THIRD COMMITTEE HEARS REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS IN IRAN, RWANDA
Press Release
GA/SHC/3612
THIRD COMMITTEE HEARS REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS IN IRAN, RWANDA
20001101"I cannot but underline how impressed I am by the present general situation six years after the genocide", Special Representative on the situation of human rights in Rwanda, Michel Moussalli, said of that country this morning as the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met to continue discussing human rights issues.
Mr. Moussalli said he had participated in Rwandas first National Summit on Unity and Reconciliation, which had been opened by the Presidents of Rwanda and South Africa. Its conclusions had centred on the role of justice and human rights in the reconciliation process, the necessity of eradicating poverty, and the urgent need to empower youth, women and vulnerable groups for national development as part of the reconciliation process.
Yet all those efforts could break apart if the crisis and conflicts of the Great Lakes Region were not resolved, he concluded. Peace, security and the eradication of poverty were pre-requisites for progress. Those wanting to promote human rights in that part of the world must ensure full compliance with the Lusaka peace accords.
Responding to the report on his country, Rwanda's representative agreed that the age of impunity had passed for his country, but affirmed that the situation could not improve without resolution of the entire Great Lakes situation. He said the Lusaka accords had been renewed on 16 October in Maputo as the only viable course for the region, but violations continued. If the framework was not adhered to, if the right priorities were not set out and pursued, the situation would degenerate into a litany of human rights violations. The United Nations must not shy from its responsibility to work for peace in the region.
In introducing his report on the situation of human rights in Iran, the Special Representative for Iran said his conclusions and summaries were intended to be helpful, but were rather risky. Of necessity, they generalized and simplified matters which were far from simple. There was indeed progress in human rights, but it was slow and Iran still faced formidable obstacles.
Responding, Iran's representative said he wouldn't challenge the objectivity of findings on his country, but he would challenge the reports attitudes, perceptions and presumptions about a country in reform. The human rights situation should be seen in the Iranian political context. The obstacles his country faced should not overshadow real progress, nor should the report be
Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3612 42nd Meeting (AM) 1 November 2000
taken as the final judgement on his country. The speed of progress was not the issue; the more problems uncovered in the human rights situation, the more obvious it was that reforms were hitting the right targets. His country's situation did not warrant international monitoring.
Taking part in question-and-answer interchanges with the two Special Representatives were the representatives of Israel, Libya, China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Also speaking this morning on general human rights issues were the representatives of the United States, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Bangladesh, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and India.
The Committee will meet again at 3:00 p.m. today to continue considering issues related to human rights, including human rights approaches, situations, the 1993 Vienna Declaration and the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Committee is also expected to hear the introduction of several draft resolutions.
Third Committee - 2 - Press Release GA/SHC/3612 42nd Meeting (AM) 1 November 2000
Committee Work Programme
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to continue its deliberations on human rights issues, including approaches, human rights situations, the 1993 Vienna Declaration and the High Commissioner's report. (For background, see Press Release GA/SHC/3603 of 24 October.)
Introductory Statement, Special Representative on Human Rights Situation in Iran
MAURICE COPITHORNE, Special Representative on the Human Rights Situation in Iran, introduced his report to the Committee (see Press Release GA/SHC/3603 of 24 October). He said that it was no easy task to present in 32 pages what was going on in a complex, sophisticated society like that of Iran. There was indeed progress in the area of human rights in Iran, but it was a slow process that still faced formidable obstacles. Otherwise, the best he could do, he said, was identify some of the key sectors and then highlight the progress, or lack thereof, in each. He said the report basically spoke for itself. He hoped that its conclusions were helpful, but he noted that such summaries were risky, as they tended to generalize and simplify matters which were far from simple.
He went on to say that time had certainly not stood still in Iran since his report was completed in mid-August. That being so, he would try to highlight some of the developments since that time, which, while significant, were perhaps even more important as prospective indicators of positive trends. Of the legislative process in Iran, he noted that the newly elected sixth Majilis continued to take bold reform-oriented legislative initiatives. Some of those initiatives included the approval of a bill to raise the minimum age of marriage, the consideration of a bill to remove prohibition of travel abroad for educational purposes by unmarried girls, and consideration of initiatives to reduce work hours for women and to recruit women into the Governments disciplined forces.
Turning to the judicial process, he said that although the widely anticipated overhaul of the judiciary had yet to be initiated, there had been several positive developments in the sphere of juvenile justice. The first was the decision to establish separate juvenile courts, and the second was to prohibit the sentencing to death of persons under the age of 18. In the case of serial murders of intellectual activists and political dissidents, he had received information that the criminal process against 18 persons for their involvement in four of those murders had at last been launched in the Tehran Military Court. The presiding judge, along with the victims families, were now examining the case files, to be shortly followed by the setting of a date for a hearing. He also said that the trial of 17 reformers who attended a conference in Berlin had reportedly begun last week. That trial was taking place behind closed doors, and it was therefore unclear what the formal charges were.
