PROPOSED DEATH PENALTY MORATORIUM CHALLENGED IN SOCIAL COMMITTEE; SOVEREIGNTY OF STATES IS INVOKED

Press Release
GA/SHC/3544

PROPOSED DEATH PENALTY MORATORIUM CHALLENGED IN SOCIAL COMMITTEE; SOVEREIGNTY OF STATES IS INVOKED

In Other Action, Delegates Seek Designation of 25 November As International Day for Elimination of Violence against Women

The date of 25 November would be designated the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, by the terms of a draft resolution approved by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) this morning. In inviting the Assembly to make the designation, the Committee acted without a vote as it met to continue consideration of human rights questions, beginning with those related to implementation of the human rights instruments.

By the text on the International Day, the Committee would invite worldwide organization of activities on that day to raise public awareness of the problem of violence against women. The draft expressed alarm that endemic violence against women was impeding women’s opportunities to achieve legal, social, political and economic equality in society. The Assembly would reiterate that the term “violence against women” would refer to acts capable of causing physical, sexual or psychological harm, whether in public or private life.

The discussion on implementation of human rights instruments continued to be dominated by the draft resolution to be submitted by Finland on behalf of the European Union concerning a moratorium on the application of the death penalty.

The representative of China said that, based on the principle of sovereign equality, he respected the choice by some countries to abolish the death penalty. Other countries had made different choices based on their respective social, historical and cultural distinctions.

The representative of Pakistan said the death penalty was not a human rights question but one of crime prevention and criminal justice. Many countries had created virtually crime-free societies through effective crime prevention policies. A number of alternative approaches to the issue would have been more constructive than the

Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3544 30th Meeting (AM) 3 November 1999

proposed draft resolution, said the representative of Antigua and Barbuda. The European Union could have appealed for ratification of the Protocol concerning the death penalty. It could have waited for a clearer consensus. Since there was no consensus, the initiative was at the very least ill-advised.

Representatives this morning also addressed other aspects of implementing the human rights instruments. The representative of Australia, speaking on behalf of Canada, Norway, Australia and New Zealand, said the treaty-monitoring system was strained as more States became party to the major human rights instruments. To avoid jeopardizing the effectiveness and credibility of the treaty bodies, the problem should be addressed.

The representative of Slovenia said existing human rights standards needed to be observed, but additional standards were needed in some areas. The Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child should be adopted. The Protocol to the Convention against torture should be elaborated and adopted so as to establish the necessary preventive visits system. The complaints procedures under various instruments ensured respect of individual rights.

Also speaking this morning were the representatives of Japan, Colombia, Syria, Burkina Faso, Trinidad and Tobago, Singapore, Indonesia, Barbados, Egypt and India.

A representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) also spoke.

The Committee will meet again this afternoon at 3 p.m. to conclude its present consideration of the implementation of human rights instruments, as part of its overall consideration of human rights questions.

Committee Work Programme

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to continue its consideration of human rights questions, beginning with implementation of human rights instruments. (For background information, see press release GA/SHC/3543 of 2 November).

Also before the Committee is a draft on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (document A/C.3/54/L.14/Rev.1), by which the Assembly would decide to designate 25 November as that International Day.

The draft is sponsored by Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, France, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kuwait, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Action on Draft Resolution

The Committee took up the draft resolution entitled “International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women” (document A/C.3/54/L.14/Rev.1).

The following countries joined in sponsoring that draft resolution: Japan, China, Seychelles, Czech Republic, Viet Nam, Eritrea and Mongolia.

The Committee approved the draft without a vote.

Statements

KUNIO UMEDA (Japan) said that, as the international standards already established in the field of human rights won increasing acceptance, the number of reports submitted for consideration to the human rights treaty bodies increased. More needed to be done to tackle the problem of overdue reports. It was essential they be reviewed in a timely fashion. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be allocated sufficient resources to support the work of the human rights treaty bodies.

He would oppose the death penalty resolution Finland was expected to introduce on behalf of the European Union, he said. The question of the death penalty should be considered by each State. His country maintained it and applied it only to the most heinous crimes, such as mass murder. It was always applied in accordance with the strictest judicial procedures and it was consistent with the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Japanese majority wanted it retained from a basic sense of justice, which was evidence of the people’s trust in the criminal justice system.

