgently called upon competent authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including those of the Federation, and in particular in the Republika Srpska and the governments of the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to apprehend and surrender for prosecution all persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal; noted that the large majority of those indicted by the Tribunal, including Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, were living in the Republika Srpska and deplored the failure of the authorities there to act; called upon relevant cantonal governments and local authorities to take steps to end beatings, unlawful evictions and other forms of harassment, particularly in multi-ethnic areas such as Mostar and Stolac; and called upon the government of the Croatia to undertake greater efforts to adhere to democratic principles and international human rights standards; reminded the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) of its responsibility to investigate enforced disappearances. The Commission extended for one year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the former Yugoslavia.
A representative of Croatia contended that the resolution did not reflect the human rights situation in a realistic way because it balanced the responsibility of States while it should also have taken into account the root causes of the war.
A representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said in reference to the resolution respect of human rights was not only the responsibility of States but also of international community, and the country was open to further international cooperation.
- 4 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
And an official of Bosnia and Herzegovina told the Commission that while the resolution reflected the major problems of the region, there was a danger that the international community might be taking a low-common-denominator approach towards human-rights difficulties, and more effort and support was needed to achieve true reconciliation.
In a resolution on Zaire, the Commission expressed its concern at continuing violations of human rights; called upon the Government to put an end to the impunity of those responsible; called upon it and other parties to accept with immediate effect investigations by the joint mission appointed by the Commission into allegations of massacres and other issues affecting human rights; and decided to request the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in Zaire and on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and a member of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to carry out a joint mission to the country. It extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Zaire for a further year.
A representative of Zaire said the country was at a crucial point, embroiled in a very difficult situation and a political, economic, and social crisis with a war ongoing in all 11 provinces; its problems had to be settled by dialogue. The official added that Zaire hoped to establish rapid contact with the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other organisations to develop technical-cooperation programmes and set up institutions to protect human rights.
In a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the Commission expressed deep concern at continued serious human rights violations by the Government, including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, detentions without due process, enforced or involuntary disappearances, violations of the rights of women and children, slavery and slavery-like practices, forced displacements, systematic torture, and denial of freedoms of religion, expression, association, and peaceful assembly. It also expressed deep concern at actions by other parties to the conflict, including kidnappings, arbitrary detention, forced conscription, indiscriminate killings, forced displacement, and arrest of foreign relief workers without charge; and expressed its outrage at the use by all parties of military force to disrupt or attack relief efforts. Among other steps, it urged the Government to investigate reported policies or activities which involved the sale of or trafficking in children and to carry out promptly its promised investigations into cases of slavery, forced labour, and similar practices. It extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in Sudan for another year.
A representative of Sudan expressed concern about the inclusion in the measure of many alleged violations without proper scrutiny and said it also contained information provided by rebels and some opposition non-governmental organizations.
- 5 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
Under the Commission's agenda item on advisory services in human rights it adopted a measure on assistance to Guatemala in the field of human rights in which it recognized the efforts of the Guatemalan Government in the field; regretted that, notwithstanding those and the extraordinary developments in the area of peace, acts of violence persisted; and among other things requested more rapid restructuring of the judicial system. It decided to terminate the mandate of the independent expert on the situation in Guatemala and requested the Secretary-General to send a mission to Guatemala at the end of 1997 to prepare a report for next year's session of the Commission, reviewing implementation of the peace agreements recently signed.
Under the same agenda item it also dealt with the situation of human rights in Haiti. It welcomed the satisfactory evolution of the political process but requested the General Assembly to study the possibility of extending the mandate of the International Civilian Mission to Haiti which would expire in June 1997. It encouraged the police training programmes and the establishment of a general inspectorate to investigate human rights abuses perpetrated by the police; expressed its concern at security problems faced by Haitian society; and requested the government to adopt urgent measures to ensure respect for judicial guarantees.
The Commission also adopted measures on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies and cooperation by countries with the Commission's Working Group on arbitrary detention.
The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 16 April, to continue action on draft resolutions and decisions.
Action on Resolutions
In a resolution passed by consensus on the question of arbitrary detention (document E/CN.4/1997/L.79), the Commission requested the Working Group on the subject to devote all necessary attention to reports concerning the situation of immigrants and asylum seekers who were allegedly being held in prolonged administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial remedy; requested Governments concerned to take account of the Working Group's views, and where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty and to inform the Working Group of the steps they had taken; requested the Secretary-General to extend his assistance to Governments and to special rapporteurs and working groups and to ensure that the Working Group received all necessary assistance, particularly in regard to staffing and resources; and decided to renew, for a three-year period, the mandate of the Working Group.
NANCY RUBIN (United States) said the United States was happy to join consensus on resolution L.79, but wished to explain that it differed with some
- 6 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
points of the resolution. It did not accept that a difference existed between detention and imprisonment in regard to the tasks of the relevant working group, especially when courts convicted defendants in an arbitrary manner, which happened in some countries; the Commission should be careful not to restrict the working group's mandate, especially as it applied to countries that did not have an independent judiciary.
The Commission decided, by consensus, to defer consideration of two draft resolutions entitled, "Rationalization of the work of the Special Procedures System" and "Review of the Special Procedures System" (documents E/CN.4/1997/L.86 and L.87, respectively) to the fifty-fourth session.
