COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS STARTS CONSIDERATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS STARTS CONSIDERATION

OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Hears from Four Mandate Holders Dealing

With Extrajudicial or Arbitrary Executions, Arbitrary Detention, and Torture

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 31 March (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights today started its consideration of civil and political rights, hearing from the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Chairperson of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Fund for Victims of Torture.

Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that she had recently seen a disturbing trend towards the arbitrary use of force on all continents, and she was deeply concerned that there had been no improvement in the situation with regard to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.  In addition, she was disturbed at reports received in the last year from at least five countries where aerial bombardment or firing had been used to kill civilians or suspected terrorists.  Even in the face of tough challenges, governments could not derogate from their obligation to respect the right to life.

Jamaica and Brazil took the floor as concerned countries, and Canada, Jamaica, Pakistan, Switzerland and Ireland on behalf of the European Union participated in the inter-active dialogue that followed the presentation of the report of the Special Rapporteur.

Leila Zerrougui, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, said that in 2003, the Working Group had adopted 26 opinions with regard to 151 persons living in 12 countries.  In 131 cases, it had decided that the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary in nature, and from the 23 November 2002 to 7 November 2003, it had addressed 157 urgent appeals regarding 812 persons to 47 governments.  Thirty-three of the concerned Governments had informed the Working Group that they had taken steps to remedy the situation of the detained.

Argentina spoke as a concerned country, while Canada, Cuba, China and Ireland on behalf of the European Union participated in the inter-active dialogue.

Theo van Boven, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said that as a Special Rapporteur he was aware that his work would have limited effect unless methods and procedures of coherent and regular follow-up were improved.  In his main report, he had highlighted two issues: first, guarantees for individuals deprived of their liberty with a view of protecting them from the risk of torture and other forms of ill-treatment; and, second, HIV/AIDS and torture. 

Spain and Brazil spoke as concerned countries, and Canada, Cuba and Switzerland participated in the inter-active dialogue.

The last mandate holder to present his report to the meeting was Ivan Tosevski, Chairperson of the twenty-second session of the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, who said that the Board made recommendations for grants only on the basis of contributions officially registered by the United Nations Treasurer and available in the Fund during its session.  For the year 2004, more than 200 projects throughout the world had submitted their requests for funding, amounting to US$ 13.3 million.  On the other hand, for the next session of the Board, only $1,067,037 in contributions was available so far.

Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan commented on the work of the mandate holders who spoke during the meeting.

Egypt, Cuba, United States, Sri Lanka, Argentina on behalf of MERCOSUR, and the Sudan delivered statements after the general debate on civil and political rights was opened.

Cuba and the United States spoke in right of reply.

The Commission is meeting behind closed doors from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. this afternoon to take up its 1503 procedure which involves discussing the situation of human rights in a number of countries in private.  When it reconvenes on Thursday, 1 April at 10 a.m., the Commission will continue with its consideration of civil and political rights.

Documents on Civil and Political Rights

Under this agenda item the Commission has before it a series of documents.

There is a report(E/CN.4/2004/3 and Add.1, Add.2 and Corr.1 and Add.3) of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.  During 2003, the Working Group adopted 26 opinions concerning 151 persons in 12 countries.  In 131 cases, it considered the deprivation of liberty to be arbitrary.  During the period from 23 November 2002 to 7 November 2003, the Working Group transmitted a total of 157 urgent appeals concerning 812 individuals to 47 governments; 147 were joint appeals with other thematic or country-oriented mandates of the Commission.  Thirty-three concerned Governments informed the Working Group that they had taken measures to remedy the situation of the detainees referred to.  In some cases, the detainees were released, and in other cases the Working Group was assured that the detainees concerned would receive fair trial guarantees.  In its recommendations, the Working Group attaches particular importance to the question of protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of the fight against terrorism.   As issues of concern, the Working Group mentions discrimination; deprivation of the liberty of vulnerable persons; pre-trial detention; and deprivation of liberty linked to use of the Internet.

A report of the Working Group’s visit to Iran (Add.2) reviews the institutional and legal framework for detention; cites efforts made and difficulties encountered; describes prospects for reform; and discusses situations of arbitrary detention and their causes.  It makes recommendations, among other things, on the proliferation of judicial decision-making bodies; the practice of solitary confinement; the situation of prisoners of conscience; the right to due process; and imprisonment for debt.

