Human Rights Committee

Seventy-first Session

1901^st Meeting (PM)

WOMEN AND FAMILY, RELIGION, INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AMONG ISSUES DISCUSSED

IN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF VENEZUELA'S REPORT

The situation of women and the family, the question of religion and the rights of indigenous people were among the issues addressed by the delegation of Venezuela this afternoon as the Human Rights Committee concluded its consideration of that country’s third periodic report on compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

A representative of Venezuela’s delegation said the country’s Prosecutor’s office had a directorate for the protection of women and children and families.  There was a mediation procedure, as well as a procedure for a hearing before the court. The Constitution established that there were no prohibitions on religions, as long as the law was respected, she added. 

Another member of the delegation said that one function of Venezuela’s Ombudsman’s office was to ensure that the rights of indigenous people were respected.  There were ombudsmen to deal with indigenous issues, including specific ethnic groups, he noted.  The Constitution provided for special treatment of indigenous issues.

Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati of India, Committee Chairman, made a closing statement on behalf of the Committee.  As he did so, he stressed that no matter how good the Constitution, it would not lead towards good governance or the promotion of human rights unless its provisions were brought into practice. 

The Committee had learned a lot about Venezuela’s efforts to give effect to the provisions of the Covenant from the delegation’s oral briefing.  However, there were still a number of areas that needed further clarification.  Among them were the low level of participation of women in the National Assembly, aspects of the problem of violence against women and issues related to abortion.  He was glad to learn that the period of eight days of detention before individuals were brought before a court had been reduced to 24 hours and was happy to learn that the Ombudsman’s office was addressing complaints of torture and violations of human rights. 

Jose Rafael Avendano, Director of Internal Politics, Department of Internal Affairs and Justice of Venezuela, assured the Committee that once members could read the lengthy answers provided by the delegation at their leisure, many doubts would be dispelled.  He understood that there had been time constraints as well as language constraints in reading the documents.  He gave a formal commitment that any point not covered in the report would be answered within a week and that

statistics requested over the course of the Committee’s consideration would be sent as soon as possible.  The Government had no interest in concealing any facts.

In other business this afternoon, the Committee took up its draft General Comment on article 4 of the Covenant, which relates to derogations from the provisions of the Covenant in times of public emergency.  The Committee began a paragraph-by-paragraph review of the draft, adopting paragraph 1 with a minor oral amendment.  Following lengthy discussion, it was decided that paragraph 2 would be further considered at tomorrow’s meeting.  Paragraph 3 was also discussed without being adopted.

General Comments are recommendations made by the Committee on various articles of the Covenant.  Through their adoption, the Committee reiterates its desire to assist States parties in fulfilling their reporting obligations.  The comments draw attention to some aspects of the treaty, but do not purport to be limitative or to attribute any priority to different aspects of the Covenant.

Martin Scheinin of Finland, coordinator for the relevant working group, introduced the subject.

The Committee will meet tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. to continue consideration of its draft General Comment on article 4.

Background

The Human Rights Committee met this afternoon to conclude its consideration, begun yesterday, of the third periodic report of Venezuela’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/C/VEN/98/3).  (For further background, see Press Release HR/CT/590 of 19 March and Press Release HR/CT/592 of 20 March.)

The Committee was also expected to start consideration of its draft General Comment on article 4 of the Covenant, which relates to derogations from the provisions of the Covenant in times of public emergency.  General comments are recommendations made by the Committee on various articles of the Covenant.  Through their adoption, the Committee reiterates its desire to assist States parties in fulfilling their reporting obligations.  The comments draw attention to some aspects of the treaty, but do not purport to be limitative or to attribute any priority to different aspects of the Covenant. 

Answers by Delegation

JOSE RAFAEL AVENDANO, Director of Internal Politics, Department of Internal Affairs and Justice of Venezuela, responded to questions posed this morning by the Committee.  He said the delegation had listened carefully to each of the questions raised, many of which had dealt with the possibility of implementing theoretical matters.  There was a new Constitution in the country and that would determine the rhythm of bringing ordinary legislation into line.  Time would be needed for the transition. 