Through a resolution passed by consensus as amended on assistance to Guatemala in the field of human rights (document E/CN.4/1997/L.61), the Commission recognized the efforts of the Guatemalan Government in the field of human rights; regretted that, notwithstanding the efforts of the Government and the extraordinary development in the area of peace, acts of violence persisted; requested the judicial authorities, in coordination with the executive power, the Congress of the Republic and the Commission on the Strengthening of the Justice System, to expedite the restructuring and consolidation of the judicial system; requested the Secretary-General to terminate the mandate of the independent expert on human rights in Guatemala; and requests the Secretary-General to send a Mission to Guatemala at the end of 1997, within the approved overall budget level for the current biennium, to prepare a report to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-fourth session on the evolution of the situation in Guatemala, in light of the implementation of the Peace Agreements, taking into account the verification work done by United Nations Observation Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) and the information submitted by the Government.
ANDRE GIROUX (Canada) said his delegation joined the consensus on the resolution on Guatemala as amended. Canada recognized the importance of progress made in implementation of the peace accord, which had the potential to improve human rights. Canada would continue to accompany Guatemala in the difficult task of reaching peace and democracy. Canada supported the efforts of the independent expert on Guatemala, Monica Pinto, and deeply regrated her resignation; she deserved the Commission's warmest thanks. The resolution would be important for the situation of human rights in Guatemala and should provide a balanced, comprehensive basis for the Commission's deliberations next year.
Through a resolution passed by consensus on the situation of human rights in Haiti (document E/CN.4/1997/L.78), the Commission welcomed the satisfactory evolution of the political process in Haiti; requested the General Assembly to study the possibility of extending the mandate of the International Civilian Mission to Haiti, expiring in June 1997; encouraged the inclusion of ethics courses in police training programmes and the
- 7 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
establishment of a general inspectorate to investigate human rights abuses perpetrated by members of the police with a view to strengthening reforms and putting an end to impunity; expressed its concern at the security problems faced by Haitian society; requested the Government to adopt urgent measures to ensure respect for judicial guarantees; encouraged the international community to contribute generously to the Trust Fund for the Haitian National Police to be used to develop a technical adviser programme.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/1997/L.40) passed following roll call with 28 countries in favour, 06 countries against, and 19 countries abstaining on the situation of human rights in Nigeria, the Commission welcomed the declared commitment by the Government of Nigeria to civilian rule, multi-party democracy, and removal of military personnel from tribunals; expressed deep concern at widespread continuing violations of human rights; that additional persons among those detained were to be tried by the same flawed judicial process that had led to the arbitrary execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his associates; that the Government, despite earlier commitments, refused to cooperate with the Commission, and had prevented two Special Rapporteurs from visiting the country; that popular support for democratic Government had not led to actions by the existing Government to establish representative Government; called upon the Government of Nigeria to ensure human rights; to abide by international human-rights instruments it had signed; to ensure that all trials were held fairly and promptly and in conformance with international standards; to ensure the independence of the National Human Rights Commission; to cooperate fully with the UN Commission on Human Rights; and to take concrete steps to restore democratic Government without delay. The Commission also decided to appoint a special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Nigeria.
The following countries voted in favour: Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay.
The following countries voted against: Benin, China, Cuba, Gabon, Indonesia, Zaire.
The following countries abstained: Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cape Verde, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan Philippines, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe.
A draft amendment (document E/CN.4/1997/L.109) submitted by a group of African States proposed to replace operative para 4 (a) of the resolution (E/CN.4/1997/L.40) with the following text: "called upon the Government of Nigeria to ensure that the thematic Special Rapporteurs on the independence of
- 8 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
judges and lawyers, and on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions undertake the visit to Nigeria without delay and report on the findings of that mission to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-fourth session". The proposal was defeated following a roll-call vote 20 in favour, 24 against, and 9 abstentions.
BUKAR USMAN (Nigeria) said that since 11 April, it had been rumoured in the Commission that Chief Abiola was dead and that the representative of the Netherlands in Nigeria had sought to meet with him but had been unable to do so. No such request for a meeting had been made to the Nigerian Government. Chief Abiola was well and the Government assured that the representatives of any of the co-sponsors of the draft on Nigeria who were resident in Nigeria would be able to see him. Nigeria assured the Commission of its commitment to its programme of transition.
PETER VAN WULFFTEN PALTHE (Netherlands) said that modern technology made it possible for instructions from the capital of the Netherlands to the country's embassy in Lagos to be made available to the delegation here immediately. It was clear that there had been a number of requests from the Netherlands to meet with Chief Abiola; no real response by Nigeria had been received. The agreement last year was that if visits by the two thematic Special Rapporteurs were not allowed by Nigeria that the Commission would appoint a Special Rapporteur. The Netherlands requested a roll-call vote on draft resolution L. 40.
MUSA HITAM (Malaysia) said Nigeria had been the subject of scrutiny since its suspension from the Commonwealth in 1995. There had been dialogue at the highest level between Nigeria and the Commonwealth. In fact, he had personally brought up the issue of the visit of the two thematic rapporteurs with Nigeria and requested that the rapporteurs be given cooperation and facilities. It was unfortunate that the visit had not taken place. Malaysia also felt that it was unfortunate that during the course of the Commonwealth Ministers' Action Group visit to Nigeria, their request to meet with prominent detainees had not been entertained. The Group was still in the process of preparing its recommendation on the situation. In view of Malaysia's active participation on efforts related to Nigeria, it regretted it would have to abstain on the proposed amendments as well as the original resolution if they were voted upon. He hoped Nigeria would be more forthcoming and respond positively to urging by the international community on the situation there.
