EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF WOMEN MIGRANT WORKERS ARE URGED BY SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Press Release
GA/SHC/3545

EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF WOMEN MIGRANT WORKERS ARE URGED BY SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Approved Text Also Seeks Strategies to That End, Based on National Experience; Debate Continues on Prospective Death Penalty Moratorium

The General 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, by a draft resolution approved this afternoon by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural). The Committee took that action without a vote as it met to conclude considering the implementation of human rights instruments.

Also by the text, the General Assembly would urge the development of strategies and joint action to help women migrant workers, based on experiences of individual Members States and the maintenance of dialogue to facilitate information exchange. In addition, governments would be urged to support programmes aimed at strengthening preventive action, including the provision of information to target groups and increasing public awareness of the issue at the national and grass-roots levels, in cooperation with non-governmental organizations.

On the issue of human rights instruments, the resolution that Finland intends to submit on behalf of the European Union concerning a moratorium on the death penalty continued to dominate the discussion.

The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said States that had set aside the death penalty had made that choice because the penalty no longer served their society. However, for other societies it still served a useful purpose.

There had been a major outcry among the citizens of Western nations about the imposition of death penalties for crimes committed in developing countries, said the representative of Papua New Guinea. Once they entered a country, travellers agreed to be bound by its domestic laws.

Stating that God himself in the Koran had said that punishment served to preserve life, the representative of Saudi Arabia said that anyone who

Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3545 31st Meeting (PM) 3 November 1999

killed a human without reason committed an act that was tantamount to killing all people. In the crimes warranting the death penalty, the human rights of society were at stake.

Representatives this afternoon also addressed other aspects of implementing the human rights instruments. Urging continued United Nations support in the better implementation and protection of human rights, the representative of Nigeria said his country had benefited from assistance of the United Nations monitoring team during the last democratic elections.

Statements were also made by the representatives of the Philippines, Bahrain, Slovakia, United Arab Emirates, Brunei Darussalam and the Bahamas.

The Committee will meet again tomorrow, Thursday, 4 November, to begin its overall consideration of human rights questions. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is expected to speak, as are a number of Special Rapporteurs and Special Representatives.

Committee Work Programme

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this afternoon to continue its consideration of human rights questions and to conclude its present consideration of the segment on implementing human rights instruments. (For background information, see press release GA/SHC/3543 of 2 November.)

Also before the Committee was a draft resolution on violence against women migrant workers (document A/C.3/54/L.18/Rev.1). By its terms 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 also urge the development of strategies and joint action based on experiences of individual Members States and the maintenance of dialogue to facilitate information exchange. The Assembly would urge governments to support programmes aimed at the provision of information to target groups, and at increasing public awareness of the issue at the national and grass-roots levels in cooperation with non-governmental organizations.

In addition, by the 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 the economic, social and demographic impact of such migration.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Cape Verde, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Ghana, Liberia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Zambia.

Action on Draft Resolution

The Committee took up the draft resolution on violence against women migrant workers (document A/C.3/54/L.18/Rev.1). The representative of the Philippines, as the original sponsor, said Burkina Faso, Congo, Costa Rica, Haiti, Ireland, Kenya, Malawi, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Paraguay and Togo had also become co-sponsors. El Salvador and Indonesia then became sponsors.

The Committee adopted the revised draft resolution without a vote.

Statements

MARIA LOURDES RAMIRO-LOPEZ (Philippines) said she could not support a resolution calling for the progressive abolition of the death penalty or a moratorium on its application. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provided that in countries which had not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death could be imposed only for the most heinous crimes, in accordance with existing law, following a final judgement by a competent court. That provision outlined the applicability of the death penalty within the bounds of law in a criminal justice system within a democratic civil society. Humanitarian concerns must be balanced with the demands of social justice. Just as it was unfair for States to impose their will on others, the sentiments of other delegations must be respected.

EBRAHIM MUBARAK AL-D0SARI (Bahrain) said the imposition of capital punishment as a penal tool was acceptable and depended on the legal jurisdiction of each society. The imposition and application of capital punishment balanced the right to live. Imposing it as a punishment did not run counter to human rights. It rather emphasized the respect of human existence and human justice.

PETER DONIGI (Papua New Guinea) said the last death penalty carried out in his country was in 1957 when it was administered under the United Nations trusteeship system by Australia. It had been imposed by Australian judges on a person who was supposed to have been protected by the United Nations system. “It is ironic that there are those among us who claim that the United Nations Charter and the relevant international instruments do not permit capital punishment when it was perfectly possible, back in 1957, and the United Nations did nothing to stop the hanging in the then Territories of Papua New Guinea by an administering Power”, he added.