EVA TOMIC (Slovenia) said today the main need was for securing implementation of existing human rights standards, although in some areas additional standards were needed. For example, the additional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child should be adopted quickly. The optional protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment should be elaborated and adopted, to put into place the necessary preventive visits system. The complaints procedures under various instruments ensured respect of individual rights. Her Government hoped to sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women on Human Rights Day, 10 December. On that same day, the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders would be issued in the Slovene language and distributed free of charge.

She said she welcomed the overwhelming support for the long overdue adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The human rights monitoring system was critical in securing compliance and implementation by States parties with their obligations under the six core human rights instruments. The necessary financial and human resource allocations should be given them. All measures should be taken to enable the committees to keep up with their work. With regard to the question of capital punishment, Slovenia welcomed any progress towards restricting its use.

ALFONSO VALDIVIESO (Colombia) said the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had opened an office in his country, which had begun work in April 1997. Its mandate was to advise his Government on policies and measures to promote the respect of human rights, strengthen national institutions, seek compliance with international recommendations and support the work of representatives of civil society.

Because of the ongoing armed conflict in his country, human rights defenders, trade union members, promoters of Indian causes and political and social activists were being persecuted and threatened by insurgent groups, especially self-defence groups. In response to that situation, his Government had assigned resources from the national budget to provide the Threatened Persons and Witness Protection Programme with sufficient means during 1999 to protect the work of 88 non- governmental organizations. It also sought to extend protection, transportation and communication aids to a number of persons under threat. In regard to the death penalty, his country had long ago declared that human life was an inalienable right. Throughout the long years of internal conflict, several people had raised their voices to speak for the restoration of the death penalty against grave offences. However, the great majority continued to hold the view that it should remain abolished.

MIKHAIL WEHBE (Syria) said the exercise of sovereignty was based on mutual respect and on the non-interference in internal affairs. The draft resolution proposed on the abolition of the death penalty represented an intervention in the internal affairs and political affairs of States. The draft resolution was basically asking States to change their judicial system. The argument that the death penalty was degrading to human dignity completely disregarded the human dignity of victims. Judicial authorities were the ones who decided on such issues in every country.

The democratic States demanded non-interference in their internal affairs, he said. No State or group of States could impose its views, values on another State or group of States. Each country was unique. The protection of human rights called for the protection of the rights of the victims before deciding on the punishment itself.

SUN ANG (China) said his country had always fulfilled its obligations with regard to the human rights treaties it had ratified or acceded to. He outlined the reports his country had submitted to the four treaty bodies requiring reports on implementation of the treaties. The situation was less than satisfactory. The information required in the reports overlapped. Technical requirements failed to take into consideration the conditions of States parties, especially those of the developing countries. That created a heavy burden. It delayed timely submission and affected the quality of the reports. It was no easy job for treaty bodies to assess a State party’s implementation of a human rights convention and to present conclusions and recommendations in a short time. Communication and dialogue between States parties and treaty bodies should be enhanced to provide a better understanding of human rights situations in States parties.

Based on the principle of sovereign equality, he said, he respected the choice by some countries of abolishing the death penalty. Other countries had made different choices based on their respective social, historical and cultural distinctions. Such choices should be respected. “In this respect, we should agree to disagree”, he said.

SÉRAPHINE TOÉ (Burkina Faso) said she did not intend to draw up a long list of her country’s initiatives in the field of human rights, but they were impressive. It had signed the major human rights conventions and had incorporated them into law. The constitution contained provisions on the rights of citizens and crimes against mankind were defined, such as that of enforced labour. Administrative measures were being taken to guarantee those rights. But, beyond those rights of the individual, there were rights such as that of development. Ensuring those needed international action.

GEORGE WINSTON MACKENZIE (Trinidad and Tobago) said international law recognized that the death penalty was a legitimate mode of punishment, available to States under their municipal law. That position was reflected in the major international and regional instruments that sought to limit, rather than abolish, capital punishment.