JACOB SELEBI (South Africa) said his country had been participating in a process aimed at ensuring dialogue with Nigeria, but could report that there had been no movement on that front. This was a matter of defense of people's rights; about ensuring that Africans also must be free. That was why the delegation did not support the proposed amendment, which did not support development and promotion of people's rights. The resolution should not be about a visit for the sake of visiting, which seemed to be the subject of the
- 9 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
amendment, but about doing something. The problem was not with the Special Rapporteurs but with the leaders of Nigeria. It was time to do something.
NANCY RUBIN (United States) joined the European Union in opposing the amendment which would delete wording on the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on Nigeria. The Government of Nigeria refused to cooperate with the Commission's thematic rapporteurs; it should not be rewarded for this. The situation of human rights in Nigeria was serious enough to warrant a Special Rapporteur.
MOUNIR ZAHRAN (Egypt) said the delegation simply wished to correct some misconceptions about the draft amendment L. 109; when introducing the draft he had not criticized any of the countries which had sponsored the draft resolution L. 40, nor had he cast any aspersions on the Special Rapporteur. Egypt was encouraging the promotion of human rights and fundamental human rights through cooperation; that was the reason for the amendment.
MOHAMED-SALEH DEMBRI (Algeria) said the amendment of the African Group had 28 co-sponsors. The Commission should find a single solution to the situation in Nigeria, consistent with cooperation and not confrontation, which some would like. The comments of the Nigerian representative about rumours regarding Chief Abiola were the first he had heard of such allegations. Countries should base themselves on facts and not allegations, unless they were verified. The Commission should return to the norm of consensus and not get divided.
ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said the delegation was disconcerted or disoriented. Today it had heard contradictory statements that were without precedent: one group of States was confronting another group, and the cause of human rights was being lost in details over whether such rights should be fostered by thematic rapporteurs or Special Rapporteurs. Mexico would abstain from both measures if they were put to the vote -- it would not play this game. However, it would regret this event for Nigeria's sake.
In a resolution passed following a roll-call vote of 26 countries in favour, 7 against, and 19 abstentions on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (document E/CN.4/1997/L.46), the Commission welcomed the request of the Government of Iran for technical assistance and advisory services from the High Commissioner for Human Rights/Centre for Human Rights. However, the Commission expressed concern at continuing violations of human rights in the country, in particular the large number of executions in apparent absence of respect for internationally recognized safeguards; at cases of torture and cruel treatment, including amputation and public executions; at grave breaches of the human rights of the Bahai'is and situations of discrimination against other minorities by reason of their religious beliefs, including certain Christian minorities; at lack of continuity in the cooperation of the Government with the mechanisms of the
- 10 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
Commission; and at the continuing threat to the life of Salman Rushdie, as well as to individuals associated with his work, which appeared to have the support of the Government, and at the recent increase announced in the bounty offered for the assassination of Mr. Rushdie by the 15 Khordad Foundation. The Commission also expressed concern at violations of the rights to assembly, expression, thought, opinion, and the press, and the harassment and intimidation of writers and journalists, the arrest of the writer Faraj Sarkuhi being only the most recent example of such unacceptable practices; and called upon the Government of Iran to resume its cooperation with the mechanisms of the Commission, in particular with its Special Representative on the situation in Iran; to abide by its freely undertaken obligations under international human-rights instruments the country had ratified; to implement fully the recommendations of the Special Representative and the recommendations of relevant Special Rapporteurs; to eliminate discrimination against women, in law and practice; to refrain from violence against members of the Iranian opposition living abroad and to cooperate wholeheartedly with the authorities of countries investigating and prosecuting offenses reported to them; and to provide satisfactory written assurances that it did not support or incite death threats on the life of Mr. Rushdie. The Commission also decided to extend for another year the mandate of the Special Representative.
The following countries voted in favour of the draft: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire.
The following countries voted against: Bangladesh, China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Pakistan.
The following countries abstained: Angola, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Cape Verde, Colombia, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, Philippines, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Zimbabwe.
BOZORGHMER ZIARAN (Iran) said diplomacy lay in the ability to build consensus. Iran regretted that the representative of the Netherlands, while introducing his draft on the situation on human rights, in Iran, had repeated allegations made earlier. A consensus could have been reached on the draft resolution, and Iran had done its utmost to do it. But there had been neither political will nor courage on the part of the sponsors. The draft resolution was almost identical to previous resolutions by the Commission and the General Assembly on Iran, although the Special Representative on Iran had said that there had been progress that should be reflected in decisions made by the Commission. There was no correspondence in tone or content between the report of the Special Representative and the draft, which was full of illusions. It appeared the sponsors could not come to terms with the reality in Iran. Iran
- 11 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
had announced its readiness to join consensus if the resolution was based on the report of the Special Representative, even if that document had been influenced by misinformation and deserved criticism. However, Iran had been repeatedly told by the sponsors that the report of the Special Representative was not the source of their information and they had their own sources unknown to the Commission. Iran believed that the situation did not warrant a Special Representative, but that since he was appointed, the least the Commission could do was use his report. If the attitude of the sponsors spread, it would be very detrimental, as it might encourage countries to stop cooperating with Special Representatives.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the delegation had hoped very much that negotiations with Iran on the resolution could have resulted in a consensus measure. Unfortunately, that had not been possible, and Pakistan had listened with concern to the response of the delegation of Iran. Under the circumstances, Pakistan requested a roll-call vote, and Pakistan would vote against the resolution.
