UN Human Rights Treaties

Distr.
GENERAL
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
9 March 1994
Original: ENGLISH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fiftieth session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 55th MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday, 4 March 1994, at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. van WULFFTEN PALTHE (Netherlands)
CONTENTS
Report of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities on its forty-fifth session (continued)
Question of the human rights of all persons subjected to any form of detention
or imprisonment, in particular:
(a) Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
This record is subject to correction.
Corrections should be submitted in one of the working languages. They
should be set forth in a memorandum and also incorporated in a copy of the
record. They should be sent within one week of the date of this document to
the Official Records Editing Section, room E.4108, Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Any corrections to the records of the public meetings of the Commission
at this session will be consolidated in a single corrigendum, to be issued
shortly after the end of the session.
GE.94-12196 (E)
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 2
CONTENTS (continued)
(b) Status of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment;
(c) Question of enforced or involuntary disappearances;
(d) Question of a draft optional protocol to the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(continued)
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 3
The meeting was called to order at 10.20 a.m.
REPORT OF THE SUB-COMMISSION ON PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTION
OF MINORITIES ON ITS FORTY-FIFTH SESSION (agenda item 17) (continued)
(E/CN.4/1994/L.32-L.38 and L.41; E/CN.4/1994/2, chapter I, section B,
draft decisions 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14)
Draft resolution on the work of the Sub-Commission on Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities (E/CN.4/1994/L.32)
1. Mr. MUCH (Germany), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its
sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of Austria, Finland, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of
America and the observers for Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Senegal and Spain,
said that it welcomed the initiative of the Sub-Commission to request
information about emergency situations, reaffirmed that the Sub-Commission
could best assist the Commission by providing it with recommendations based on
the different views and perspectives of independent experts and requested the
Sub-Commission to pay attention to the guidelines concerning the number of
studies and to establish priorities relating to its work. That was simply a
pragmatic response to the Sub-Commission’s growing workload.
2. The Sub-Commission deserved the Commission’s support in the coming years,
and his delegation hoped that the draft resolution would be adopted by
consensus.
3. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the
resolution was considered to be within the scope of perennial activities.
Resources would, therefore, be provided from within existing provisions for
the Economic and Social Council mandates under section 21 (Human Rights) of
the approved programme budget for the biennium 1994-1995.
4. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.32 was adopted.
Draft resolution on the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund on Contemporary
Forms of Slavery (E/CN.4/1994/L.34)
5. Mr. van REENEN (Netherlands), introducing the draft resolution on behalf
of its sponsors, which had been joined by the delegation of Nigeria, said that
its text built upon the language adopted by the Commission at its forty-ninth
session and added a new paragraph to reflect the current alarming financial
situation of the Fund. It was to be hoped that the draft resolution would be
adopted without a vote.
6. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.34 was adopted.
Draft resolution on the report of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of
Slavery of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection
of Minorities (E/CN.4/1994/L.35)
7. Mr. van REENEN (Netherlands), introducing the draft resolution on behalf
of its sponsors, drew the Commission’s attention to the paragraphs dealing
with the Sub-Commission’s recommendation that the Commission create for a
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 4
period of three years a working group on contemporary forms of slavery. The
sponsors considered that Sub-Commission resolution 1993/7 had not elaborated
on the issue as to whether a new working group on contemporary forms of
slavery under the auspices of the Commission would prove an effective
mechanism for the implementation of the Conventions on slavery. In addition,
the desirability of establishing such a working group must be assessed in
the light of a number of considerations spelt out in the eighth preambular
paragraph which, in the sponsors’ view, had not been taken into account by the
Sub-Commission when adopting resolution 1993/7.
8. Consequently, the draft resolution invited the Sub-Commission to clarify
its position, to review its resolution 1993/7 in the light of the current
mandate of the existing Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery,
of the need for avoiding duplication of efforts, and of other possible
options for establishing an effective mechanism for the implementation of
the Conventions on slavery, and to submit to the Commission at its fifty-first
session its recommendation(s) for establishing such a mechanism, to consider
strengthening its involvement in the activities of the existing Working Group
on Contemporary Forms of Slavery as an alternative to establishing a new
mechanism and to consider the possibility of giving guidelines to the Working
Group for setting priorities in the field of its activities.
9. It was to be hoped that the draft resolution would be adopted without a
vote. Essentially, all it did was refer the matter back to the Sub-Commission
for reconsideration.
10. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the observer
for Portugal had been mistakenly included in the list of sponsors and should
be deleted; while the delegations of Nigeria and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the observers for Belgium, Greece
and Latvia had become sponsors.
11. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.35 was adopted.