Human rights instruments did not seek to demand that States amend their laws in respect to the death penalty but to create valid and important safeguards and restrictions for its implementation, he said. One of the most fundamental safeguards was that the death penalty could be imposed only after the due process of law, and for the most serious crimes. The latter was strictly observed in his country.

Also, the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1989) aimed at the abolition of the death penalty was just that - -- an optional protocol. By its very title, it was recognized that the decision to abolish capital punishment was within the sovereign jurisdiction of a State. The fact that international instruments contained such provisions was evidence that there was no international consensus on the abolition of the death penalty.

KISHORE MAHBUBANI (Singapore) said it had been unwise for the European Union to launch its initiatives to abolish the death penalty at the United Nations. The first reason was that the Union “could once again provoke a dragon that is already threatening the United Nations and reignite its anger towards it”. Also, such a move demonstrated tremendous cultural insensitivity. Why would the European Union launch such an initiative without taking into consideration the social, cultural and religious sensitivities of other societies? he asked. In addition, such a move would create a serious backlash against the United Nations and, indeed, against some of the progressive advances made by the international community.

The European Union had chosen to “feel good” instead of “doing good”, he said. Strengthening due process could save innocent lives, while moral posturing on abolition of the death penalty saved none. Also, the European Union was trying to use coercion over persuasion in its efforts to get support for its resolution. In addition, it had failed to explain why the issue of the death penalty was a human rights issue rather than one related to criminal justice. Finally, the Union had launched its initiative in a sly, underhand fashion by quietly collecting co- sponsors for the resolution.

MAKMUR WIDODO (Indonesia) said a National Plan of Action on Human Rights for 1998-2003 had been adopted by his country, which had made rapid progress in implementing it. In line with the Plan, Indonesia had ratified the conventions on eliminating discrimination against women, eliminating racial discrimination, and on the rights of the child. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would be ratified in the fifth year of the Plan. With regard to core International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions on human rights, Indonesia had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with regard to technical cooperation for both the Plan and for the reporting mechanisms related to the human rights instruments.

On the issue of the death penalty, he said he would not take the floor as an ardent supporter or practitioner of the death penalty. It was seldom applied in his country, even for the most serious offences. However, an important principle was involved in the initiative proposed by Finland. That involved the sovereign right of States to take measures ensuring the safety of their people and the integrity of their criminal justice systems. A resolution calling for a moratorium on executions would infringe on that right. The Committee should not become the venue in which one group of Member States sought to impose moral values and customs on others. In this case, it sought to impose it on the entire international community. The question of the death penalty was a criminal justice issue. All too often, the rights of victims were forgotten in favour of the rights of the condemned, along with the right of the community to live in peace and security.

AQEELAH AKBAR (Antigua and Barbuda) said any State had the right to determine the punishment or lack of it for the commission of a crime violating its judicial codes. Since her country was not a State party to either the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, nor its protocols, the European Union should have taken a constructive approach with regard to their initiative on the question of the death penalty. Instead, it had jumped to presenting the Section Optional Protocol, with its 38 ratifications in the 10 years since its adoption, as superseding the original Covenant with its 145 States parties. That was putting the cart before the horse.

A number of alternative approaches would have been more constructive, she said. The European Union could have made a further appeal to those who had not yet ratified or acceded to the Convention to do so within the scope of their individual legislative procedures. It could have presented an initiative that more accurately reflected the views of the international community on the issue. It could have waited until there was a clearer international consensus on the issue. There was no consensus on abolishing capital punishment. The European Union’s initiative was at the very least ill-advised.

BETTY RUSSELL (Barbados) said the movement to promote the death penalty had been felt particularly in the Caribbean, and especially in the former European colonies. Many of those States had laws and judicial practices which were subject to British or European models. Even post-independence, the new constitutions had been drawn on existing European models but had maintained legal systems which protected the needs of their own societies.

Her country’s constitution still upheld capital punishment. The vast majority of people in her country wished that the death penalty be retained and carried out in appropriate cases.