AGUS TARMIDZI (Indonesia), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference countries, deeply regretted that consensus could not be achieved on the resolution. They called for a roll call vote.
GUSTAVO CASTRO GUERRERO (Colombia) said it was to be regretted that talks with Iran had not been successful in producing a consensus resolution.
LILIA BAUTISTA (Philippines) said the delegation, which had been requested to participate in negotiations on the draft resolution, regretted that consensus was not possible. The Philippines suggested that the Commission should consider how to handle reports of this nature in the future.
IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said his delegation regretted that a consensus resolution had not been agreed with the delegation of Iran, and under the circumstances Bangladesh would vote against the resolution on Iran.
By a resolution passed by a roll-call vote with 51 countries voting in favour, 1 country voting against, and 1 country abstaining, on the situation of human rights in southern Lebanon and West Bekaa (document E/CN.4/1997/L.83), the Commission deplored continued Israeli violations in the area, in particular abduction and arbitrary detention of civilians, destruction of dwellings, confiscation of property, expulsion of persons from their land, bombardment of peaceful villages and civilian areas, and other practices; called upon Israel to end such practices as air raids and the use of prohibited weapons such as fragmentation bombs, and to implement the Security Council resolution of 1978 calling for Israel's immediate withdrawal from all Lebanese territories; called upon Israel to comply with the Geneva Conventions of 1949; called upon Israel to release immediately all Lebanese abducted and imprisoned and other persons detained in prisons and detention
- 12 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
centres in the occupied territories in Lebanon; affirmed the obligation of Israel to commit itself to allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international humanitarian organizations operating in the region to visit periodically Israel detention centres in the occupied territories in Lebanon; and requested the Secretary-General to bring the resolution to the attention of the Government of Israel.
The United States voted against, while the Dominican Republic abstained.
YOSEF LAMDAN (Israel) said charges against Israel had been renewed under yet another agenda item, an example of the further exploitation of the Commission's agenda for purposes far-removed from human rights. The current resolution presented the situation between the two countries in a totally one-sided and cockeyed way. The situation in Lebanon was characterized by terrorist groups that used Lebanese territory as a base for attacks on Israel. The Government of Lebanon had not acted to restrain these groups. Lebanon could not support terrorism across its border into Israel and expect peace and cooperation from Israel in return. Israel had no territorial claims in Lebanon; it simply required that Lebanon put its house in order so that peace negotiations could be resumed without the disruptions of terrorism. Any one-sided resolution, including this one, would lead nowhere; its passage might give cheap satisfaction to Lebanon and other States in the region, but in the real world of international politics, one could only wonder at its effects.
AMINE EL KHAZEN (Lebanon) said resistance was the right of every person under occupation. If Israel had not been occupying southern Lebanon, Lebanon would not need to resist. The Lebanese Government was quite willing to exercise its sovereignty over all of Lebanon if Israel implemented the two relevant Security Council resolutions.
In a resolution passed by consensus on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies (document E/CN.4/1997/L.85), the Commission urged Governments to refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who sought to cooperate with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, or had provided testimony or information to them; those who availed themselves of United Nations human-rights procedures and all those who had provided legal assistance to them for this purpose; those who submitted communications under procedures established by human-rights instruments; and those who were relatives of victims of human-rights violations; and also requested all representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, as well as treaty bodies monitoring the observance of human rights, to continue to take urgent steps to help prevent the occurrence of such intimidation and reprisals and to help prevent hampering of access to United Nations human-rights procedures in any way.
- 13 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
In a resolution adopted by consensus on the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (document E/CN.4/1997/L.88), the Commission stressed the crucial role that human rights questions played in the success of the peace agreement; expressed its serious concern about continuing human rights violations within the countries of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and the delays in fully implementing the human rights provisions of the peace agreement; condemned in the strongest terms the continued forcible expulsion of individuals from their homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the practice of destroying the homes of those previously forcibly expelled and called for the immediate arrest and punishment of individuals engaged in those actions; condemned continuing restrictions on freedom on movement; expressed its continuing concern for women and children, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who were victims of rape used as a weapon of war; and called on the countries of the mandate and the authorities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska to implement fully the commitments made in the peace agreement to protect human rights and to cooperate fully with the international mechanisms which had mandates involving human rights.
The Commission also called upon all States and all parties to the peace agreement to meet their obligations to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and urged all States and the Secretary-General to support the Tribunal to the fullest extent possible; urgently called upon competent authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including those of the Federation and in particular in the Republika Srpska and the Governments of the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to apprehend and surrender for prosecution all persons indicted by the Tribunal; and noted that the large majority of those indicted by the Tribunal, including Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, were living in the Republika Srpska and deplored the failure of the authorities there to act.
The Commission further called upon called upon relevant cantonal governments and local authorities to take the necessary steps to end beatings, unlawful evictions and other forms of harassment, particularly in multi-ethnic areas such as Mostar and Stolac; called upon the international community to help implement the decision of the Security Council to support the authority of the International Police Task Force to investigate human rights abuses committed by law enforcement personnel; called upon the Government of the Republic of Croatia to undertake greater efforts to adhere to democratic principles and the highest level of international norms and standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms; called upon the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to undertake substantially greater efforts to institute and to implement fully democratic norms, to expand opportunities for the independent media, to cease torture and ill-treatment of persons in detention, to revoke any discriminatory legislation, to respect the rights of persons belonging to minority groups;
- 14 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
reminded the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) of its responsibility to investigate enforced disappearances; specifically called upon the countries of the mandate of the relevant Special Rapporteur to release immediately all individuals held as a result of any conflict between them to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other relevant organisations; requested the relevant Special Rapporteur to focus her future activities on prevention and reporting of violations of, and lack of action to protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms by governmental authorities; and decided to extend for one year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur as revised in the present resolutions.
