IMPROVEMENT IN STATUS OF RURAL WOMEN IS SOUGHT IN TEXT APPROVED BY ASSEMBLY"S SOCIAL COMMITTEE
Press Release
GA/SHC/3543
IMPROVEMENT IN STATUS OF RURAL WOMEN IS SOUGHT IN TEXT APPROVED BY ASSEMBLYS SOCIAL COMMITTEE
19991102States Urged To Ensure Equal Access to Resources; Debate Also Begins on Implementation of Human Rights Instruments
The General Assembly would invite Member States, in collaboration with United Nations organizations and civil society, to attach greater importance to the improvement of the situation of rural women in implementing the outcomes of United Nations conferences and summits, by the terms of a draft resolution approved without a vote by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) this afternoon, as it considered issues related to the advancement of women.
Also by the terms of that orally revised text, the Assembly would invite States to improve the situation of rural women by investing in and strengthening their efforts to meet the basic needs of those women and by ensuring their equal access to productive resources and services. In addition, States would pursue rural womens political and socio-economic empowerment through support of their participation in decision-making at all levels.
Also this afternoon, the Committee heard the introduction of draft resolutions on the strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, in particular, its technical cooperation capacity; violence against women migrant workers; and the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
The Committee also began its consideration of human rights questions: implementation of human rights instruments.
Stating that a draft resolution on the death penalty which called for a moratorium on executions had been submitted, the representative of Finland, also speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the abolition of the death penalty would enhance human dignity and promote the progressive development of human rights.
The representative of Libya, said the question of capital punishment related to the criminal justice system; it was in no way related to human rights. It was the sovereign right of States to determine the legislation that suited their societies.
Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3543 29th Meeting (PM) 2 November 1999
The representative of the United States said that in a democratic society, the criminal justice system, including the punishments prescribed for the most serious crimes, should reflect the will of the people. In cases where capital punishment was finally imposed in his country, it was done only after a lengthy appeal and judicial review process.
Often, it was poor persons and those who belonged to ethnic minorities who were likely to incur the death penalty, said the representative of the Holy See. He said criminal activity demanded effective punishment, but there was no definitive evidence that the death penalty reduced the likelihood of capital crimes being committed.
Statements were also made by the representatives of Italy, Philippines, Egypt, Ukraine, San Marino, Latvia, Rwanda, Qatar, Kuwait, Saint Lucia and Morocco.
The Director of the New York Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also made a statement.
The Committee will meet again tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m. to continue its consideration of issues related to human rights questions. It is also expected to take action on draft resolutions on issues related to the advancement of women.
Committee Work Programme
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this afternoon to begin consideration of human rights questions, first taking up questions related to implementing human rights instruments.
The Committee had before it the relevant sections of the Economic and Social Councils current report (document A/54/3; for summary, see Press Release GA/SHC/3529 of 18 October). The Committee also had before it reports of the Human Rights Committee and of the Committee against Torture. In addition, it had before it four reports of the Secretary-General, one on the status of the International Covenants on rights; two on International Conventions, one on migrants and the other against torture; and finally, on the operations of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. Finally, the Committee had before it a note of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery.
The Committee also had before it a number of draft texts, expected to be introduced and acted upon.
Documents
The report of the Human Rights Committee (document A/54/40) summarizes the Committee's activities during the three sessions held since its last report, two in Geneva and one in New York. In addition to organizational and procedural matters, the Committee noted in its report that as at 30 July 145 States had ratified, acceded to or made a declaration of succession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Also, 95 States had ratified or acceded to the Optional Protocol providing for consideration of individual claims, and 38 States were parties to the Second Optional Protocol concerning abolition of the death penalty.
The Committee also reports on its examination of reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant. During the reporting period, 12 initial or periodic reports were submitted. Those included: an initial report by Uzbekistan; second periodic reports by Guyana, Ireland and Switzerland; third periodic reports by Australia and the Netherlands (Antilles); and fourth periodic reports by Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands (Antilles), Portugal (Macau) and Yugoslavia. China presented the first report on the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, following four reports that had been submitted by the United Kingdom in relation to Hong Kong.