AHMED ABOUL GHEIT (Egypt) said existing different cultures and religions should be respected. There was a conceptual difference with regard to capital punishment. Its application within the framework of human rights had received no international consensus. The European Union’s draft resolution on capital punishment was not respecting existing cultural differences. The European Union had the right to choose its legal systems, and enact its legislation in accordance with its value systems. Likewise, the European Union needed to respect that right for others. He wished for a constructive dialogue and called upon the European Union to reconsider its position in regard to its draft resolution.

ANDREW GOLEDZINOWSKI (Australia), speaking also on behalf of Canada, Norway, Australia and New Zealand, said the treaty-monitoring system would continue to grow in influence as the system continued to mature and increasing numbers of States became party to the major human rights instruments. The system was coming under increasing strain. If not addressed, those difficulties would jeopardize the effectiveness and credibility of the treaty bodies as they faced increasing numbers of reports and communications and considered them against a background of reduced resources.

Resources needed to be made available for the treaty body system to function more effectively, he said. However, reform strategies had also required the bodies to “work smarter”. The meetings of the chairmen of treaty bodies were a valuable forum for information exchange, and for instituting procedural reform. They also served to improve cooperation between the treaty bodies and other human rights mechanisms. States themselves could initiate useful reform measures by producing shorter reports focusing on issues identified by the treaty bodies as being of particular concern. States could also establish cooperative training courses within countries needing assistance in improving their reporting capacity.

MUNAWAR SAEED BHATTI (Pakistan) said the issue of the death penalty pertained to crime prevention and criminal justice. It was wrongly being characterized as a human rights issue. Every State had the responsibility to enact and implement effective crime prevention measures to maintain societal peace and ensure the safety of its citizens’ life and property. Many countries had created virtually crime-free societies through effective crime prevention policies. But respect for the diversity of cultures, viewpoints and social values was an essential component of all human rights instruments. Even the implication of imposing alien value systems was bound to evoke resentment and a strong reaction. That temptation had to be resisted, regardless of motivation.

The issue of the death penalty, even if considered from a human rights perspective, must not be seen in isolation, he continued. It had to be viewed in the context of the right to life of the victim, of his or her dependents and of society at large. The death penalty in any society was reserved for the most heinous crimes. There was no consensus on abolishing it. The tabling of a draft resolution on such a divisive issue was regrettable.

BHUVANESH CHATURVEDI (India) said the concern of the Human Rights Committee about the level of the resources at its disposal was a problem that affected the United Nations as a whole. “Unfortunately, the Secretariat, in its submissions to the General Assembly, continues to suggest that it can do everything it has been asked to do in a satisfactory way within existing resources”, he said. It was difficult to believe that this was possible, particularly when resources, already scarce, were continually being diverted to the pursuit of a limited and often political agenda. The most recent instance had been the Special Session of the Commission of Human Rights on East Timor “held through methods that bordered on chicanery, after which more resources are being lavished on a controversial mandate and to the detriment of work of interest to the general membership”.

He said trustees needed to take a closer look at the antecedents of one or two beneficiaries of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, since “some, while passing themselves off as human rights defenders, have had close and continuing links with terrorist groups and criminal organizations”.

KOFI ASOMANI, Director, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said the high media attention paid to Kosovo and East Timor had regrettably tended to eclipse many unresolved refugee problems in other parts of the world. Also, there was a disparity in support and funding for refugee programmes worldwide, notably affecting Africa.

He added, “It is imperative that in confronting the challenges ahead, we do not lose sight of the ‘human dimension’ of forced displacement and its tragic impact on the daily lives of innocent people, wherever this may occur.”

He said rape was increasingly used as a weapon in armed conflict worldwide. The systematized violation of women and the killing of children had become deliberate tactics of war. People whose fundamental rights were at risk must have effective access to places of safety for as long as that was reasonably required. Also, the right to seek and enjoy asylum not only involved the protection against the return to persecution but it required that people would be treated in a dignified manner. Furthermore, humane and lasting solutions must be found to end the misery of displaced persons. “The legacy of violence is violence", he added, "and a revitalization of human rights principles and the structures of law are essential to break this spiral”.

* *** *