Questions and Answers
Responding to the introductory statement of the Special Representative, the representative of Iran said his remarks would not be a challenge to the Special Representatives objectivity, but to the attitudes, perceptions and presumptions that prevailed in his report. The most fundamental requirement for any assessment of human rights situations within countries was to consider the overall political context -- the general direction of reform. Generalities would effect specificities, he added. The mainstream would affect the entire situation. Actions that might be considered counterproductive or problematic in a countrys attempts to address human rights issues, should at least make clear that such attempts to effect reform were genuine. Negative aspects and the difficulties such nations encountered should not inform evaluations of their progress.
What was the political context, the overall direction of the human rights situation in his country, he asked? That context was a genuine reformist movement evincing a normative construct throughout the country. The object of that reformist movement was centred on pluralism, creating and strengthening civil society, as well as promotion and protection of human rights, the rule of law and democratic institutions. The indicators of the movement were very clear, as the country had undertaken many elections for Parliament and local and national councils. The country had also strengthened capacity-building processes, national and democratic institutions, and had initiated processes for changing the laws to stress the promotion and protection of human rights.
The direction in Iran was towards progress, he continued. Within that progress there might have been some failures and setbacks, but that was natural in any reformist movement. He reiterated that while Iran had faced many difficulties and huge obstacles, those problems should not overshadow the real situation in the country or count as a final judgement. The more problems encountered or uncovered in human rights reform efforts, the more he was convinced the country was hitting the right targets. He noted that the Special Representative had said that progress had been slow. But the speed of progress should not be the question. There had been significant progress. As to one specific aspect of the report, he wondered why the Special Representative had highlighted the Azheri as minorities. The Azheri people were indeed an ethnic minority and they enjoyed all their human rights within the country. Perhaps the reference was an attempt at a misinformation campaign against Iran. Finally, he said that with positive reform under-way, Iran did not deserve to be subject to any international monitoring bodies.
The representative of Israel said that the report had noted the arrest of certain Iranian Jews in Iran, and he called for their release. The representative of Libya focused her intervention on the situation of women in the region -- from traditional dress to marriage. She noted that the report had highlighted health considerations related to the chador and hajid. She also suggested that special representatives should focus strictly on their mandates. She also wondered why the report focused only on the Jews involved in the trial set for the Military Court, when there were other persons involved. She asked why the Government of Iran had ceased cooperation with the Special Representative. The representative of China agreed with the statement by the representative of Iran. Progress had been made in that country, he said. And no country could claim that it had never made mistakes in trying to reform human rights situations.
Responding to the statement made by the representative of Iran, Mr. Copithorne said he believed that both he and that representative could agree that the political context in Iran was extremely important, and that it was the overall trend of developments that counted. The trend over the last three years had indeed been noble. Progress was certainly being made and the trend was irreversible.
Turning to the comments by the representative of Libya, Mr. Copithorne said that his comments on the chador worn by Iranian women had been quoted from research done by Iranian women, who, he felt, were in a position to know its health implications. As for the trial, he said that there had perhaps been a misunderstanding. The report had made clear that both Jews and Muslims were involved in the trial. Finally, he noted that the Government of Iran had been cooperating with him on several levels, but he had not been able to visit that country. As for the reason, he said that perhaps that was a question better addressed to the Iranian Government.
Introduction of Report on Human Rights Situation of Rwanda
MICHEL MOUSSALLI, Special Representative for Rwanda, said he had just returned from an 11-day mission to that country in preparation for his oral report to the Committee. He had participated in the first National Summit on Unity and Reconciliation, opened by the Presidents of Rwanda and South Africa. "I cannot but underline how impressed I am by the present general situation in Rwanda six years after the genocide," he said.
Continuing, he pointed out that nearly three million refugees had returned to Rwanda between 1996 and 1998. Security had improved considerably since 1997, although isolated incidents of killings and disappearances continued. While the Local Defence Forces at times abused their power, on the whole -- and compared to the situation prevailing in the Great Lakes Region -- Rwanda was an island of stability and relative security.