There were 138 initial and periodic reports overdue, and 83 States parties were in arrears with their reports, nearly two thirds of all States parties to the Covenant. During the reporting period, the Committee considered and made recommendations on the fourth periodic reports of Japan, Chile, Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, Poland and Romania; the third periodic reports of Iceland, Belgium and Libya; and the initial reports of Armenia, Lesotho and Cambodia. Also considered by the Committee during the reporting period were 12 communications declared admissible under the Optional Protocol allowing for consideration of individual cases.
The report outlines the increase in the number of communications submitted to the Committee as a result of a greater number of States parties to the Optional Protocol and better public awareness of the communications procedure. It outlines the work of the Special Rapporteur on communications, as well as follow-up activities under the Optional Protocol. Annexes to the report contain relevant listings, such as of States parties to the Covenant and Optional Protocols, membership of the Committee and status of reports.
Annex X of the report contains the text of a Committee decision concerning the execution of persons in Sierra Leone. By that decision, the Committee deplored the State party's failure to clarify the circumstances surrounding the execution of persons whose communications were being considered by the Committee. It also decided to continue consideration of those persons' communications, strongly urging the State party to ensure that similar situations did not occur and urging the State party to present an initial report overdue since November 1997.
A report of the Committee against Torture (document A/54/44) contains information on the Committee's twenty-first session (9-20 November 1998) and on its twenty-second session (26 April-14 May). During the twenty first session, the Committee took note of the report of the tenth meeting of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies, which was held at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 14 to 18 September 1998. Information was provided to the meeting on the main issues discussed and recommendations made by the various chairmen. At the twenty-second session, the Committee resumed its discussion of issues and recommendations which were included in the report of the tenth meeting of persons chairing treaty bodies.
The report is divided into eight chapters. The first deals with organizational matters and includes the States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Chapter II deals with action by the General Assembly at its fifty-third session and includes information on the annual report submitted by the Committee against Torture under article 24 of the Convention; and on the effective implementation of international instruments on human rights.
Chapter III of the report includes information on the submission of reports by States parties under article 19 of the Convention, and on action taken by the Committee to ensure the submission of reports. Chapter IV contains reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention. Included are reports relating to: Yugoslavia, Iceland, Croatia, United Kingdom, Hungary, Tunisia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mauritius, Venezuela, Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg, Libya, Morocco, Egypt and Liechtenstein.
Chapters V, VI, VII and VIII of the report deal respectively with activities of the Committee under article 20 of the Convention; consideration of communications under article 22 of the Convention; future meetings of the Committee; and the adoption of the Committee's annual report.
The report contains seven annexes with information on such issues as a list of the States that had signed, ratified or acceded to the Convention as at 14 May; States parties that had made the declarations provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, as at the same date; and views and decisions of the Committee against Torture under article 22 of the Convention.
Also before the Committee was the Secretary-General's annual report on the status of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document A/54/277). Both Covenants and the Optional Protocol were opened for signature in 1966 and entered into force in 1976. A Second Optional Protocol, aimed at abolition of the death penalty, was opened for signature in 1989 and entered into force in 1991.
The report states that, as of 1 August 1999, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been ratified or acceded to by 139 States. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights submitted reports to the Economic and Social Council in 1998 and in the current year, making suggestions and recommendations concerning issues arising from the consideration of reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant.
As of 1 August 1999, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had been ratified or acceded to by 145 States, and the Optional Protocol by 95 States, the report continues. The Second Optional Protocol had been ratified or acceded to by 38 States as of 1 August. While 46 States had recognized the Human Rights Committee's competence to consider claims about States fulfilling Covenant obligations, no inter-State claims had been filed as of 1 September.
On implementation of the civil and political rights Covenant, the report states that the Human Rights Committee would submit an annual report covering its sixty-fourth through sixty-sixth sessions (held in 1998 and 1999) to the Assembly's fifty-fourth session. Annexed to the report are lists of States that ratified or acceded to these instruments, together with the dates.
In his report on the status of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (document A/54/346), the Secretary-General states that, as at 31 August this year, the Convention had been ratified or acceded to by Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Colombia, Egypt, Mexico, Morocco, Philippines, Senegal, Seychelles, Sri Lanka and Uganda; it had been signed by Bangladesh, Chile and Turkey. The Convention would enter into force when at least 20 States had ratified or acceded to it.