A roll-call vote to determine whether a number of paragraphs of the draft resolution resulted in 35 countries voting in favour of retaining these paragraphs, with no countries voting against. Sixteen 16 countries abstained from the vote.
BRANKO SOCANEO (Croatia) said draft resolution L.88 did not reflect the human rights situation in a realistic way because it balanced the responsibility of States, instead of taking into account the root causes of the war. As far as Croatia was concerned, some paragraphs contained unacceptable provisions. One paragraph urged the expedient return of refugees, but that was not realistic: the return of the Serbian refugees had to be gradual. Also, Croatia could not be held responsible for the return of Serbs who did not want to return. The draft should have contained references to current positive developments in Croatia, a country which had always been open and cooperative with international governmental and non-governmental organizations.
OLEG MALGINOV (Russian Federation) said resolutions referring to the former Yugoslavia came up yearly now; such resolutions should give a comprehensive assessment of progress made, objectively identify existing problems, and set realistic and useful goals for further progress. The delegation greatly appreciated the constructive atmosphere that had prevailed during negotiation of the resolution. Still, not everything in the resolution seemed to the Russian Federation to be objective and balanced. The situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) had not been fairly presented, especially with reference to the complex situation in Kosovo, and steps taken by the Government had not been reflected. Further, some facts and names had been taken out of context, precluding an objective representation of the situation. Russia also felt that the United Nation membership of the Federal Republic should have been re-established long ago, to allow more practical, effective, and respectful cooperation on human rights. Russia requested roll-call votes on operative paragraphs 18, 29 (d),(f), (g) (h), and 31 of the resolution. Russia would abstain on those paragraphs.
- 15 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
GOCE PETRESKI (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said the Republic of Macedonia expressed its great pleasure in cooperating with the Special Rapporteur on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, as it followed a policy of constructive dialogue, protection of human rights and the strengthening of civil society and freedoms. The important achievements in human rights in the Republic of Macedonia had been widely recognized. As respect for human rights was not only the responsibility of States but also of the international community, the Republic of Macedonia was open to international cooperation in the framework of regular mechanisms based on equality of States and individual approaches. The country welcomed the attitude of the present resolution that the consideration of the situation in the country be discontinued by the end of 1997 at the latest.
SEFIK FADZAN (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said the resolution contained acceptable text, as it covered all important aspects of human-rights problems in the region; however, certain parts of the measure were not to the liking of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There should have been more support for key principles of the Dayton Peace Agreement; there still were political obstacles to accepting the cause-and-consequences approach of realizing human-rights progress. There was a danger of taking a low-common-denominator approach towards human-rights problems in the region. More was needed, as recommended by the Special Rapporteur on the former Yugoslavia, to achieve true reconciliation in the region.
AGUS TARMIDZI (Indonesia) said that as chairman of the Organization of Islamic Conference countries, he had to state that the thrust of the resolution was not focused enough and would unlikely serve the objective that it wanted to achieve. Nevertheless, the Organisation of Islamic Conference would not stand in the way to achieve consensus.
PETER VAN WULFFTEN PALTHE (Netherlands) said the Netherlands appreciated the importance of the draft resolution on former Yugoslavia as a whole. However, with regard to the chapter on the Special Process on Missing Persons, it wished to state that it regretted that no effort had been made to provide full support for the process by the international community, and that the independent expert had felt compelled to resign. Surely it was not the wish of the international community to terminate this activity, but the task of identifying missing persons was assigned to so many different entities that it had little chance of achieving progress. Because of that weakness, the Netherlands could not co-sponsor the resolution this year, although it would not stand in the way of consensus.
SUSANA RIVERO (Uruguay) said the delegation would go along with the consensus on L.88, but it was concerned about the ending of the mandate of the expert on the Special Process. It was also concerned that the new goals of the Special Rapporteur increased her work so much that it was feared she would not be able to accomplish it properly.
- 16 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
In a resolution passed by consensus on human rights in Zaire (document E/CN.4/1997/L.89), the Commission expressed its concern at the lack of improvement in the human-rights situation and at the continuing violations of human rights situation and fundamental freedoms in Zaire; called upon the government of Zaire to put an end to the impunity of persons responsible for human rights violations; called upon the government and other parties to accept with immediate effect investigations by the joint mission appointed by the Commission into allegations of massacres and other issues affecting human rights; decided to request the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in Zaire and on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and a member of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to carry out a joint mission to investigate allegations of massacres and other issues affecting human rights; decided to extend the mandate of the relevant Special Rapporteur for a further year and to request the Secretary-General to continue to give all necessary assistance to the Special Rapporteur to enable him to discharge his mandate fully. 36 missing
GODEFROID MARUME MULUME (Zaire) said his country was at a crucial point in its history, embroiled in a very difficult situation. The three reports of the Special Rapporteurs that served as a basis for the resolution did not sufficiently reflect progress made by the Government of Zaire in the field of human rights. The same went for the evaluation of the progress of the transitional period which had been halted by the war in eastern Zaire. It was regrettable that the international community -- through the United Nations, the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees and the Special Rapporteur -- had not condemned the grave murders, massacres and gross violations of human rights committed in eastern Zaire against Zaireans and refugees. As to the question of nationality, also addressed by the draft, it fell within the sovereignty of each State and could not be tampered with by the international community. Every problem had to be settled through dialogue. However, this process of dialogue could not be invoked to legitimize fraudulent applications for nationality. Zaire wished to draw the attention of the Commission to the fact that the process of democratization would continue. The support of the international community for the reconstruction of Zaire, especially in the east, was the best guarantees for the protection of human rights in the country.