Draft resolution on the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People
(E/CN.4/1994/L.36)
12. Mr. WILLIS (Australia), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of
its sponsors, which had been joined by the delegation of Nigeria and the
observer for Slovakia, said that it was a follow-up to the proclamation by
the General Assembly of the International Decade which was to begin on
10 December 1994. The interim period was to be devoted to planning for the
Decade in partnership with the indigenous peoples and the draft resolution
emphasized the importance of coordinated planning to ensure the success of
the Decade, making some constructive suggestions to that effect.
13. He drew attention to an error in operative paragraph 18, line 4, of the
English text. The words "of staff" should be inserted after "placement" and
the words "to the unit" should be changed to read "in the unit".
14. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.36, as orally corrected, was adopted.
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 5
Draft resolution on human rights and disability (E/CN.4/1994/L.37)
15. Mr. MARANTZ (Canada), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its
sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of Australia, Costa Rica,
Cyprus, Germany, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, the Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Nigeria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the observers for the Czech Republic, El Salvador,
Greece, Ireland, Philippines, Sweden and Turkey, said that a new preambular
paragraph should be inserted between the existing third and fourth preambular
paragraphs to read: "Noting also the Centre for Human Rights publication
’Study Series 6 - Human Rights and Disabled Persons’, of the Despouy Report,
in which the establishment of a mechanism such as an international ombudsman
is proposed". He hoped that the draft resolution would be adopted without a
vote.
16. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.37, as orally revised, was adopted.
Draft resolution on a permanent forum in the United Nations for indigenous
people (E/CN.4/1994/L.38)
17. Mr. LARSEN (Observer for Denmark), introducing the draft resolution on
behalf of its sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of Canada,
Ecuador and Nigeria, said that the text was a procedural follow-up to the
decisions taken by the World Conference on Human Rights and at the
forty-eighth session of the General Assembly regarding the establishment
of a permanent forum for indigenous people within the United Nations system.
The draft resolution was submitted in order to create the best possible basis
for further deliberations on the issue at the Commission’s next session.
18. Following intensive consultations, the sponsors had decided to insert
a new paragraph between the first and second preambular paragraphs to read:
"Bearing in mind articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter in the
context of all human rights of the indigenous people". He hoped that the
draft resolution would be adopted without a vote.
19. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.38, as orally revised, was adopted.
20. The CHAIRMAN said that, as a result of the adoption of draft resolution
E/CN.4/1994/L.38, draft decision 12, recommended by the Sub-Commission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, was superseded.
Draft resolution on the report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations
of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities (E/CN.4/1994/L.41)
21. Mr. MARANTZ (Canada), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its
sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of Cyprus and Nigeria and
the observers for Greece and Slovakia, said that it superseded Sub-Commission
resolution 1993/45. The necessary resources and assistance requested of the
Secretary-General in operative paragraph 9 were to be drawn from the regular
budget of the United Nations. He hoped that the draft resolution would be
adopted without a vote.
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 6
22. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.41 was adopted.
Draft decision on enhancing the work of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (E/CN.4/1994/L.33)
23. Mr. WEISSBRODT (United States of America), introducing the draft decision
on behalf of its sponsors, which had been joined by the delegation of Cyprus,
said that a change had been made just before the draft decision had been
submitted for printing, and it had not been possible to consult with the many
delegations who had seen only the earlier versions. In line 7 of the English
text, the words "or premature" had been inserted after the word "unnecessary".
He hoped that that would be acceptable to all the sponsors.
24. The draft decision expressed concern that the Sub-Commission had taken
on so many studies that it was experiencing difficulty in carrying out its
primary objectives. Many significant studies, such as those on compensation
and minorities, were not receiving the attention they deserved.
25. Notwithstanding its current overload, the Sub-Commission had sought
approval to initiate five new studies. That would exceed the limit of 13
studies that the Sub-Commission had promised to maintain in its 1992
guidelines. In fact, the Sub-Commission had listed 19 studies and similar
projects in its report to the Commission at its current session.
26. The draft decision responded to that problem by asking the Sub-Commission
to reconsider the new studies in the light of its own priorities and
capabilities. It did not favour one study over another, and it would
affect Sub-Commission members from several countries, including his own.
Consultations had been held with all the countries whose nationals were
affected; none of them had objected and some had even joined the sponsors.
27. The draft decision was not an attack on the Sub-Commission’s independence
or that of its members; indeed, it expressly recognized that independence.
Its purpose was to help the Sub-Commission improve its work by giving it
the time it needed to deliberate fully on the studies it undertook. By
adopting a neutral approach to new studies, the Commission would enable the
Sub-Commission to establish its own priorities. It would not cancel the new
studies and would permit the members of the Sub-Commission to continue
preparing working papers without financial implications.
28. Since the draft decision had been prepared following wide consultations
with members of the Commission from every region, he hoped that it would be
adopted by consensus.
29. Mr. MORA GODOY (Cuba) said that he would appreciate some clarification
from the representative of the United States regarding the purpose of the
draft decision.