A joint programme between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), entitled Human Rights Strengthening, was promoting ratification of the Convention at all levels, including the global, regional and subregional, the report continues. Among activities aimed specifically at ratification of the Convention were a series of subregional workshops planned through the current year and 2000. Also aimed specifically at ratification were efforts of the International Steering Committee of the Global Campaign for Ratification of the Convention on Rights of Migrants, formed in March 1998.
A report of the Secretary-General on the status of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or degrading Treatment or Punishment (document A/54/189) states that the Convention entered into force on 26 June 1987. As at 1 July, 42 States parties to the Convention had made declarations provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention. Under article 21, a State party of the Convention may declare at any time that it recognized the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. Under article 22, a State party to the Convention may declare at any time that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention.
As at 1 July, the Convention had been ratified or acceded to by 117 States. In addition, nine States had signed the Convention. The report's Annex contains a list of States that have signed, ratified or acceded to the Convention as at 15 July.
According to the Secretary-General's annual report on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (document A/54/177), some $5.1 million will be granted to 133 projects in 53 countries through 1999 grants. In 1998, an estimated 60,000 torture victims were helped by the Fund.
The Fund receives voluntary contributions from governments, non- governmental organizations (NGOs) and individuals, the report explains. In 1999, 35 States contributed, enabling torture victims to receive medical, psychological, financial, social, legal or humanitarian assistance. The report also explains the modalities of contributing to the Fund, as well as the grant review process. Grant requests are submitted by 31 December for consideration by the Fund's secretariat. Admissible requests are then reviewed by the Board of Trustees in May and the Board's recommendations are submitted for approval to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on behalf of the Secretary-General. Grants are paid out in July/August.
The demand for assistance to torture victims is increasing, the Secretary- General reports. Over $5 million was requested from the Fund in 1996 for 96 projects, while in 1999, $8.2 million was requested for 139 projects $3 million more than available. If demand continues to rise, about $10 million will be needed to meet the need for 2000.
The Secretary-General's report on the Status of the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery (document A/54/348) states that the Fund was established in 1991 to assist representatives of NGOs from different regions dealing with issues of contemporary forms of slavery to participate in the deliberations of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, by providing them with financial assistance. Another aim of the Fund was to provide humanitarian, legal and financial aid, through established channels, to individuals whose human rights had been violated as a result of contemporary forms of slavery.
According to the report, the beneficiaries of the Fund shall be representatives of NGOs dealing with issues of contemporary forms of slavery based on the consideration of the Board of Trustees that they would not be able to attend the session of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery without the assistance provided by the Fund. Also considered to be potential recipients were individuals whose human rights had been severely violated.
The report states that requests received in 1999 amounted to about $900,000. To meet at least one third of requests expected to be received in the year 2000, the Board expected the Fund would need an additional $300,000 in contributions. Contributions to the Fund were payable through bank transfers to the United Nations Geneva General Fund or through checks.
In addition to those documents, a number of draft resolutions expected to be introduced are also before the Committee.
By the terms of a nine-Power draft on violence against women migrant workers (document A/C.3/54/L.18/Rev.1), the Assembly would urge governments, particularly those of countries of origin and of destination, to strengthen national efforts to protect and promote the rights and welfare of women migrant workers through sustained cooperation at all levels, including bilateral and interregional. It would urge the development of strategies and joint action based on experiences of individual Member States and the maintenance of dialogue to facilitate information exchange. The Assembly would urge governments to support programmes aimed at prevention, including by providing information to target groups and increasing public awareness of the issue at the national and grass-roots levels, in cooperation with NGOs.
In addition, by that draft, the Assembly would call for penal and criminal sanctions to be instituted by governments to punish perpetrators of violence against women migrant workers. It would encourage governments to formulate and implement training programmes for law enforcement officials and to adopt measures to regulate the recruitment and deployment of women migrant workers. Finally, it would invite governments to identify causes of undocumented migration and its economic, social and demographic impact. The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Bangladesh, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Portugal and Zambia.
A 29-Power draft resolution on strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, in particular its technical cooperation capacity (document A/C.3/54/L.24), would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance of the Programme and would reaffirm the role of the Centre for International Crime Prevention of the United Nations Office for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in providing assistance to Member States in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice. It would urge States and funding agencies to review their policies for development assistance and to include a crime prevention and criminal justice component in such assistance. It would request the Secretary-General to take all necessary measures to assist the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in its capacity as principal policy-making body in the field. In addition, the Assembly would reaffirm the high priority attached to elaborating a comprehensive convention against transnational organized crime and of other international instruments addressing trafficking in persons, illicit manufacture and trafficking of firearms, and illegal transport of migrants.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Austria, Bahamas, Belarus, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey and Ukraine.