LI BAODONG (China) said the conflict in Zaire was turning into a major catastrophe for people in the eastern part of the country, and threatened destabilization of the Great Lakes region of Africa. China hoped those involved in the conflict could engage in mutual cooperation and dialogue and arrive at a peaceful settlement in Zaire. The efforts of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the United Nations, and other actors deserved support; and China hoped the people of Zaire would soon be saved from the dire consequences of war.
- 17 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
The representative of Egypt asked for the proper application of the resolution after it was adopted. It welcomed efforts made at the present to put an end to the tragedy in Zaire. In particular, Egypt insisted on the continuation of ongoing preparations for elections in Zaire and the return to political stability as well as reconstruction. A solution to the domestic problem had to be found allowing for the independence and unity of the country. This would mean the return of displaced persons and refugees. Zaire should cooperate with the High Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure the proper application of the provisions of the draft. MOHAMED-SALEH DEMBRI (Algeria) said it was necessary to recall principles guiding Africa's activities in this area, especially activities of the OAU; Algeria wanted to be sure mediation efforts of the OAU were considered to be reflected strongly and clearly in the measure. The situation in Zaire involved not only human rights, but the weight of history -- colonial history, and the effects of interference in the country by outside sources. Once again there should not be open interference or guidance from non-African powers; such powers should not be saying who should govern Zaire from now on.
By a resolution passed by consensus on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (document E/CN.4/1997/L.90), the Commission deeply regretted that the Government had declared it was unable to guarantee the security of the Special Rapporteur on Sudan during his abbreviated visit in January 1997; expressed deep concern at continued serious human rights violations by the Government, including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, detentions without due process, enforced or involuntary disappearances, violations of the rights of women and children, slavery and slavery-like practices, forced displacements, systematic torture, and denial of freedoms of religion, expression, association, and peaceful assembly; expressed deep concern at actions by other parties to the conflict, including kidnappings, arbitrary detention, forced conscription, indiscriminate killings, forced displacement, and arrest of foreign relief workers without charge; expressed its outrage at the use by all parties of military force to disrupt or attack relief efforts; urged the Government to release all political detainees, cease all acts of torture, close down all clandestine detention centres, and ensure that all accused persons were held under established standards and received fair trials; called upon the Government to ensure that its security forces, army, police forces, Popular Defense Forces and other groups were properly trained and acted in compliance with international standards; urged the Government to investigate reported policies or activities which involved the sale of or trafficking in children; urged the Government to carry out promptly its promised investigations into cases of slavery, servitude, the slave trade, forced labour, and similar practices; encouraged it to work actively for the eradication of practices directed against and particularly violative of the rights of women and girls; called upon it to carry out a full and thorough investigation of the killing of Sudanese employees of foreign relief organizations; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for another year.
- 18 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
AHMED EL MUFTI (Sudan) said the Sudanese delegation expressed appreciation to the United States delegation for the spirit of cooperation and understanding in agreeing to include some positive elements in the draft resolution. However, Sudan was concern about the inclusion of many alleged violations that had not been properly scrutinized. The resolution also contained information provided through the rebels and some non-governmental organizations. The negative reference to the last visit of the Special Rapporteur on Sudan should not be emphasized in the draft, in view of the Government's explanation. Furthermore, Sudan had repeatedly expressed its resolute objection to the deployment of human-rights officers in Sudan as proposed in the draft, since the Government guaranteed regular flow of information and had shown willingness to correct human-rights violations whenever and wherever they occurred.
MOUNIR ZAHRAN (Egypt) said Egypt wished to stress the need to bring about respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in all parts of the world, and not only in Sudan, the focus of this resolution, especially in view of what the Egyptian delegation had said in the past about double standards and selectivity. If the resolution had been submitted for a vote, the delegation would have had to abstain; it wished to single out paragraph 25 as an example. If a separate vote were to be taken on that paragraph, Egypt would vote against it, as the political and legal implications of it were not clear and it was necessary to respect the independence, sovereignty, integrity, and unity of the Sudanese territory. Egypt also wished to state that Sudanese authorities should likewise refrain from interfering in the affairs of neighbouring States, and from sponsoring terrorism in those countries.
MOHAMED-SALEH DEMBRI (Algeria) said the draft resolution on the Sudan needed to define certain issues. Frequent mention was made in the resolution of terrorist groups; the text failed to recognize that non-State actors were also at the source of human-rights violations in the country. Algeria disagreed with the contents of paragraph 25, which recommended that priority be given to the placement of human rights field officers to monitor the situation of human rights in the Sudan. This impinged on a state's sovereignty.