The Government did not want to rush into adopting laws to complement the constitutional mandate, he continued.  The new Constitution had only been in force for a year and two months, and new laws were still being produced.  The Constitution was being adapted to principles declared at the international level, a process that would affect the pace of implementation of laws on the equality of men and women and indigenous property rights. 

He said there were no limitations placed on foreigners or citizens with regard to access to bodies in charge of applying the law of Venezuela.  Regarding the absence of programmes to help women, he said Venezuela was a country of contrasts.  Eighty per cent of the population was in a state of critical poverty

-- a reality which impacted on the question of equality.

There was no law guaranteeing homosexual rights, he said, as there was no legislation that would in any way restrict their constitutional or legal freedoms.  On the participation of women at the senior level of government, he pointed out that the country had 30 women ambassadors and that 50 per cent of officials in the external service were women.  There was a quota of 75 per cent women in the lower echelons.

Other questions raised had been addressed in answers already given or in the report provided to the Committee, he said.  Often when the delegation had given answers, some of the committee members seemed to have been distracted.  That was why some answers had not seemed clear.

ALIS CAROLINE FARINAS SANGUINE (Venezuela) said the comments made by the Committee had enabled the delegation to take a step back.  It had realized that many laws, such as the criminal code, had to be adapted to international treaties.  The Prosecutor’s office was working on a draft bill to reform the criminal code in order to update it, bearing in mind the principles of the Constitution.

Regarding a question about a girl recruited by guerrillas, she said there was no evidence available that she was fighting with the Colombian guerrilla forces.  It was, in any case, an isolated case.  The offices of the Prosecutor and the Ombudsman had been following the case closely and had paid attention to the girl’s physical, psychological and moral situation as well as her education.

The problem of unidentified children had existed for a long time, she said.  However, children of all nationalities, even without proper papers, could go to school.

The question of abortion always caused a crisis because of Venezuela’s cultural, Catholic background.  There was indeed a prohibition against abortion, except for therapeutical reasons.  A woman pregnant as result of rape could have a therapeutic abortion.  In case of a minor, however, legal counsel had to be sought.  The law protected the child even before birth, which explained the prohibition against abortion.

She said she did not have any statistics on trafficking in women from Colombia into Venezuela. It was not a massive phenomena.  If any such cases existed, the immigration law would apply, as well as other international laws and treaties.

Regarding violence against women and families, she said the Prosecutor’s office had a directorate for the protection of women and children and families.  There was a mediation procedure as well as a procedure for a hearing before the court.  Some cases were very complex, such as the case where the woman had to be removed from the home because the woman was committing acts of violence.

Regarding the question of religion, she said the Department for Internal Affairs was responsible for religion and all religions had to be registered there.  There had been problems with sects who had acted against families, such as the Moon sect and the “new tribes”.  Those sects were not religions.  However, the Constitution established that there were no prohibitions on religions, provided that the law was respected.  Catholicism and some other religions had State subsidies.

Answering a question about sexual harassment of women, she said there was a law covering violence against women and families, and a similar law was also envisaged concerning harassment of women.  It was a concealed crime, but the office of the Prosecutor did deal with complaints.  Women complaining usually were demoted, which made prosecution even more difficult.

GERMAN SALTRON (Venezuela), Ombudsman’s office, said the office was supposed to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples were respected.  There were ombudsmen to deal with indigenous issues, including specific ethnic groups.  The Constitution provided for special treatment of indigenous issues, and three members of the national Congress dealt specifically with their issues.  Members of ethnic groups had participated in recent elections, he said, citing an instance where indigenous rights had been violated and the Ombudsman’s office had defended them. 

He did not have statistics at hand regarding the number of schools that offered bilingual education -- they would be presented to the Committee shortly. 