By terms of a 61-Power draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/C.3/54/L.29), the Assembly would urge all States and bodies of the United Nations system to continue assisting the Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination. The draft is sponsored by: Algeria, Andorra, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chile, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe and Palestine.
The Committee is expected to take action on a 17-Power draft resolution regarding the improvement of the situation of women in rural areas (document A/C.3/54/L.15). By terms of the draft, the Assembly would invite Member States, in collaboration with United Nations organizations and civil society, to attach greater importance to the improvement of the situation of rural women in implementing the outcomes of United Nations conferences and summits. The Assembly would invite States to do so by such actions as investing and strengthening their efforts to meet the basic needs of rural women, by ensuring equal access to productive resources and services for them, and by pursuing their political and socio-economic empowerment through support of their participation in decision-making at all levels.
The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, India, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Panama, San Marino, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Viet Nam. When the representative of Mongolia introduced the draft on 20 October, Benin, Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Sri Lanka and Ethiopia became co-sponsors.
Finally, the Committee had before it the report considered on 21 October 1999 (see Press Release GA/SHC/3533) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (document A/54/18), the body that monitors State party compliance with the 1969 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The report describes the Committee's fifty- fourth session (1-19 March) and its fifty-fifth session (2-27 August).
During the two sessions, the Committee considered reports and information from 28 countries: Austria, Republic of Korea, Finland, Portugal, Congo, Italy, Peru, Syria, Costa Rica, Kuwait, Mongolia, Haiti, Romania, Antigua and Barbuda, Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Iraq, Central African Republic, Chile, Latvia, Uruguay, Mozambique, Kyrgyzstan, Colombia, Azerbaijan, Dominican Republic and Guinea.
In addition, under its early warning and urgent action procedures, the Committee adopted decisions and statements concerning several States, the Kurdish people and Kosovo. For example, the Committee called on Australia to suspend implementation of the 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act and reopen discussions with the representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with a view to finding solutions acceptable to indigenous peoples. While the original 1993 Native Title Act was delicately balanced between the rights of indigenous and non-indigenous title holders, the amended Act appeared to create legal certainty for governments and third parties at the expense of indigenous title.
Regarding the Sudan, the Committee expressed deep concern over reports from the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) that thousands of Sudanese of different ethnic origins had been enslaved, most of them women and children, abducted by armed militia based in Government-controlled parts of the country. It welcomed the State party's intention to prosecute those involved in the slave trade; and called on it to protect internally displaced communities and implement a public education campaign promoting tolerance for ethnic, cultural and religious diversity.
In his letter transmitting the report, the Chairman states that the Committee has only one expert from Africa. He reminds States parties, who will meet in 2000 to elect new Committee members, that article 8 of the Convention stipulates the need to consider equitable geographical distribution and the representation of different forms of civilization and the principal legal systems.
Introduction of Draft Resolutions
BRUNELLA BORZI (Italy) introduced the draft resolution on issues related to Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice entitled, Strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, in particular its technical cooperation capacity. She added the following oral revisions to that draft: in operative paragraph 3, upon request is deleted and replaced by at their request. Also in that paragraph, after the words United Nations Office for the words Drug control are added. In operative paragraph 4, the words in particular are deleted and replaced by including. Also in that paragraph, the words to be are added before formulated. In operative paragraph 7, Invites Member States now reads Invites all States. At the end of operative paragraph 13, the following is added: and the Commission for Social Development. In operative paragraph 14, the following is added at the end: notes the progress achieved by the Ad Hoc Committee in this regard. Operative paragraph 15 was deleted.
The following countries were added as sponsors to that draft: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Benin, Canada, Germany, Guatemala, Iceland, Japan, Lesotho, Netherlands, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Thailand, United Kingdom and Egypt.