An account of the Working Group’s visit to Argentina (Add.3) observes that the policy of the new Argentine Government is based on defending and promoting human rights and on combating impunity and corruption, and that the Government has taken important measures in these areas.  It recommends, among other things, that the Argentine Government take urgent measures to improve the human rights situation of detainees, particularly their right to due process; that it review its legislation and practices in the area of pre-trial detention; that it closely monitor the activities of senior and junior police officers; that it support the work of prosecutors investigating the criminal practice of falsifying police procedures; that it implement in full the Convention on the Rights of the Child with regard to the detention of juveniles; and that it guarantee an effective judicial remedy for administrative orders to detain immigrants.

Also before the Commission was the report (E/CN.4/2004/7 and Corr.1 and Add.1, Add.2 and Corr.1 and Add.3) of Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Asma Jahangir, who recommends, among other things, that the United Nations strengthen early-warning mechanisms so that acts of genocide and crimes against humanity can be avoided; that governments should not to resort to aerial bombing, use of snipers or pre-emptive strikes; that orders to “shoot on sight” must only be given as a measure of last resort to protect lives; that law enforcement personnel should receive in-depth training on human rights; that Governments should respect peoples’ rights to freedom of association and expression; that they should maintain data banks with precise information on reports of extrajudicial killings; and that they should end systematic and institutional impunity for honour killings of women.

The first Addendum to the report contains a summary of cases transmitted to Governments and the replies received from them, including the Governments of Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Chad, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Name, Yemen and Zimbabwe.  There was also a case involving the Palestinian Authority.

The second addendum concerns the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Jamaica.  It was the Special Rapporteur’s distinct impression that extrajudicial executions by the police, and possibly in a very few cases also the Jamaican Defense Forces, had in fact taken place.  She recommends among other things, that the Government take measures to streamline the criminal justice system; that authorities at all levels clearly make stronger efforts to condemn all forms of misuse of force by the security forces and that they make no attempt to protect those accused of extrajudicial executions; that capital punishment not be imposed on minors or the mentally ill; and that an investigation be undertaken to ensure that international standards and restrictions on the imposition of capital punishment have been observed.

The third Addendum concerns the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Brazil, during which she notes she was overwhelmed with information of human rights violations perpetrated by security forces, in particular the military police, with total impunity.  Among other things, the Special Rapporteur recommends that Brazil’s criminal legal procedure be streamlined without compromising due process, so as to end impunity; that the judiciary carry out drastically needed reforms to cope with delays and backlogs; that public prosecutors’ offices be strengthened; that police officers indicted for extrajudicial killing be suspended until the conclusion of their trials; that the Government establish a databank on human rights violations attributed to members of law-enforcement agencies and ensure the protection of anyone in danger of extrajudicial execution, including those receiving death threats; and that witness protection programmes be better funded.

There is a report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (E/CN.4/2004/53 and Add.1) which updates information contained in the report to the General Assembly on the activities of the United Nations Voluntary Fund and on recent trends, in particular with respect to assistance provided to victims of torture and their relatives through the Fund, as well as the impact of this assistance on beneficiaries.  The Addendum provides information on the latest contributions made before the twenty-third session of the Board, as well as information on progress made on the evaluation of the Fund requested by the Commission on Human Rights in paragraph 39 or its resolution 2003/32.

There is a report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, Theo van Boven, (E/CN.4/2004/56 and Add.1, Add.2 and Add.3), in which the Special Rapporteur summarizes his activities in 2003; describes communications sent to Governments and the urgent appeals process; draws attention to a number of guarantees for individuals deprived of their liberty with a view to protecting them from the risk of torture and other forms of ill-treatment; examines the question of HIV/AIDS and torture; and contains some information on follow-up to a preliminary study on the situation of trade in and production of equipment specifically designed to inflict torture or other cruel treatment.

The first addendum to the report concerns the Special Rapporteur's communications to Governments and replies received from them from 15 December 2002 to 15 December 2003, as well as a number of country-specific observations.

The second addendum concerns the Special Rapporteur's visit to Spain and contains a study of legal and factual aspects regarding allegations of torture or ill treatment, in particular as regards detainees held in connection with counter-terrorism measures.  The Special Rapporteur concludes that torture or ill treatment is not systematic in Spain, but that the system as it is practiced allows torture or ill treatment to occur, particularly with regard to persons detained incommunicado in connection with terrorist-related activities.  He recommends a number of measures through which the Government may comply with its commitment to prevent and suppress acts of torture and other forms of ill treatment.

The third addendum concerns follow-up to recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on visits to Azerbaijan, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Romania, Turkey and Uzbekistan.

Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions

ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, said this would be her final statement to the Commission.  She was grateful for the cooperation many States had shown her and for the invitations they had extended for visits; yet the challenge of inducing cooperation from many other States remained frustrating.  She urged better cooperation by Member States.