He said there had been a major outcry among the citizens of Western nations about the imposition of death penalties for crimes committed in developing countries. Travellers, as a condition of their entry, agreed to be bound by the domestic laws when they entered a country. “If they don’t want to be bound, they have the freedom of choice not to enter the country”, he added.

JURAJ PRIPUTEN (Slovakia) said effective implementation of human rights conventions required an increasingly important control mechanism to be exercised by the treaty bodies. The dialogue with the individual treaty bodies and with special rapporteurs was of great assistance in implementing human rights instruments at the national level. The continuing occurrence of serious human rights violations made a functional and effective mechanism of human rights observance imperative. The adoption of new standards for the protection of human rights was an inseparable part of that process. The protocols on the rights of the child should be ratified quickly. His country, he added, had ratified the optional protocol on the death penalty in June.

MOHAMMED RASHED AL-ABSI (United Arab Emirates) said the issue of capital punishment was important. It was included in the laws of many people not just because of a legal basis but because of religious beliefs. It was a deterrent to conduct such as revenge, the taking of the law into one’s own hand and tribal vengeance, all acts that destroyed societies. The need to deter those actions gave a basis for the penalty. While he opposed hegemonism and the imposition of an outside will on others, his view on the death penalty was based on the law in his country, which was based on Shariah law, and which, in turn, was based on justice.

JEMAT AMPAL (Brunei Darussalam) said the imposition of capital punishment freed society from threats, allowing it to live in peace and harmony. His country had long used capital punishment to deter potential criminals as well as to punish those who had committed serious crimes. As long as the death penalty helped society, his Government would continue applying it. The promotion of human rights, in the context of the right of the convicted prisoner to life, must be weighed against the rights of his victims for vindication of the wrong inflicted upon them and the greater rights of the community to live in peace and security.

CECIL C. FERGUSON (Bahamas) said there should be equal respect and understanding for those countries which retained the death penalty. In his country, the sentence of death was imposed only for the most serious offences. Thus, when a decision was taken for the imposition of the death penalty, it was not taken lightly. It was imposed only after due process of law. It was inappropriate to introduce an issue as divisive as the abolition of death penalty in the Committee. Such action threatened the very principles upon which the United Nations had been established, and was counter-productive in effectively addressing existing challenges.

CHRISTINE KAPALATA (United Republic of Tanzania) said she appreciated the convictions of those who opposed the death penalty. The laws of some countries, however, provided for a death penalty and in some cases religious edicts mandated it. It would be interference in internal matters if a supposedly desirable regime of laws were dictated and attempted to be imposed on others.

She said the countries that had retained the death penalty, including her own, had the highest sanctity for human life. That was why they opposed the suggestion that those who callously violated the cardinal rule of considering life sacred should be given protection under that very rule. It was twisted logic on the part of those presenting themselves as ardent defenders of life’s sanctity that they should become the apologists for the criminal elements demonstrating the greatest disregard for human life. States that had set aside the death penalty had made that choice based on the consensus in their society. They had done so because the penalty no longer served their society. For many societies, it still served a useful purpose. The draft resolution being considered for introduction should be dropped to prevent further polarization of the Committee.

FAWZI BIN ABDUL MAJEED SHOBOKSHI (Saudi Arabia) said God had created the human and then had sent prophets to guide the people. He had given the Koran as the guide for the prophets. The constitution of his country was based on the Koran. It presumed that life was sacred. No one could take it away. But God himself in the Koran had said that punishment served to preserve life. Anyone who killed a human without reason committed an act that was tantamount to killing all people. Such a person deserved heavenly punishment. Would anyone argue with that rule that God had given to humans in the Koran?

He said the human rights that should be taken into account with regard to the death penalty were those that had to do with imposing a punishment that was commensurate with a crime. Punishments varied in intensity in accordance with the heinousness of the crime. In the crimes warranting the death penalty, the human rights of society were at stake. To freeze or to curb capital punishment would be to deprive governments of an important instrument. It would be a punishment on governments, who had the responsibility to safeguard their societies. The European Union should withdraw its consideration of introducing the draft.

SAMUEL AJEWOLE (Nigeria) said human rights treaty bodies greatly helped when States benefited from the technical assistance within the United Nations system. For example, his country had benefited from assistance through the participation of the United Nations monitoring team during the last democratic elections. “We urge continued support in this regard to enhance efforts in the better implementation and protection of human rights”, he added.

Since the present democratically elected administration came to power in his country, concrete steps had been taken to investigate past human rights violations with a view to restoring peace and harmony. All political prisoners and detainees had been released and appropriate judicial processes had been put in place to bring perpetrators of human rights abuses to book. To his Government, he went on, the death penalty was a matter of criminal justice and not a human rights issue. “We believe the right of the victim must be protected and our communities must be secure from serious crimes”, he said. The death penalty served as a deterrent to other criminal activities.

* *** *