While the number of prisoners had decreased slightly since 1999, lack of resources and the drought of the past year had created a deplorable situation. Some of those incarcerated for common law crimes went without eating for four days, while overcrowding had forced prisoners to be divided into shifts for sitting or sleeping. The Ministry of the Interior was taking corrective steps. First, communal projects would allow prisoners to work outside prisons. Second, the rate of case examinations had increased this year, even though it would still take 200 years for the present judicial system to examine the remaining cases before it. For that reason, the Rwandan native system of justice, based on local tradition at the community level, was being reinstituted. Called Gacaca, the system was expected to be applied early next year. It required the election of some 256,000 judges at the cell level. If basic safeguards were respected and applied, it was to be commended. Obviously, the logistics and training requirements were considerable and would need support by the international community.
He expressed concern regarding the situation of children, women and the displaced, commending the international agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) helping to improve the living conditions of the vulnerable. Yet the situation of orphaned street children was such that they were forced into crimes, while women survivors of the genocide were traumatized and without support or recourse against perpetrators. The 350,000 displaced persons had not been integrated and were living in very precarious conditions under plastic sheeting. A successful integration project developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Programme (WFP) had been interrupted due to lack of resources. UNHCR had said the international community withheld funding in the belief that efforts should be directed towards development. However, the tension created by the situation was of concern, and the UNHCR Acting Representative in Rwanda was hoping to restart assistance.
Finally, he recapped the positive impact of the first National Summit on Unity and Reconciliation. It had issued conclusions that centred on the role of justice and human rights in the reconciliation process, the necessity of eradicating poverty, and the urgency with which the Government must develop programmes to empower youth, women and vulnerable groups, so that they could participate in decision-making and national development as part of the unifying reconciliation process. Further, he said an agreement had been concluded on 25 October between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Rwanda's National Commission on Human Rights. It would facilitate the national commission's technical and substantive capacity to increase its effectiveness and to create linkages with other national bodies and organs.
Overall, he said that while both the human rights and the reconciliation commissions had been off to a slow start, they were now effective and independent. A "group of friends" of the commissions provided support. The Constitutional Commission could join to benefit from the advice and support. Yet all those efforts could break apart if the crisis and conflicts of the Great Lakes were not resolved. Peace, security and the eradication of poverty were prerequisites for progress. Those wanting to promote human rights in that part of the world must take all necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the Lusaka peace accords.
Questions and Answers
Responding to the report on his country, Rwanda's representative said its situation was one of the worst of the last century. The inclusiveness of the Government formed after the genocide ensured that the culture of human rights was high in Rwanda's spirit, and the culture of impunity was gone. But the situation could not improve if the Great Lakes situation was not resolved. The Lusaka Agreements had been renewed on 16 October in Maputo as the only viable course for the region. Still, the brokered agreement was being violated. If the framework was not adhered to, if the right priorities were not set out and pursued, then the situation would degenerate and become a litany of human rights violations. The United Nations must urge those parties to the conflict which still had faith to swallow their pride and work for peace. Most importantly, the United Nations should not shy away from its responsibility.
With regard to the situations enumerated in the report, he said the Rwandan Red Cross was embarking on a programme to rehabilitate Rwandan street children. To start it off, the European Union and Germany would contribute 90 per cent of the funding, while Rwanda contributed 10 per cent. Rwanda's small contribution was an indication of its present limited capacity to cope with its problems, while its commitment to human rights was evident from its eagerness to use all resources to help ensure the human rights of its people. Similarly, while some had held reservations about the traditional form of justice to which his country was reverting, those who visited and had seen it in action had changed their views. Hopefully, the international community would heed the report's recommendations, not just in relation to his country but to the entire Great Lakes Region.
In response to an exchange between the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Libya, concerning responsibility for instability in the region and the integrity of Africa's cultural values, MOUSSALLI, the Special Representative, said he understood the need to work with African traditional ways. With regard to the wider picture, he said his mandate was limited. It consisted of making recommendations that reconciled individual rights with national ones. Also, his investigations could not go beyond borders. He said better service could be rendered to Rwanda and the Great Lakes Region by the international community. The civilian population was being held hostage and the region was being pillaged. Responsibility had to be assigned now, because nothing had been done during the genocide and now, much more needed to be done for the whole region. "Civil society pays the price for political decisions", he said, calling on the international community to ensure implementation and secure respect for the Lusaka Agreements. He said significant progress had been made since 1997. Now, a climate of dignity must be created. International partners were critical to the implementation of the agreements.
Statements
BETTY KING (United States) said that in the 50-year history of the United Nations, the first great triumph had been the collapse of colonialism. As dozens of new nations from Africa to Asia and the Caribbean came into being, human rights instruments were developed and assumed by countries. With the fall of the Warsaw Pact, the people of the Baltic region, Central and Eastern Europe had gained the freedom they had long been denied. While part of the Balkans had been left on the wrong side of history and human rights, the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic by the Serbian people had been the greatest victory for human rights.