Her mandate was an exercise in sorrow; only a fraction of the information she received appeared in the reports she submitted to the Commission.  She had recently seen a disturbing trend towards the arbitrary use of force on all continents, and she was deeply concerned that there had been no improvement in the situation with regard to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.  Most Governments had either been slow in recognizing and addressing such problems or had remained indifferent to them.  In addition, she was disturbed at reports received in the last year from at least five countries where aerial bombardment or firing had been used to kill civilians or suspected terrorists, and was concerned about reports where authorities ordered security forces to shoot on sight to disperse crowds and demonstrators.  Even in the face of tough challenges, Governments could not derogate from their obligation to respect the right to life.  Even in times of public emergency or in the context of the fight against terrorism they could not do so.

She had expressed concern in February, in keeping with her early-warning obligations, about the deteriorating situation in the Darfur region of Sudan,    Ms. Jahangir said.  The Government of Sudan had graciously invited her to visit, and she would carry out this mission in June.

There had been numerous reports of excessive use of force during repression of peaceful demonstrations.  Such reports cited events in Bolivia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Indonesia, and Ms. Jahangir said she urged authorities in those countries to undertake transparent, independent investigations of those incidents.  The situation in Myanmar was disturbing, and she had received numerous reports describing scenes in which Government soldiers summarily executed or tortured civilians and gang-raped women before shooting them dead.  Torture and deaths in custody also remained a great concern in various countries, and honour killings continued to occur, often with very little action in response by Governments.

RANSFORD A. SMITH (Jamaica), speaking as a concerned country, said Jamaica had cooperated fully with the Special Rapporteur during her visit, but credibility depended on accuracy and balance, and in this regard the report fell short and was marred by too many generalizations, conjectures and unsupported conclusions.  Anyone familiar with Jamaica would treat these distortions with scant regard.  The report contravened elementary standards of fairness and balance.  The Government would continue its efforts to strengthen institutional machinery for fielding complaints of human rights violations and would continue to provide access to it for all citizens.  These initiatives, which were already in train, were in full agreement with the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur.

Jamaica’s Office of the Public Defender had been established to provide full access for redress to the population.  Many changes had been made to the Office, both at the national and inter-governmental levels.  These measures were grounded in the spirit and intent of the United Nations and its mechanisms, conventions and principles.  More could be done, and this was recognized by the Government, which would continue to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Jamaica was not devoid of social and economic difficulties, but would continue to address all human rights issues and pay attention to the rights of those who should uphold law and order in society, as their job was part of democracy and civilized governance. 

NILMARIO MIRANDA (Brazil), speaking as a concerned country, said the Special Rapporteur had shown seriousness, competence and impartiality during her visit to Brazil, and Brazil was grateful for her report.  Brazil supported dialogue and cooperation with United Nations human rights mechanisms.  No country should place itself above the scrutiny of the international community, and Brazil had hosted visits from numerous other Special Rapporteurs.  Brazil had been energetic in carrying out measures in response to the recommendations of these experts.  Although the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions was severe, Brazil considered that it would be a valuable tool for combating such executions and the illegal activities of death squads.  The recommendations in the report would be circulated to the Council for the Defense of Human Rights, which would study how best to implement them.

The Government recognized that such executions were a disease that still existed in Brazil, and that the police system still suffered from shortcomings that had to be addressed.  Government, civil society, and all other aspects of Brazilian society would wage the struggle together against such human rights violations.  Significant steps were being taken to protect witnesses and human rights defenders, to increase the accountability of the police forces, to reduce the use of violent methods by the police, and to expand external oversight of the police.

Inter-Active Dialogue

HENRI-PAUL NORMANDIN (Canada) asked if the Special Rapporteur could elaborate on what could be done by States and the international community to more effectively protect the rights of people in situations of armed conflict, emergencies, and the fight against terrorism.

Mr. SMITH (Jamaica) said Jamaica it would be submitting detailed comments on the report to the High Commissioner for Human Rights for circulation.

IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Pakistan) said Pakistan felt pride that the Special Rapporteur’s nationality was Pakistani.  There were a few observations on the latest report.   The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was quite clear, and left no room for ambiguity.  Any act culminating in the death of a person was not an extra-judicial killing but simply a murder unless it was carried out by law officials in the misuse of their authority.  The focus on one country gave a lopsided view of the global reality in the report.  Pakistan was trying to address the heinous crime of honour killings, and would continue its efforts to end these crimes.  But it did not consider honour killings to be extra-judicial, summary, or arbitrary executions.  Honour killings were murders.  They did not fall within the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said it would militate for the re-enlistment of the Special Rapporteur, and supported all the recommendations in her most recent report, particularly those on honour killings and capital punishment where it could be said to amount to extra-judicial execution.