MARIA LOURDES RAMIRO-LOPEZ (Philippines) introduced a draft resolution on issues related to the advancement of women entitled, Violence against women migrant workers. The following countries added their sponsorship to that draft: Belgium, Cape Verde, Colombia, Côte dIvoire, Ghana, Liberia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
AHMED ABOUL GHEIT (Egypt) introduced a draft resolution on issues related to the right of peoples to self-determination entitled, The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The following countries were added as sponsors to the draft: Lebanon, United Republic of Tanzania, Japan, Afghanistan, Comoros, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Botswana and Lao Peoples Democratic Republic.
Human Rights Instruments
BACRE WALY NDIAYE, Director, New York Office, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the human rights instruments were the backbone of the United Nations human rights system. They formed a solid basis for human rights mechanisms and technical programmes. They also gave the vision for governments and civil society to build a human and just future for all.
The Commission on Human Rights and the treaty-monitoring bodies were continually seeking to strengthen the human rights instruments, he said. At the same time, the workload facing those bodies continued to increase. For example, since the entry into force in 1976 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 142 States had become parties to it. The Convention on Torture had been ratified or acceded to by 118 States since entering into force in 1987. The Convention on Protection of Migrant Workers, on the other hand, had been ratified or acceded to by only 12 States, eight below the number required for entry into force. Discussions of specific ways to improve the functioning of the treaty bodies continued to be a major focus of the meetings of the human rights treaty bodies chairpersons.
Introducing the report of the Human Rights Committee, he said the Committee had made a major effort to streamline its reporting requirements and to improve the effectiveness of the reporting system. The report of the Committee on Economic and Social Rights, in turn, reflected the Committees development of its jurisprudence of general comments, which provided an authoritative interpretation of the Covenants provisions. The report of the Committee against Torture indicated that the Committee had continued its work on four confidential inquiries, in addition to its other work of considering reports submitted by 16 States parties and of a great number of individual communications.
Statements
ANN-MARIE NYROOS (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the status of ratification of the core treaties had slowed down since 1997. But even after ratification, the human rights treaties called for continuous efforts to ensure that international human rights standards became a reality on the national level. All human rights were independent and of equal value. The withdrawals from the Optional Protocols to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were of concern, as were the large number of reservations being lodged to the treaties.
The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was a useful system- wide instrument in supporting national poverty-eradication efforts, she said. Rights-based country programming in support of national legal reforms, economic and social policies and programme development efforts should be used to empower the disadvantaged and the marginalized and for improving population participation. Closer coordination and collaboration should be undertaken by all actors to clarify outstanding questions regarding the use of the Covenant with that aim.
The abolition of the death penalty would enhance human dignity and would promote the progressive development of human rights, she said. In many cases where the death penalty was not yet abolished, it was often applied in violation of minimum safeguards as set out in the Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and other instruments protecting the rights of those facing the death penalty. Because the issue of capital punishment had been on the international human rights agenda from the early years, a draft resolution on the question of the death penalty, calling for a moratorium on executions, had been submitted after consultations with partners from all regions. The co-sponsors hoped for broad support for the initiative.
The international human rights treaties were living and developing instruments, she said. That was the reason for the importance of the protocols. The need to comply with the treaties could not be overstated. The European Union was prepared to consider ways and means of assisting governments of small developing countries to comply with their reporting obligations, to maximize the benefits of legal reforms that could be derived from the reporting process. Likewise, it was crucial for the treaty bodies to be given sufficient resources, both human and financial, for their work.
MICHAEL SOUTHWICK (United States) said existing international law did not prohibit capital punishment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically recognized the right of States that had not yet abolished capital punishment to impose it.
In a democratic society, he continued, the criminal justice system, including the punishments prescribed for the most serious crimes, should reflect the will of the people. In his country, a majority of constituent States had chosen to retain the option of imposing the death penalty for the most serious crimes. In cases where capital punishment was finally imposed, it was done only after a lengthy appeal and judicial review process.
OKSANA BOYKO (Ukraine) said it was the primary responsibility of governments to incorporate human right treaties and to take all the necessary steps to guarantee the full enjoyment of international human rights.
Her countrys submission of its forth periodic report to the Committee on Human Rights and to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, among others, had proved that it had always paid attention to the reporting procedure as one of the most important part of the monitoring mechanism. However, the United Nations system in this field is far from being satisfactory, she said. Reports to the Committees were often years late, and frequently consisted of nothing more than a legislation summary. There was an urgent need for human rights treaty bodies to improve their work. Ways of reducing the duplication of reporting required under the different instruments needed to be examined. Also, closer cooperation of treaty bodies at the international and regional levels was essential.
