EFFECTIVE MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANCE NEEDS COMMONLY AGREED PROCEDURES, SOCIAL COMMITTEE IS TOLD

Press Release
GA/SHC/3556

EFFECTIVE MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANCE NEEDS COMMONLY AGREED PROCEDURES, SOCIAL COMMITTEE IS TOLD

Iran Urges Cooperation to Create Correct Mechanism; Plan for Abolition of Death Penalty Is Subject of Further Comment

The lack of a mechanism to monitor compliance with human rights instruments, in line with the intent of the United Nations Charter, was a major shortcoming in implementing human rights, the representative of Iran told the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) this morning as the Committee met to continue considering human rights issues.

He said the absence of a commonly accepted monitoring mechanism created a gap which made possible abuse of the system for short–sighted political ends. Objectivity, cooperation and democratic interaction could bring about such a mechanism.

The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania discussed the issue of the death penalty which had been raised in the Committee, contending that abolition was a matter of domestic jurisdiction.

The Observer for Palestine said the great challenge facing the international community was to make sure the ideals and principles of human rights instruments were respected and their provisions observed.

With regard to the discrepancy between monitoring and conditions in the field, the representative of Uganda said the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo politicized the issue at a time when efforts towards a peaceful solution were under way in the Great Lakes Region. The Special Rapporteur’s misleading pessimism about achieving peace in the region ignored much progress that had been made despite outstanding obstacles.

The representative of Mexico said all countries needed impartial support to carry out the task of ensuring human rights. Sovereignty was an important consideration but issues such as the death penalty

Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3556 42nd Meeting (AM) 11 November 1999

should be seen from the human rights perspective as well, and Mexico would support the draft on abolition when it came to the Committee.

Also addressing the Committee this morning were the representatives of Australia, Cuba, Nigeria, Armenia, Benin, Libya and Antigua and Barbuda.

The Committee meets again at 3 p.m. today to conclude its current consideration of human rights issues, including alternative approaches for improving human rights; human rights situations; follow-up to the Vienna Declaration; and the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Committee Work Programme

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to continue its consideration of human rights issues, including alternative approaches for improving human rights; human rights situations; follow-up to the Vienna Declaration; and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (For background information, see press releases GA/SHC/3546 and 3547 of 4 November.)

Statements

MOSTAFA ALAIE (Iran) said the sequence of events in which the intended draft resolution on the death penalty was being introduced, and the backlash caused, was a case study in the strengths and weaknesses of collective endeavours to realize the promotion and protection of human rights. The situation indicated the pressing need to explore the root causes of the growing polarization over the universal issues of human rights.

Initiatives at the international level on human rights, he said, should be guided by the principles of international law, such as respect for national sovereignty and the right of people to freely choose their national systems without external coercion, as well as other sensitivities. The views of the majority had to be taken into account on all issues of human rights in this forum. That also had to apply to activities in the field of standard-setting and implementation of mechanisms.

He said the circumstances and conditions surrounding implementation and the absence of a comprehensive, commonly-accepted mechanism for monitoring created the foundation for abusing the system for short-sighted political ends. Thus, once a country was selectively chosen for international monitoring, no mechanism existed to lay down the conditions for compliance, in line with the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter and the international instruments.

That was a major shortcoming in implementing human rights, he added. It would be remedied by pursuing objectivity, cooperation and democratic interaction, and by including the elements guaranteeing consensus-building, which was respect for the majority will and rejection of coercion in all its forms.

CHRISTINE KAPALATA (Tanzania) said the acceptance of human rights instruments required time, consideration and consultations. The issue of the death penalty that had been raised in the Committee was a matter of domestic jurisdiction. Until States were convinced of the need for such legislation, other countries that had adopted the death penalty should not be seen as coercing others to do their bidding.