JOHN BIGGAR (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, asked if the Special Rapporteur could elaborate on her proposal for strengthening early warning mechanisms on genocide; if she could explain how such mechanisms could help prevent genocide; and if she could explain what could be done to end honour killings.

Ms. JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, assured Pakistan that she had not brought even a small portion of her information on Pakistan into her mandate.  She considered honour killings as part of her mandate under the issue of impunity and because there had been obstacles raised by the Government – there was a Pakistani law, for example, that allowed families to forgive the murderer.  As most honour killings were carried out by family members, such forgiveness often was granted and no further punishment followed.  That amounted to impunity.  Shelter homes, effective public policy, and punishment of perpetrators should be high on the list of Governments seeking to reduce honour killings.

Avoiding genocide could be made more possible by having early recognition of pre-genocidal conditions followed by rapid, coordinated action, Ms. Jahangir said; such swift action should not only be military.  There had to be effective communication by United Nations special procedures – a kind of hotline from all United Nations components to the Security Council – to raise the alarm when officials in the field saw a situation that threatened to result in genocide.  Then there had to be a rapid international response.  Careful and effective policy had to be fashioned on how and when force could be used.

Brazil had set a very good example in terms of cooperation with international human rights mechanisms, Ms. Jahangir said.

BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, said he had taken the floor to pay tribute to Special Rapporteur Asma Jahangir.  She had shown outstanding commitment to the mandate granted her over the years and had worked tirelessly to give voice to the pleas of victims while continuing dialogues with Governments in defense of the right to life.  She had successfully widened her mandate, including through her thorough understanding of gender issues.  She had successfully raised awareness of violations of the right to life of women, denouncing States responsible for such violations as well as those States that condoned them.  Violations of the right to life of individuals because of their life choices had also drawn her attention and her activities had raised awareness of an oft-overlooked violation.  To use the words of the Representative of Pakistan, Ms. Jahangir had shown zeal and courage and had been a Special Rapporteur of ideal commitment.

Statements on Report of Chairperson of Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

LEILA ZERROUGUI, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, said during the year 2003, the Working Group had held its thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh and thirty-eighth sessions.  It had also undertaken an official mission to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and another to Argentina.  In February 2004 it had visited Latvia, and the report on this mission would be adopted at the next session. 

In 2003, the Working Group had adopted 26 opinions with regard to 151 persons living in 12 countries.  In 131 cases, it had decided that the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary in nature, and from 23 November 2002 to 7 November 2003, it had addressed 157 urgent appeals regarding 812 persons to 47 Governments.  Thirty- three of the concerned Governments had informed the Working Group that they had taken steps to remedy the situation of the detained.  In certain cases, those detained were freed, in others, the Working Group received assurances that they would be guaranteed a fair and equitable trial. 

Ms. Zerrougui said the Working Group was still waiting for an answer to its request to be invited from some Governments, as mentioned in the report.  It had been invited to China, and would go to Canada in June 2005, and discussions were underway with the Governments of South Africa and Belarus.  In its recommendations, the Working Group had given particular importance to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of the fight against terrorism. 

The Working Group brought to the attention of the Commission that since 11 September 2001, it had received numerous communications on the subject of arbitrary detentions applied in various countries in the context of investigations carried out on terrorist attacks.  The Working Group wished to affirm that it did not contest that the fight against terrorism could require the adoption of specific measures limiting certain guarantees, including detention and the right to a fair trial.  However, it wished to specify that in any circumstances and whatever the threat, there were rights which it was not possible to ignore, and that in no case could an arrest be indefinitely prolonged, and that it was particularly important that States ensure that the measures adopted in the context of exceptional situations should remain perfectly proportionate to the gravity of the issue. 

The Working Group was also concerned by the fact that a certain number of States were unduly impeding the use of the Internet, and considered this a denial of human rights. 

With regard to the visit to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Working Group noted that situations of arbitrary detention were mainly linked to the freedom of expression and the multiplication of decision-making bodies in the administration of justice.  It recommended that solitary confinement locations be closed, and that options for the liberation of prisoners of conscience be investigated. 

With regard to the visit to Argentina, the Working Group had noted that the overpopulation in prisons and the bad conditions of detention in certain prisons and notably in police stations in the provinces negatively affected the rights of the detained.  Other issues for concern were the excessive length of preventive detention, the need to change legislation regarding minors in order for it to conform to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the need to render effective the right to recourse for foreigners detained with the aim of expulsion.