GIAN NICOLA FILIPPI BALESTRA (San Marino) said his country had been the first in Europe to abolish the death penalty in 1854. Death inflicted by one human on another, consciously and legally, could not be considered either a valid or effective answer to defending society. Nor could it be considered a deterrent against the spreading of criminality. If humanity had limited itself to retaliation throughout billions of years, it would still be carving stones in a dark cave. The history of humanity was the story of a search for better answers to whatever plagued it. The trend towards abolition of the death penalty had reached a definite momentum with the decision regarding establishment of the International Criminal Court. We opened the right door in Rome, he said.
He said the draft resolution concerning the question of the death penalty calling for a moratorium on executions, to be presented by Finland on behalf of the European Union, reflected the international trend. The countries supporting the resolution had different legal systems and backgrounds. They had different cultural values and different positions on the death penalty. It was a cross- border resolution, not an interference in the internal affairs of a State because a literal application of the concept of sovereignty would block entirely the work of the United Nations and especially of the Third Committee. The majority of resolutions affected countries. That was not considered an interference, but rather a stimulant to better existing legal systems, behaviour and life of citizens.
Archbishop RENATO RAFFAELE MARTINO, Permanent Observer for the Holy See, said the right to life was an inalienable right of every human person. The draft resolution being discussed on the death penalty was a strong affirmation of the dignity of the human person and of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. All too often, in societies, the death penalty was accompanied by unacceptable public signs of vengeance and revenge. Often, it was poor persons and those who belonged to ethnic minorities who were likely to incur the penalty. Even young people and those with limited mental capacity were executed. How many innocents had been wrongly executed? he asked.
Any person whose life was terminated in a gas chamber, by hanging, by lethal injection or by firing squad was a human person, however cruel and inhumane his or her actions appeared, he said. Criminal activity demanded effective punishment, but there was no definitive evidence to support the belief that the death penalty reduced the likelihood of capital crimes being committed. Populist exploitation of feelings of fear or insecurity was no substitute for hard evidence. Crime would be overcome by comprehensive policies of moral education, effective police work and address of the root causes of criminality. Punishment should be secure and proportionate to the crime, but it should be directed towards restoring the criminal as a member of society, wherever possible. At the dawn of a new millennium, humanity should become more humane and less cruel.
JANIS PRIEDKALNS (Latvia) said citizens in his country exercised their democratic rights in the form of a referendum. Its citizenship law conformed to the standards upheld by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) recommendations regarding naturalization and citizenship. The naturalization tests were not difficult. About 95 per cent passed the Latvian language and history examination in their first attempt. Also, a number of former restrictions regarding participation in certain professions had been removed.
The aim of the legislative reform in his country was the integration of society. The input of NGOs and academic institutions was of significance. The law safeguarded the Latvian language and culture. Latvian language was essential in the reintegration process. His Government had a framework document on the Integration of Society, elaborated collectively by government experts, minority groups and academic organizations. The latter was against Cabinet approval. The document emphasizes efforts aimed at societal integration rather than assimilation, and respect of and support for the cultural wealth and autonomy of minorities, he said. His country was especially sensitive to the protection of the human rights of all people which was a never-ending process of self-improvement.
NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya) stressed the need for universal ratification of human rights instruments. However, State parties needed to apply such instruments at all levels. Also, the geographical imbalance in the membership in treaty bodies could not be overlooked. Measures to rationalize and reform such organs were needed. In addition, reservations to such bodies should not breach their essence.
It was the sovereign rights of States to determine the legislation that suited their societies, she emphasized. The European Unions draft resolution was a violation of those sovereign rights. Also, capital punishment was part of the criminal justice system and was in no way related to human rights. That draft resolution represented an attempt of some States to impose their views on others. The latter also breached the provision on the Second Protocol of the Civil and Political Rights Covenant.
JOSEPH MUTABOBA (Rwanda) said it was a gross misconception that the Rwandese people were irreconcilable and unable to live together. They had lived together peacefully for many centuries before the divide-and-rule strategy of colonialists had manipulated their ethnicity. In fact, Rwandas Hutus and Tutsis were not separate tribes, as they had been designated by the colonial and post-colonial Powers. They were of social groups who shared one language and one culture, not separate tribes or ethnic groups. The recommendation should be made in the Committee to take account of that fact, in discussion of issues relating to governance, management and problem-solving, whether in Rwanda, in the Great Lakes region or elsewhere in the world.