The report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burundi had spoken for itself, she said. Nowhere had the Rapporteur referred to Tanzania as a perpetrator of atrocities and violations of human rights in Burundi. Further, she welcomed the appointment of independent experts on structural adjustment policies, extreme poverty and the right to development. She noted that the independent expert had recommended the mobilization of sufficient resources to eradicate poverty as the way to alleviate it. Finally, she said, it was notable that racism and related intolerance were at the root of many of today’s conflict situations. They had a devastating effect on human rights. ANDREW GOLEDZINOWSKI (Australia) said the current challenge for the international community was to develop strategies and common understanding on the implementation of the right to development. The Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights was the right place to consider different approaches and take practical decisions in that regard. He welcomed the extent to which international organisations and institutions had begun to embrace the right to development.

There were still many differences among many countries with regard to what elements in the right to development should be emphasized, he said. Some thought the focus should be on international cooperation, including the transfer of wealth and technology as well as the forgiveness of debt. Others believed the key lay in domestic action, including sound economic policies, honest Government and strong institutions. Both elements were necessary; it would be up to the Working Group to determine the correct balance between them.

SOMAIA BARGHOUTI, the Observer for Palestine, said the great challenge facing the international community was that the ideals and principles of human rights instruments be respected and their provisions be observed. The World Conference on Human Rights called for effective measures to guarantee and monitor the implementation of human rights standards, including for peoples living under foreign occupation.

She said, continuing Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, was of great concern, she said. Israel persisted with its oppressive policies and practices against the Palestinian people, including the confiscation of land, the seizure of natural resources and the building of illegal colonial settlements. Furthermore, many were subject to detentions, imprisonment and obstruction of movement. “The international community should not tolerate that 7 million persons of a proud and old civilization are controlled and dominated, or prevented from going back to their homes, by Israel”, she said. Sustainable peace could not be achieved without Israel’s respect of Palestinian human rights.

BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA (Cuba) said universality and equality was no longer being heard in the Committee. Instead, there were politically motivated arrogant speeches containing calumny. Problems of immigrants and minorities were obvious in North America and Europe, and those problems were reported by their own sources. A single person had a hundred million dollars in the United States while a million people lived on the street. Europe continued to forget that the problems they were criticizing arose from their own actions of colonizing people.

Referring to human rights situations in the United States and Europe, he said liberty and democracy were not the sole heritage of the north. The unipolar and unequal order that existed at present allowed no progress to be made. Those disregarding the views of the majority should remember they were no longer colonizers.

OLESEGUN APATA (Nigeria) said the time had come for the international community to move from standard-setting to putting the principle and provisions of international treaties into practice. Political will was needed for implementing the ample legislation protecting human rights. Poverty alleviation and sustainable development posed a challenge to many countries in the developing world.

As a way of illustrating the progress Nigeria had made in the area of human rights, he said two years ago Nigeria had been condemned for its human rights situation. At its fifty-fifth session, the Commission on Human Rights had ended its examination of the human rights situation in Nigeria. The decision had been taken in light of the progress made toward installing democratic rule, as well as the giant steps that had been taken to redress the appalling human rights situation. Many, including the President, had been victims. Today, there were no political detainees in the country. Freedom of the press, trade union rights, due process, independence of the judiciary and freedom to associate had all been restored.

Further, he said, laws inherited from previous governments that ran counter to cherished human rights principles were under review. The situation in the Niger Delta had been mistakenly alluded to as a question of minority rights. Actually, it was a problem of development that had arisen after many years of neglect. The first bill sent by the new government to the National Assembly had been one addressing that issue.

ANNA AGHADJANIAN (Armenia) said that despite repeated affirmations by the Governments of the world, there remained more of a mystique around the right to development than around other rights. Making economic, social and cultural rights a reality remained a formidable challenge. Considering the ongoing trend toward globalization, the realization of the right to development needed greater cooperation between developed and developing nations.

She said, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity involved massive violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Those acts should never go unpunished. It was unacceptable that a criminal who killed one person was more likely to be indicted than those responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people. The establishment of an International Criminal Court was encouraging in dealing with such human rights violations.