FEDERICO VILLEGAS BELTRAN (Argentina), speaking as a concerned country, said the Government was grateful for the Special Rapporteur’s visit and it had taken note of the recommendations she had made.  Argentina was working to increase its standards of protection of human rights and its standards for treatment of detainees and the treatment of children in custody.  A reform had been undertaken of migration legislation; it constituted a significant advance, since its terms were based on international standards relating to migrants.  A report on social conflict in Argentina had been drafted by the Government covering the most difficult year of the Argentinean crisis, 2002.  Demonstrations, protests, and events that involved some 600,000 individuals were reviewed in the study.  Only 0.6 per cent of these incidents had caused any type of disturbance of public order or acts of violence -– in other words, most were peaceful.

Inter-Active Dialogue

Mr. NORMANDIN (Canada) said the Working Group was to be congratulated for its excellent report, and the invitation of Iran to invite it was to be commended.  However, visits were not an end in themselves, and should be the first step leading to a permanent substantial change.  Iran should fulfil its international obligations.  How could the international community contribute to this end regarding the internal blockade to reform, the delegate asked, and were there any intentions of the Working Group to translate the report into Farsi and make it widely available in that country

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said it wished for a reply concerning the geographic concentration of opinions with regard to the Working Group, in particular in the context of the members of the Working Group.  Secondly, there was concern with regard to the methods of work of the Group, as there were doubts of the objectivity of the members of the Group.  States were allowed to put their case twice, and complainants only once, and this appeared contrary to the spirit of the Group.  Given the impossibility of ascertaining the truth of complaints, this only detracted from the status of the Group, and it would be better if it issued opinions on general issues to be applied, rather than judging topics that required objectivity.

LA YIFAN (China) said the Chinese Government had always attached great importance to the work of the Working Group and this was why it had twice invited it to China.  It was hoped that a third visit would help to further enhance the cooperation between China and United Nations mechanisms, as well as benefiting from constructive recommendations from those mechanisms.  China had considered the report presented by the Working Group and particularly the way in which foreigners were treated.  The report said that such foreigners should be returned to their countries.  China expressed concern for the detention of these persons.  This should be a focus for the Working Group.  Also, what were the Group’s comments on Guantanamo, and had this issue been raised with the Government of the United States?

Mr. BIGGAR (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the report of the Working Group formed a useful background to the issue and in particular the fight against terrorism.  Were there good factors in the fight against organized crime in the context of arbitrary detention, and what recommendations did the Working Group have for States with regard to trafficking in human beings, and what was the level of cooperation received from States. 

Ms. ZERROUGUI, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, said in response to the comments that she was grateful for all the interest shown in her work and to all the States that had cooperated with her mandate.  Regarding cooperation with States, she said the Working Group held that the process did not end with the extension of an invitation to visit a State, but continued throughout the visit and follow-up to it.  Communications were regularly continued for a year afterward in follow-up.  Concerning translation into languages of the country, that did occur whenever possible -- including through translation into non-official languages of the United Nations.  It was not just in Iran that people did not know of the Working Group's existence, even those that might have recourse to the Group's mechanisms.  That issue had arisen just this morning amongst the non-governmental organizations present in the Commission.

Regarding Argentina, Ms. Zerrougui said there had been fruitful cooperation with the Government, and she was pleased to note that several of the Group's recommendations had already been taken up, including those regarding migrants and conditions of detention.  In its future report, that progress would certainly be taken up.

Regarding Cuba, the Chairperson of the Working Group said arbitrary detention was always an issue of concern and that it was so in every country of the world, though it was stressed more in some countries.  The Group could be given a reproach if it received a case and did not deal with it, she did agree.  But in addition to the general comments included in every year's report, there was generally a special topic of discussion, as in the case of detention related to terrorism in the current report.

On the questions of available resources, she said that the Group seemed to have adequate resources to deal with the cases before it, and that Governments did have the resources to provide the Group with all the information requested.  In the present report, a new step had been to communicate back to the Government the measures that had been taken.  Throughout all its cases, the Working Group maintained objectivity.  Finally, she said that the issue of detention at Guantanamo Bay had been taken up and dealt with in the report.

Statements on Report of Special Rapporteur on Torture

THEO VAN BOVEN, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said his main report summarized his activities as Special Rapporteur; described the types of communications sent to Governments, including urgent appeals; drew attention to the issue of guarantees for persons deprived of their liberty with a view to protecting them from the risk of torture; and examined the question of HIV/AIDS and torture. 

As Special Rapporteur, he was aware that his work would have limited effect unless methods and procedures of coherent and regular follow-up were improved.  This applied to communications sent to Governments, which called for a more systematic use of deadlines and reminders, as well as to recommendations drawn up by the Special Rapporteur on the basis of visits. As regards visiting missions, the report on the visit to Spain was before the Commission.  He had also been in regular contact for some time with the authorities of China, and was pleased that the prospects for a visit to that country were positive.  He and his colleague, the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, had made a joint request two months ago to the Government of the United States to extend an invitation to them to undertake a mission to the Guantanamo military base, and they were still awaiting a reply. 