He said the 1994 genocide in his country had been planned and supervised by former regimes that had ratified the Convention on prevention of genocide, which had entered into force in 1951. It defied understanding how such a heinous crime had taken place, with the international community looking on and not intervening. If the desire was to avoid dwelling on the past, then it could be overlooked that the criminals involved in those events were freely roaming from one capital to another without being questioned. Yet, during those events, 1 million people had been killed in less than 100 days, while the international community watched. Those who had masterminded the genocide had been classified as Category One criminals by the Rwandan Parliament. The punishment should match their crime. They deserved the death penalty.
ALI FAHAD FALEH AL-HAJRI (Qatar) said capital punishment was a controversial question not commanding unanimity in the Committee or the United Nations. Legal questions were the prerogative of States. It was the right of States to create laws and protect their societies. The United Nations was made up of many cultures. The diversity should supplement the role of the Organization, rather than that one State should impose its views on others. States who were sponsors of the draft resolution whose submission was being contemplated had made that decision without consultation. Only a general discussion of the resolution had taken place.
What kind of history were the sponsors trying to make? he asked. That of interfering in the sovereignty of States? Or was it to divide the Members of the Organization? The list of sponsors indicated that they represented less than 6 per cent of the worlds population. What gave that minority the right to impose its views on the majority? The Office of Legal Affairs should give an opinion on the High Commissioners taking a stand in favour of those sponsoring the resolution. The resolution should not be introduced in the Committee.
AYADAH AL SAIDI (Kuwait) said criminal justice required a punishment commensurate to the crime. The Koran had imposed that punishment on the crime of murder. Demanding the abolition of the death penalty went contrary to the Islamic law. It was imposed by Islamic law to maintain the rights of the society as a whole. Also, the victim needed to be taken into account. In States were capital punishment existed, it should be applied to the more serious crimes. Respect for the freedom of States to impose the laws they wished served to maintain the diversity of the legal systems in the world.
JULIAN HUNTE (Saint Lucia) said it was disturbing that the very institution that we entrusted with the protection of our sovereignty is allowing a group of more powerful nations to challenge the Constitution of our country. Citizens in his country had not questioned his countrys Constitution, and respected it and upheld it, as well as supporting its application.
The legitimacy of capital punishment had always been recognized by international law, he said. International and regional human rights agreements had accepted that, in the exercise of their sovereignty, States may, in accordance with their laws, impose the penalty of death for certain crimes. That was according to the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights. It is clear to us that no breach of international law is occasioned by the implementation of the death penalty under domestic law, he added.
MINA TOUNSI (Morocco) said that worldwide poverty and exclusion were being made worse by globalization. While civil and political rights had been strengthened, not enough was being done with regard to economic, social and cultural rights. In her country, political will had led to the creation of a number of bodies to protect human rights. Normative measures had been adopted to strengthen those rights, for example, in the area of ensuring the legal equality of women. Training in the promotion of human rights had been strengthened. Reform of the education system to take account of those rights was being discussed. All human rights advocates should work together towards such common goals. Action on Draft Resolution
The Committee took up the resolution on improvement of the situation of women in rural areas (document A/C.3/54/L.15). The representative of Mongolia, as the original sponsor, said San Marino had withdrawn sponsorship of the resolution. Additional co-sponsors were: Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, China, Croatia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Germany, Jamaica, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Mozambique, Netherlands, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, Solomon Island, Spain, Sweden, Tajikistan, United Republic of Tanzania and Greece. The draft was orally amended and revised. Operative paragraph 2, concerned with access of rural women to productive resources and services, was revised to clarify the recommendation of a legal basis for such actions by States as ensuring the rights of women to own land and property. Paragraph 3 was revised to reflect the request to the Secretary- General to prepare a report based, inter alia, on the outcome of an expert group meeting drawing on regional experts. Following the revision, the following became co-sponsors of the draft: Austria, South Africa, El Salvador, Eritrea, Suriname, United Kingdom, Haiti, Finland, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Congo, Uganda, Côte dIvoire, Norway, Kenya, Cyprus, Equatorial Guinea and Malta. The draft resolution was approved without a vote, as orally amended.
* *** *