NICOLE ELISHA (Benin) said her Government had opted for the establishment of democracy. At the executive level, great efforts had been made to ensure the rights of representatives of diverse ethnic groups. Women participated in elections. In addition, a family code was being considered by the Government in order to curtail privileges given to men. The establishment of a national human rights commission was “in the works”. Prisons in her country had no political detainees. Her Government had ratified all human rights instruments, are ecomomic progress was still too slow. There were more poor people than before, she said. The only true threat to the promotion of human rights was underdevelopment. There was an ongoing strike of civil servants in her country. Their real salaries were in decline. Structural adjustment programmes to measure social development were necessary. The concept of human rights needed to involve the economic, social and cultural dimensions of the right to development.

SEMAKULA KIWANUKA (Uganda) said the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo politicized the issue at a time when efforts toward a peaceful solution were under way in the Great Lakes Region. That would not help the peace process, carried out through new and promising initiatives supported by Uganda. The Special Rapporteur’s misleading pessimism about achieving peace in the region ignored much progress made despite outstanding obstacles. All parties looked forward to the deployment of the neutral United Nations mechanism established in the wake of the ceasefire.

He said the Special Rapporteur’s erroneous assertion that the provisions of the peace process were “dangerously ambiguous” was ill-considered and misleading. The Special Rapporteur had also failed to substantiate allegations of Ugandan soldiers raping women in Orientaale province. Uganda soldiers were highly disciplined and Uganda was highly committed to human rights. That was indicated by its involvement with United Nations human rights bodies, including a two year joint technical cooperation project with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) that would enable the Unganda Human Rights Commission to function as a self- sustaining institution.

LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA (Mexico) described his country’s extensive national programme for protecting human rights. The ombudsman system had now been legislatively authorized to conduct its activities wholly independently. There had also been intense legislative work to incorporate international standards, to enable regional and international involvement and to monitor implementation. His country had made much progress, he said. Ensuring human rights would be a permanent task and there would always be room for improvement. All countries needed impartial support for carrying out the task. Since 1994, the United Nations had been enormously helpful in the elections of his country.

With regard to the death penalty issue, he said it should be examined from the perspective not only of sovereignty but also from that of human rights, with a view to its abolition. He said many Mexicans had lost their lives to the penalty without due process over the border, a view supported by an opinion of the Inter American Human Rights Court. Mexico would support the draft on the death penalty when it was introduced in the Committee.

NAJAT ALHAJJAJI (Libya) said she regretted that some States had incorrectly touched on matters which related to Islam, especially in relation to women. Their comments showed their misunderstanding of the Koran. There needed to be a full understanding of the social and political realities for which those interpretations were made, as well as a thorough study of the cultures which had influenced Muslims.

She said women in her country had issued a document called “the rights and duties of women”. They were lofty principles, in order to enjoy all rights on an equal basis with men. The document stated, among several rights, the following: women could exercise power without any proxy; the marriage contract was on the basis of equality and mutual consent; spouse’s dowry was a right to her; women had the right of custody of children or grandchildren; women were entitled to an independent trust; no second marriage could take place except with the approval of the first wife; work was an honour and everyone was equal in taking leadership positions; social security was guaranteed to both men and women. She said any actions which can counter to those principles were considered criminal.

PATRICK A. LEWIS (Antigua and Barbuda), also speaking on behalf of the nation’s of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said recent remarks made by the European Union with regards to the death penalty had prompted him to speak. International law did not prohibit the death penalty. Instead, it recognized that the decision on that form of punishment fell within the sovereign prerogative of each Government. The CARICOM States, which recognized the death penalty, he said, implemented it as a lawful mode of punishment. It was imposed only for the most serious, premeditated crimes. He added, “It is very disturbing that a group of more powerful countries are seeking to use the very institution to which we entrusted the protection of our sovereignty as a tool to challenge the constitutions of our independent States”. The right to sovereignty, he said, conferred on States the privilege of determining the international instruments to which they became party.

* *** *