By a roll-call vote of 27 in favour, 17 against and 9 abstentions, the Commission decided to take no action on a draft resolution (document E/CN.4/1997/L.91) on the situation of human rights in China through which it would have welcomed the readiness of the Government to exchange information on human rights issues; progress on the codification of China's legal practice, including changes to China's criminal procedure law; and China's expressed interest in acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The Commission would also have expressed its concern at continuing reports of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in China by
- 19 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
local, provincial and national authorities and severe restrictions on the rights of citizens to the freedoms of assembly, association, expression and religion as well as to due legal process and to a fair trial; at increased restrictions on the exercise of cultural, religious and other freedoms of Tibetans, including the case of the eleventh Panchen Lama; and at the persecution and harsh sentences imposed on persons who had peacefully availed themselves of their freedom of assembly, association, expression, or religion; and called upon the Government to ensure the observance of all human rights.
The following countries voted in favour: Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Ukraine, Zaire, Zimbabwe.
The following countries voted against: Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Nicaragua, South Africa, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
The following countries abstained: Argentina, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Uruguay.
WU JIANMIN (China) said his delegation was resolutely opposed to L.91. It moved that the Commission take no action on the draft, in accordance with the rules of procedure. The draft resolution was a gross distortion of reality when it said China had a deplorable human rights record. This was the seventh time Western countries had entered an anti-China resolution. This was an outrageous distortion of China's human rights record and reality. China had had a deplorable record of human rights -- before 1949, under feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism. Chinese people had fought against foreign aggression since 1840. They had done so to be able live as human beings. China had built a prosperous and democratic country. The distortion of Chinese reality in deception of world public opinion would not last. Western politicians had a bad habit of lecturing developing countries and making prescriptions for them. Many countries that had followed Western prescriptions had faced economic collapse, war and internal strife. The Western countries did not like to see China's development take its own way. What impudence.
Claims that the no-action motion by China was an attempt at receiving special treatment were totally groundless, he continued. The no-action motion was clearly provided for in the rules of procedure -- it was not a Chinese invention. China appealed to those countries bent on tabling the draft resolution to return to the path of dialogue and cooperation.
- 20 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
GERHART BAUM (Germany) said as a matter of principle, Germany held that the Commission was fully authorized to discuss and take action on human-rights situations in all parts of the world. Members of the Commission had a particular responsibility and obligation to see to it that each issue covered by the authority of the Commission was dealt with on its merits. Therefore Germany would vote against the procedural motion now under discussion.
JOHN SHATTUCK (United States) said human rights in China remained a subject of considerable concern to the United States, as it should be to every Member of the United Nations. While the United States did not seek confrontation, it believed that the Commission was an entirely appropriate forum to discuss Chinese human rights. The United States opposed China's proposed no-action motion because there were serious human-rights problems in China; the country was distressed by any effort to bypass the Commission, a development that would undermine its integrity. The United States called on all members to vote no on the no-action motion.
ANNE ANDERSON (Ireland) said Ireland did not seek confrontation with any member of the Commission, large or small, developed or developing; it recognized that every country in the room came with its own history, culture, individuality, and economic circumstances. Ireland liked to think there was a readiness among all to recognize problems and issues where they lay. But there were rights and duties that came with membership in the Commission; members bore a great obligation to human-beings anywhere in the world who suffered human-rights violations; the Commission failed these people completely if it allowed procedural manoeuvres to block consideration of valid issues on their merits.
BERNARD GOONETILLEKE (Sri Lanka) said the Commission needed to recognize that no-action motions were also used in other United Nations bodies. After several unsuccessful attempts to pass a resolution against China, the Commission should try to find alternative means through consultations and bilateral contacts.
ROBERTO TOSCANO (Italy) said once again the Commission faced a no-action motion with respect to Commission members being able to give their views on a resolution when their competence to deal with the topic was beyond question. Consensus was certainly desirable and should be pursued honestly; but disagreements were objectively possible, and should be exercised in the right of vote which showed respect for others and the topic under discussion. Italy accordingly would vote against the no-action motion.
MASAKI KONISHI (Japan) said the delegation supported special emphasis on dialogue. Human rights in China was a subject of legitimate concern for the international community. Therefore, Japan could not support the no-action motion.
- 21 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
DANIEL BERNARD (France) said the Commission was entitled to consider human-rights situations in any country; and it was important to respect this essential machinery. For that reason France would vote against the no-action motion.
HAMIDON ALI (Malaysia) said Malaysia supported the no-action motion. The resolution on the human-rights situation in China had been rejected for the last six years, which clearly indicated that the Commission did not feel it necessary to consider it. Engaging in dialogue with a view to promote human rights would make better progress.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said the resolution and the motion presented by China posed a dilemma. China should be treated as another country. But China was not like any other country: its people and Government were justifiably proud of the country's role in world affairs. Still, there were grounds for concerns for the human-rights situation there. This year, Canada had decided not to co-sponsor the draft resolution, and it intended to establish bilateral ties with China to narrow existing gaps. Canada would be relying on the good will of China to show that it would continue improving the human-rights situation. Nonetheless, the Commission should not be impeded from voting on the resolution.
ADRIANO PERREIRA (Angola) said the draft resolution on China had come before the Commission six times in the last six years, but each time had failed to win support. That explained everything; it meant among other things that the human-rights situation in China did not need a resolution. Further, Angola found the wording of the resolution to be almost the same as previous resolutions; the delegation simply did not understand why such measures were tabled again and again, in a futile exercise that wasted the Commission's time and money.
ALEXANDER KRAVETZ (El Salvador) said the main function of the Commission was ensuring the defense and promotion of human rights in any part of the world. It was the responsibility of the Commission to consider that a no-action motion was incompatible with the performance of its duties.
CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) said the motion to take no action was unacceptable, as it represented a substantive incompetence of the Commission. The Commission was clearly competent to deal with the situation of human rights in any part of the world. The 1993 World Conference on Human Rights had concluded that human rights was a legitimate concern of the international community.
JOUN YUNG SUN (Republic of Korea) said the delegation had studied various reports on the human-rights situation in China carefully; it was encouraged by efforts made by the Government there, although it saw room for further improvement. It also welcomed the readiness China had expressed to
- 22 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
exchange information on human-rights issues, and it agreed that dialogue was important for resolving such matters. The Korean delegation had decided to abstain on China's no-action motion.
MOHAMED-SALEH DEMBRI (Algeria) said the country endorsed the general principles that should guide the Commission in promoting human rights. Algeria had heard many good arguments. Progress remained to be achieved by everyone, and Algeria doubted that anyone for the time being could give lessons to others. Algeria was disturbed that the resolution proposed had not been the subject of broad consultations to ensure that confrontational aspects did not emerge. China was fully entitled to call for a no-action motion and Algeria would not object to that.
RICHARD KRPAC (Czech Republic) said the delegation joined the view that a request of a motion of no-action in this case was inappropriate. What was in order instead was a substantive discussion of the issue raised.
PETER VAN WULFFTEN PALTHE (Netherlands) said there was nothing illegal about a no-action motion, but China's use of it was a clear abuse of that right. It had been put in to remove extraneous issues from the Commission, but one could hardly argue that China's human-rights situation was extraneous. China should uphold the practices and traditions of the United Nations. For them to abuse the rules of procedure to avoid a debate set an extremely bad example for all Members of the United Nations who sought serious debate, not only on human rights but on a variety of issues. The Netherlands hoped that this was the last time China would abuse the no-action motion.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said Cuba supported the no-action motion tabled by China. It seemed the most appropriate way to respond, as the draft resolution did not reflect the situation in China and had an aggressive tone that was not appropriate. The procedure for no-action motions, meanwhile, had existed for years and was to be used any time a situation arose that could not be settled appropriately through a draft resolution or draft decision. That was the case now.
SHAMBHU RAM SIMKHADA (Nepal) said the Commission's work was important around the world, and should be further encouraged and strengthened; non-selectivity and universality of human rights were vital, as were dialogue, cooperation, introspection, and self-criticism. Nepal consistently felt that singling out a country for particular criticism, except in very extreme circumstances, was not a conducive way to improve human-rights performances. Nepal was impressed with progress made by China in human rights; the country was willing to engage in dialogue and cooperation for further improvements as well. As a result, Nepal supported the no-action motion.
HENRY STEELE (United Kingdom) said the topic under discussion was not the human-rights situation in China, but the right of the Commission to
- 23 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
consider the draft resolution on its merits. China was a powerful country that was attempting to influence the debate by a mixture of blandishments and of pushing its weight about. The topic was of genuine concern to the Commission, regardless of whether the concern was well founded or not. The Commission alone should decide what decisions it arrived at. Other countries such as the United States, the Russian Federation, Cuba, Colombia had not attempted to invoke the no-action motion. Not even Chile, the Soviet Union and South Africa in the bad old days had tried to keep the Commission from acting. China had relied on fallacious arguments, proposing that the resolution was not within the terms of the item in question and that the resolution indicated selectivity. What could be more selective than discussing the human-rights situation all over the world except in China? That the delegation of China felt that the resolution was subjective or objective was beside the point, as only the Commission should be the judge of that. The no-action motion was untenable, based on a misreading. It was a concealed invocation of rule 54 of the rules of procedures questioning the competence of the Commission to discuss the human-rights situation in any country.
TYGE LEHMANN (Denmark) said L.91 was not and could not be seen as an attack against China because it called on that country to engage in dialogue with the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It also asked the High Commissioner to provide the Commission with the results of such a dialogue. This could not be construed as confrontation. The motion requested by China introduced an element of selectivity in the work of the Commission, which was counter to international covenants.
MOUNIR ZAHRAN (Egypt) said Egypt supported the universality of human rights, and also supported an objective and non-selective approach to human rights. Egypt had taken stands in the past against double standards regarding human rights anywhere in the world; on this basis it had abstained from voting on a number of draft resolutions; Egypt favoured dialogue and cooperation; the delegation found it most regrettable that it was consulted on the draft resolution, although it had been consulted on a number of others. The debate on this topic seemed politicized; consensus was better, and transparency and consultation of all parties concerned was required for consensus. Egypt supported the proposal of China.
IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said that, sadly, there a rising level of tension in the deliberations of the Commission. He urged calm. Name-calling or what could be perceived as such did not advance the cause of human rights; rather, it was a serious impediment and did unspeakable violence to the Commission's purpose. It was easy to exaggerate the right of others and to do so excessively was damaging. Bangladesh urged dialogue and consultations -- resolution L.91 would not contribute to that. Therefore, Bangladesh urged that no action be taken on the draft.
- 24 - Press Release HR/CN/804 16 April 1997
MUNIR AKRAN (Pakistan) said the draft resolution caused the Pakistani delegation regret and consternation; it hoped that the Commission would, as in the past six years, reject it. The draft would not promote stability, friendly relations among States, or the cause of human rights; instead it promoted unnecessary confrontation and conflict among major powers. It would promote instability rather than harmonization of relations among States. It was precisely for such situations that no-action resolutions were available.
* *** *