She said millions of lives had been shattered by ethnic hatred in the former Yugoslavia, but hatred had run its course over time. Fifty-five years after World War II, Europe was nearly whole, free and democratic. While Belarus was dominated by a dictator, Russia today was a democratic country and a monument to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the overthrow of Soviet communism. The brutal violation of individual rights that had marked the regime were history, though the conflict in Chechnya was accompanied by daily reports of violence and an agonizing loss of life, indicating the fight could not be ended militarily. The international community must assist in finding a political settlement capable of promoting reconciliation and restoring regional stability.
In addition, she said, Russia must uphold its international commitments. The continued stories of human rights violations, and the lack of prosecution of those responsible, indicated Russia's lack of compliance with the international voice as expressed through a resolution of the Commission on Human Rights. That fostered a culture of impunity and encouraged abuse.
On other situations, she said the lack of freedom and political pluralism in Central Asia was of concern. Elections last year in Uzbekistan had been neither free nor fair, while Kyrgyzstan's bright promise seemed to have dimmed. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan had become the world's largest supplier of heroin and the home base of the terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Iraq had sought to take advantage of the unfortunate Middle East tensions to raise the spectre of a wider war. Burma's human rights record was among the worst of any nation. China continued to suppress political dissent. While the summit meeting between leaders in the Korean peninsula had inspired hope, dreadful violations of rights also continued there. Indonesia remained a troubled archipelago.
The people of Côte d'Ivoire, however, had defended democracy and forced the departure of a leader who had tried to steal the presidential elections last week. The people of Sierra Leone had lived with horror for far too long and were showing welcome signs that stability had returned. Sudan had added a blatant repression of religious freedom to its list of human rights abuses. Within the western hemisphere, Cuba's human rights violations continued to stand out, though the United States had sent the Cuban people more than a billion dollars in donations, sales and remittances since January 1999. Contrary to popular perception, medical sales had always been permitted. Agricultural sales had recently been permitted. Colombia, on the other hand, had made a clear commitment to improving its human rights situation and her country was ready to help it turn the corner on its problems.
Finally, she invited a visit to the United States web site for further information on relations between her country and others, as well as to gain familiarity with her own. She said it was not surprising that frank discussion of country situations made some countries uncomfortable. Yet the solution was not to suppress discussion but rather to improve the human rights conditions in the countries mentioned.
FAWZI BIN ABDUL MAJEED SHOBOKSHI (Saudi Arabia) said no one person or nation should attempt to impose their notions of fundamental rights and freedoms on others. In Saudi Arabia, the source of all rights-based issues and concepts was the Creator. That divine principle had made human rights individual rights, and not subject to prescription except by individuals or the will of society. His Government applied the religion of Islam in letter and spirit, and based all its objectives in the area of human rights on the Islamic Sharia. It had left no stone unturned to preserve, promote and protect those rights. In that regard, two committees -- one governmental and the other non-governmental had been appointed to focus on human rights questions. It was his view that respect for human rights was a lofty principle implying an important responsibility to all members of the international community -- namely, the principle that respect for diverse creeds, traditions and civilizations was central to human rights.
Saudi Arabia paid special attention to the need to cooperate with all United Nations human rights agencies. To that end, the Government was currently considering acceding to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, as well as other international human rights conventions or instruments. The country was also keen on becoming a member of the Commission on Human Rights in the coming year to help nurture a culture of human rights. His delegation supported contributions to voluntary funds for human rights.
Religious tolerance was a precondition for the promotion and protection of human rights. The Saudi Arabian system guaranteed full religious rights to all people within the country. Non-Muslims enjoyed fundamental freedoms, including the practice of religion and access to employment opportunities. Finally, he said that in the new millennium, he was convinced that the future of humanity could thrive only through respect and cooperation among nations. Peace, cooperation, equality and fraternity were not the preserve of a specific society. It was up to the international community to ensure respect for those rights. In that regard, particular attention should be paid to the current situation in the occupied Arab territories. The task was to adhere to objective standards, noting ideological and cultural specificities and avoid using human rights questions as a pretext for interfering in internal affairs.
ASDA JAYANAMA (Thailand) said his country believed in the universality, interdependence and indivisibility of human rights. Indeed all the issues before the Committee from the elimination of racism to the right to self- determination should be considered as part of the human rights regime. Equal attention should also be given to the promotion and protection of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. While the right to development was the bridge between economic disparity and the promotion of the general welfare of the people, development alone was not enough. In order for it to be sustainable, individuals must be allowed to enjoy basic rights, ranging from the right to food and healthcare to the right to shelter and free choice. To implement all those core values not only required political will on the part of national governments, but also cooperation among civil society, the private sector, the press and NGOs.