The report on Spain was carefully drawn up on the basis of information received from a wide spectrum of sources, notably the Spanish Governmental authorities of that time, organizations and institutions recommended by the Government, and others.  The findings of the Special Rapporteur largely concurred with those of other independent monitoring bodies.  It was the opinion of the Special Rapporteur that allegations of torture and ill treatment were certainly not all invented and that practices of this kind, though not systematic, were more than sporadic and incidental, and he fully maintained his findings, conclusions and recommendations.  He regretted that the Spanish authorities were excessive in their efforts to discredit the report, and strongly resented that they had called into question his integrity, good faith and objectivity.

In the main report, two issues were particularly highlighted:  first, guarantees for individuals deprived of their liberty with a view of protecting them from the risk of torture and other forms of ill-treatment; and, second, HIV/AIDS and torture.  With regard to this last, he noted that in view of the discrimination and stigma suffered by people living with HIV/AIDS in some societies, these people became possible targets for torture, which could also affect their capacity to access the justice system and ask for redress and reparation, and there was a clear need to integrate HIV/AIDS-related human rights protection in future activities.

JOAQUIN PEREZ-VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain), speaking as a concerned country, said the country’s public powers could not act outside the Constitutional framework, although they were fighting a decades-old terrorist campaign.  Often these terrorists accused Spain of torture in their anti-terrorism activities, and in response Spain had invited the Special Rapporteur to visit.  Spain was in the vanguard of protecting human rights, and protested at the bitterness and inaccuracy of the Special Rapporteur’s report.  It was a lost opportunity for establishing a fruitful dialogue, but Spain would continue to cooperate with United Nations mechanisms and to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur.

The report was a flagrant injustice; Spain and Spaniards did not deserve to be treated this way.  The Spanish legal system and its system for human rights protection was highly developed and on a par with those of nearby European States.  Spain did not violate human rights in combating terrorism; the Government had developed a highly specialized and admirable system for confronting terrorism; it had on occasion heavily punished officials and members of security forces who on rare occasions had breached human rights standards.  Sometimes, on the other hand, those accused were found to be innocent, and hence no punishment was given – on occasion, such charges had been fabricated by terrorists.  To accuse Spanish society of “more than occasional” practice of torture while combating terrorism was false, unacceptable, and unjust.

Mr. MIRANDA (Brazil), speaking as a concerned country, said the Special Rapporteur was thanked for the follow-up report on recommendations to Brazil.  The Brazilian Government supported the resolution of the Commission urging countries to engage in constructive dialogue, and this was evidenced by the presence of the delegate.  Torture continued to be an evil presence in Brazilian society, and during the military dictatorship it was directed against the political opponents of the regime, to the repugnance of all echelons of Brazilian society as well as the rest of the world.  The left wing of Brazilian society was the main sufferer of this.  However, following the installation of democracy, it did not disappear, but its victims changed to be those in prison, and dealing with it became more complex.  The practice of torture was vehemently rejected by the State, and major progress had been made over recent years.  The judicial system was not standing by without taking action, and there had been many convictions of those guilty of this crime.  The Brazilian Government was dealing firmly with the need to investigate complaints and reports of torture.  The Commission’s resolution was being implemented by investigation of cases and unannounced visits to prisons by a roving Inspection Group.  A Working Group had been established.  There was also a National Plan to establish models for places of detention for minors.

Inter-Active Dialogue

Mr. NORMANDIN (Canada) said, with regard to the trend in some sectors to erode the universal consensus on torture, in what sectors was this trend occurring?  It asked why there was a decline in this consensus.  The commitment of the Commission on Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur to collaborate and improve this was also the subject for a clarification as to the extent of this collaboration and its success.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said with regard to the work of the Special Rapporteur in carrying out his mandate, the work done on combating racism and terrorism was noted and appreciated.  The input of the Special Rapporteur would be most interesting.  The courage and non-discriminatory focus of the work was appreciated, as the Special Rapporteur had paid attention in all parts of the world, and this was evident in the persistence of the Special Rapporteur in looking into the situation of Guantanamo, unlike other Special Rapporteurs.  The Special Rapporteur should continue in this path.

Mr. VIGNY (Switzerland) said the Special Rapporteur’s work was of great value.   Fighting torture was one of the highest priorities of Swiss foreign policy.  The report did not seem explicitly to refer to the question of torture in the context of the war against terrorism, in particular the matter of States returning terrorism suspects to countries where they risked undergoing torture.  Would the Special Rapporteur consider this matter in his next report?