Mr. AVENDANO then read out an explanatory memorandum on why the term indigenous “people” was used.  The use of the term “people” recognized the specific entities and socio-cultural aspects that differentiated them from other members of society. 

He said that in Venezuela there was complete freedom of religion.  All that the Directorate of Religions did was to act as a representative framework for religions, he noted.  There were no restrictions on religions.  However as there was a majority of Catholics in the country, there was a modus vivendi in place between the Government and the Church.  He clarified that there was no concept of conscientious objection in the country.

Closing Remarks and Statements

An expert noted that a number of questions she had asked had not been answered -- she hoped that the delegation would provide specific answers subsequently.

PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BHAGWATI of India, Committee Chairman, then made a closing statement on behalf of the Committee.  He thanked the delegation for its intervention.  He hoped that the long break between the second and third report would not be repeated in the future.  Venezuela was undergoing profound changes.  He wished to stress that no matter how good the Constitution, it would not lead towards good governance or the promotion of human rights unless its provisions were brought into practice.  That was why members of the Committee had stressed that point. 

The Committee had learned a lot about Venezuela’s efforts in giving effect to the provisions of the Covenant from the delegation’s oral expose.  However, in the opinion of the Committee, there were still a number of areas that needed further clarification.  Among them was the low level of participation of women in the National Assembly -- around 10 per cent.  Was there any thinking on the subject?  He also brought up the difference in ages -- 14 for women, 16 for men -- between the sexes for marriage, and aspects of the problem of violence against women that had yet to be resolved. 

He noted that health care officials in Venezuela were bound to report abortions, which resulted in women being afraid to seek care.  He was glad to learn that the period of 8 days of detention before individuals were brought before a court had been reduced to 24 hours.  He was concerned that there was no independent mechanism in place for lodging complaints against the police and that judges were not allowed to form an association among themselves.  It was heartening to note that the Supreme Court had struck down the vagrancy act.  He had been very happy to learn that the Ombudsman’s office was entertaining complaints of torture and violations of human rights.  He hoped that the Government of Venezuela would take into account the Committee’s comments and concerns.

Closing Statement of Delegation    

Mr. AVENDANO (Venezuela) assured the Committee that once members could read the lengthy answers provided by the delegation at their leisure, many doubts would

be dispelled.  He understood that there had been time constraints as well as language constraints in reading the documents.  He gave a formal commitment that any point not covered in the report would be answered within a week and that requested statistics would be sent to the Committee as soon as possible.  The Government had no interest in concealing any facts.

He thanked the Committee for its kindness and warm welcome.  He was grateful to the Committee for facilitating the meeting yesterday and today instead of last year, for the opportunity to explain Venezuela’s point of view and to answer questions.

Consideration of Draft General Comment on Article 4

MARTIN SCHEININ, Committee Member from Finland, introduced the second reading of the draft General Comment on article 4 (document AACPR/C/71/Rev.7).  He said there was an early General Comment (number 5) on the article, but it was very brief.  Since that comment, there had been a lot of cases of States notifying the Committee of a state of emergency relating to article 4.  The Committee had been able to address many of those situations. 

Another factor necessitating a new general comment related to exchanges between the Committee and other organs of the United Nations.  It had been suggested that the right to a fair trial and the right of habeas corpus should be put into a third additional protocol.   The Committee thought, however, that yet another instrument would not be helpful. 

The Commission on Human Rights had been dealing with a process of fundamental standards of humanity, aimed at identifying and implementing certain fundamental rights of individuals.  The Commission had sought an opinion of the Committee as to what should be done to strengthen the regime of fundamental rights in situations of emergencies.  The Committee therefore decided to draft a new general comment. 

He said in the draft, the issue of non-derogable rights had been emphasized.  Amnesty International had sent a submission, and some suggestions made might be incorporated in the general comment.

The Committee then addressed the draft General Comment paragraph by paragraph and, after discussion, adopted paragraph 1 with a minor adjustment.  After a lengthy discussion of paragraph 2, the Committee decided to defer that

* *** *