For its part, Thailand was committed to ensuring an open and democratic society. In that regard, the Government had been vigorously undertaking efforts to promote and safeguard the rights of its citizens, strengthen the rule of law and enhance good governance and democratic values. It tackled human rights- related issues in a holistic manner. Moreover, the Thai constitution offered a full guarantee of human rights protection to all members of society. At the same time, obsolete laws had been updated to ensure consistency with international human rights standards. The country was also establishing a National Human Rights Commission. At the regional level, Thailand had been actively involved in efforts toward establishing an Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) human rights mechanism.
ANWARUL KARIM CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) hailed the signing ceremony for human rights instruments during the Millennium Summit, which had identified the 25 most critical treaties to be put into effect. He said his country had become party to six, four of them human rights treaties: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. It had also signed two weapons conventions, both of which had strong human rights implications. As a result, Bangladesh was now a party to all the core human rights instruments.
Universal ratification was not an end in itself, however, it was implementation that mattered. Towards that end, the United Nations must strengthen and rationalize the treaty system and the mechanisms designed to disseminate its output and information. It must do more to promote rights-based approaches to development, peacekeeping and humanitarian affairs. At the national level, independent national mechanisms were the best safeguards against human rights violations. The United Nations must provide technical assistance for legislative review, reporting, implementation of recommendations and awareness-raising activities, as well as for training of government officials.
Further, he continued, four key issues must be taken into account. First, the right to development must be applied to all countries equally, just as the fruits of globalization must benefit all. The spread of new technology must be handled for constructive purposes rather than for destructive ones -- such as the dissemination of hatred. Also, emerging economic and trade regimes must be adjusted to benefit rather than marginalize people. Poverty must be eradicated so as to reduce the incidence of poor people resorting to such practices as trafficking in humans. Finally, he said the culture of impunity for human rights violations must stop, and human rights defenders must be protected as the very foundation of the human rights movement.
DONKA GLIGOROVA (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said her country was particularly committed to the protection of human rights, above all those of national minorities. It was one of the guiding indicators of democratic development. As part of its ongoing process to improve inter-ethnic relations, her country had instituted legislation that paved the way for higher education in minority languages.
The activities of regional organizations were especially important in that regard, she said, enumerating activities and instruments whereby the Council of Europe promoted such protection of rights. In addition, she said the Millennium Assembly had presented an opportunity to resolve issues at the international level, in line with the Millennium Summit Declaration which obligated States with regard to future actions. In particular, she said the root causes of conflicts should be identified, and prevention should be recognized as the primary instrument. An International Centre for Conflict Prevention and Resolution had been established in Skopje, her country's capital. She pointed out that the
Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe had played a determining role in creating stable democratic societies and in promoting economic prosperity for her region.
J.G. MOHANTA (India) commented on the reports presented by the special rapporteurs, special representatives and independent experts, as well as that of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The role of the Office of the High Commissioner was unique in that it was one of the United Nations organs through which international humanitarian law had been codified and implemented. In order to effect that work, -- namely the promotion and protection of human rights -- the Office must have the widest possible understanding of the sensitive and intricate nature of the issues involved. Therefore, it required a broad geographical representation. That, however, was not currently the case. Human rights were not the prerogative of one civilization, she said: universal human rights could only be promoted and defended if the United Nations reflected all points of view.
Turning to other reports, she said her delegation appreciated the comprehensive work of the Independent Expert on the Right to Development. She said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on Summary Executions had provided information on allegations in a number of countries, but had failed to mention Afghanistan, where such violations occurred in their most heinous form. That type of selectivity sent the wrong signals to the perpetrators of such crimes, and also carried with it the risk that reports might be suspected of political bias. She went on to say that she was shocked that the Special Rapporteur had noted India in a list of countries violating the right to life of persons expressing freedom of expression. Nowhere was freedom of expression more liberal, sometimes to the point of license, than India. Nowhere were street demonstrations and public action more common.
She said that her delegation was further surprised that India had been listed among countries where large-scale extra-judicial killings were being carried out by Government security forces and armed groups. That was utter nonsense. Indias open, democratic, plural and rules-based society could not and did not allow such practices. Nor could such practices be hidden from the media or escape the scrutiny of the judiciary system. Finally, the report's conclusion that the global situation with regard to respect for the right to life was bleak did not reflect the increase in the number of countries choosing democratic governance with an independent judiciary. While India appreciated the work of the Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, the delegation noted that the analyses of communications and responses should have been more broad-based.
* *** *