Mr. VAN BOVEN, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said in response that his report and the discussion with Spain should not monopolize his mandate as he had 192 countries to deal with, but he wished to say that he stood by his findings and recommendations with regard to Spain and could cite numerous other findings by similar monitoring bodies to corroborate what he had said.  He was willing to bring them to the attention of the Spanish Government, but would not list them all now.  He had much respect for the Spanish people, and he left it to them to reappraise his report.

With regard to Brazil, he said he looked forward to continued cooperation with the Government and said he looked forward to receiving the comments of the Government in follow-up.

The representative of Canada had touched upon the erosion of the prohibition of torture, which Mr. van Boven said had been discussed within his report.  He had witnessed a tendency to undermine the absolute prohibition of torture and a decline in the strict rule on non-refoulement, noting that States were prohibited in international treaties from extraditing individuals to countries in which they ran the risk of being tortured.  Canada had also referenced the inter-American system on human rights, which was a good system, but all such systems continued to need work and the United Nations should facilitate that through cooperation with regional human rights systems.

Finally, he noted, Switzerland had recommended that he deal more thoroughly with the issue of torture in relation to the fight against terrorism.  He agreed that this was an important topic today, but it had been dealt with in the 2002 report to the General Assembly, which that delegation could reference.

United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture

IVAN TOSEVSKI, Chairperson of the Twenty-Second Session of the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, said the Commission had before it the main report by the Secretary-General on the status of the Fund, submitted to the last session of the General Assembly.  The Board made recommendations for grants only on the basis of contributions officially registered by the United Nations Treasurer and available in the Fund during its session.  For the year 2004, more than 200 projects throughout the world had submitted their requests for funding, amounting to $ 13.3 million.  On the other hand, for the next session of the Board, only $ 1,067,037 in contributions was available so far.  As of today, pledges amounting to $ 125,679 had been recorded.  Donors who had pledged a contribution, as well as other regular donors who had not yet done so, were invited to contribute to the Fund before the end of the present session of the Commission.  The Board of Trustees had initiated at its last session a new fund-raising strategy based on a regional approach to donors with a view to increasing regional awareness on the question of assistance to victims of torture.  Gratitude should be expressed to Governments that had already contributed to the fund for the year 2004 for their generous support, and those who had not yet done so should be invited to join in the worldwide effort to assist torture survivors by contributing to the Fund, even with a symbolic amount.  By doing so, Governments would contribute not only  to the rehabilitation of victims of torture but also have a direct impact on the prevention of torture all over the world.

General Debate on Civil and Political Rights

MAHY ABDEL-LATIFF (Egypt) said that her country had always worked in support of the interdependence between democracy and development and respect for human rights.  The country had acceded to all international instruments and had created national monitoring mechanisms on the implementation of those instruments.  Egypt was very aware of the importance of international cooperation for human rights and the possibilities for training of officials involved in the legal and law enforcement system to make them aware of human rights issues.  The country was also very careful to submit the necessary reports to human rights bodies and had worked on preparations for and the hosting of various international meetings on human rights.  Having always cooperated with human rights mechanisms, the country found that there was some overlap leading to waste in reporting mechanisms.  Egypt also deplored the activities of terrorist groups and was concerned about the upsurge in terrorist activities.  As a result, martial law had been extended to fight terrorism, but it had been done so in a way that was not incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The Government had also made efforts to ensure that the law was observed, and in addition to the punishment of perpetrators, the compensation of victims was ensured.  The State Security Courts had been abolished.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the history of the last century had been essentially one of the emergence, consolidation and global expansion of United States’ imperialism.  Few peoples like Cuba had been so directly faced with the aggressiveness with which the hegemonistic desires of domination by the Northern Empire were manifested.  Few Governments like that of the United States had done so much against freedom and democracy in their name.  Many chapters of barbarity from the one-party regime imposed by the US dominant oligarchy, which alternated their representatives in Government and other institutions of power, disguised as elephants or donkeys, had taken place.  The consequences of imperialism by the United States and their self-proclaimed messianic role to bring freedom and democracy to the world had been bad for the rest of the world.  The Government of the United States tried and again manipulated in a cynical, hypocritical and opportunistic way the democratic values, just to deny them in the work of the Commission and with it, bury forever that body in discredit and mockery. Within the law and with strict respect for the guarantees of due process, as it had always done to date, Cuba would continue to resort to the enforcement of its laws in legitimate defense in face of aggression plans and threats, including the use of armed force, that the United States developed against the Cuban people.  

RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said the United States had a mission in the world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest.  It was the advance of freedom and peace that freedom brought.  Human rights were inalienable.  However, they were not self-enforcing.  Societies needed mechanisms to ensure that they were in fact protected.  Societies should construct protections for an individual’s autonomy and dignity against coercion, and should build institutions that embedded civil and political rights into the patterns and traditions of society.  Societies that respected civil and political rights, practiced democracy and respected the rule of law could do a better job of allowing individuals to fully realize their economic, social and cultural rights.  The advancement of democracy and economic openness were the best foundations for domestic stability and international order.  A strong rule of law tradition was necessary to build stable, political and economic environments that benefited all countries and protected citizens from unjust or capricious actions by Government that interfered with the exercise of their personal freedoms.  The United States was committed to promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms, and sought to do this primarily by increasing the global community of democracies and assisting newly formed democracies to put democratic principles into action.  During this session, together with Peru and Romania, the United States would sponsor a draft resolution on enhancing the role of regional, sub-regional and other organizations and arrangements in promoting and consolidating democracy, and, to advance the common cause, it asked all democracies to co-sponsor this resolution.

SUMEDHA EKANAYAKE (Sri Lanka) said Sri Lanka had further strengthened its national protection system in line with its Constitution and with its international obligations as a party to 17 international human rights instruments.  It had cooperated extensively with United Nations mechanisms.  It had joined several vital international human rights instruments at a time when it was confronted with an extraordinary security situation arising out of terrorism, which demonstrated its commitment to openness and accountability.  In the two years since the signing of a ceasefire agreement between the Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam, there had been a drastic drop in the number of allegations of human rights violations.  Since ratification by Sri Lanka of the Convention against Torture there had been a steep drop in allegations of torture.

Recently, the country’s anti-defamation law had been repealed; a self-regulating Press Complaints Commission had been established; a Freedom of Information bill had been approved by the Cabinet; and a multi-party, multi-ethnic Constitutional Council and independent Commissions of Elections, Judicial, Public Service, Police and Human Rights had been set up and were further steps towards strengthening good governance, accountability, and transparency in Sri Lanka.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), reiterated their firm commitment to representative democracy and their conviction on the full implementation of human rights.  The system of such democracy would guarantee the human rights of their respective peoples.  The draft resolution on democracy and human rights that the Commission would consider this year had been the initiative of different regional and sub-regional organizations working towards the realization of democracy and the rule of law, as the only system to the enjoyment of human rights.  The countries of the region believed that representative democracy was the only system that could guarantee peace and stability. The countries of MERCOSUR and the associated States not only upheld that principle but also considered that it would prepare the terrain for the full enjoyment of human rights by citizens.

ELSADIG ALMAGLY (Sudan) said that his country’s commitment to respect for human rights stemmed from its legal obligations as a party to international human rights instruments.  The Government had instructed all relevant actors to redouble their efforts in respect of monitoring on human rights.  Eleven seminars had been carried out regarding target groups such as police officials and the judiciary for training with respect to human rights.  As part of its efforts to ensure respect for the rule of law and principles of human rights and democracy, there had been efforts to take measures against those violating human rights and to ensure press freedom and due process within the scope of human rights.  With respect to terrorism, the country had continued its active participation on the fight against terrorism with its partners, especially the United States.  Concerning the death penalty, its use had been prohibited in juvenile cases and sentences already passed had been commuted in some cases.  Holding that the establishment of peace was necessary for the respect of human rights, the Government had worked to lay the basis for peace in the country.  Those that believed that Government policy in regard of the Darfur region contained elements of genocide or ethnic cleansing were either ignorant or malicious.

Right of Reply

Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), exercising its right of reply, said there was surprise when the Representative of the United States spoke of lies and truth.  No Representative of Cuba had ever lied to the Security Council about nuclear weapons in order to carry out a war or imperialist plans for taking over the world.  The United States had a selective allergy which every so often reared its head.  The brutal crimes of violations of human rights that were taking place in Iraq were forgotten by the United States, as were each of the historical elements mentioned in the Cuban statement, and these could be found in any encyclopaedia.  All of these were historically verified, and the United States had not answered any of these issues.  A member of the US delegation was a terrorist, and Cuba would continue to defame the delegation of the United States as long as he remained, and would continue to tell the truth, which included the history of the United States’ actions against Cuba.  History continued, and aggression was demonstrated by the United States when it had referred to Cuba and said that it would not for now invade Cuba, although it was necessary to assassinate Fidel Castro, as this was the way of solving the situation for the people of Cuba.  It was the duty of Cuba to place the truth before the Commission and anything that explained history.

JEFFREY DE LAURENTIS (United States), said that his delegation did not accept to have one of its members be the subject of defamation attempts.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in second right of reply, asked if for the United States, truth was equivalent to defamation.

* *** *