30. Mr. KHOURY (Syrian Arab Republic) said that one of the Sub-Commission’s
main functions was to carry out studies. The results of such studies were not
binding. The Commission could merely take note of them; it did not
necessarily have to adopt them.
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 7
31. Some delegations might prefer the Sub-Commission not to make studies that
had political implications. However, there was no reason whatsoever to oppose
the making of studies that were without such implications and did not require
the establishment of new machinery. Consequently, his delegation was unable
to support the draft decision.
32. Mr. WEISSBRODT (United States of America) said that the purpose of the
draft decision was to help the Sub-Commission deal with its work overload and
abide by the guidelines it had adopted in 1992 limiting the number of studies
to be undertaken. The Sub-Commission had had, and continued to have,
difficulty in meeting its obligations owing to an excessive workload.
33. The draft decision was neutral; it did not favour one study over another
and its purpose was certainly not to eliminate any studies. It simply asked
the Sub-Commission to rethink its priorities.
34. Mr. CHAKRAVARTI (India) said that, in his introductory statement, the
representative of the United States had explicitly stated that the studies in
question would be treated in a neutral manner, without favouring one over the
other. Such neutrality should be maintained. Consideration of studies in the
future should not be based on arbitrary priorities.
35. Mr. MORA GODOY (Cuba), speaking in explanation of vote before the
voting, said that his delegation would have preferred that the Commission
adopt the Sub-Commission’s decisions relating to the five new studies, on
the basis of the principle of non-selectivity. By adopting draft decision
E/CN.4/1994/L.33, the Commission would, in effect, be failing to endorse the
new studies, which included a study on contemporary forms of slavery; a study
on slavery and slavery-like practices during wartime, and, most important of
all, a study on the privatization of prisons.
36. He wished, in particular, to draw attention to the precedent that would
be created by adopting the draft decision under consideration. Although it
would not insist on a vote, his delegation had strong reservations about the
draft decision.
37. Mr. HELLER (Mexico) said that his delegation fully endorsed the draft
decision, which guaranteed the independence of the Sub-Commission. Its
purpose was not to eliminate studies, but to rationalize the Sub-Commission’s
work.
38. Mr. Chang Hoon KIM (Republic of Korea) said that his delegation
endorsed the draft decision since it would help the Sub-Commission to improve
its methods of work. Adoption of the draft decision did not prejudge the
importance or rank of the studies concerned. Nevertheless, it was concerned
lest the adoption of the draft decision might be interpreted as calling the
stability and the independence of the Sub-Commission into question.
39. Draft decision E/CN.4/1994/L.33 was adopted without a vote.
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 8
40. The CHAIRMAN said that, as a result of the adoption of draft
decision E/CN.4/1994/L.33, draft decisions 1, 2, 4, 8 and 13,
recommended by the Sub-Commission, were superseded. The adoption of
draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.35 meant that draft resolution I,
recommended by the Sub-Commission, was superseded.
Draft decision on traditional practices affecting the health of women and
children (E/CN.4/1994/2, chapter I, section B, draft decision 6)
41. Draft decision 6 was adopted without a vote.
Draft decision on cultural and intellectual property of indigenous peoples
(E/CN.4/1994/2, chapter I, section B, draft decision 11)
42. Mr. VERGNE SABOIA (Brazil), supported by Mr. CHARAVARTI (India), said
that the wording of the draft decision should be modified so as to conform to
the language used by the General Assembly, the World Conference on Human
Rights and the Commission itself. He suggested, therefore, that all
references to "indigenous peoples" should be amended to "indigenous people".
43. Mr. WILLIS (Australia) said that his delegation would prefer to retain
the expression "indigenous peoples".
44. The Brazilian amendment to draft decision 11 was adopted.
45. Draft decision 11, as orally amended, was adopted without a vote.
Draft decision on the study on treaties, agreements and other constructive
arrangements between States and indigenous populations (E/CN.4/1994/2,
chapter I, section B, draft decision 14)
46. Draft decision 14 was adopted without a vote.
QUESTION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS SUBJECTED TO ANY FORM OF DETENTION
OR IMPRISONMENT, IN PARTICULAR:
(a) TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT;
(b) STATUS OF THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR
DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT;
(c) QUESTION OF ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCES;
(d) QUESTION OF A DRAFT OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT
(agenda item 10) (continued) (E/CN.4/1994/L.29, L.31, L.42-53, and L.54/Rev.1;
E/CN.4/1994/2, chapter I, section A, draft resolutions II, V and VI;
chapter I, section B, draft decisions 3, 4 and 13)
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 9
Draft resolution on assistance in the field of the administration of justice
and human rights (E/CN.4/1994/L.31)
47. Ms. KOSGEI (Kenya), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of
its sponsors, said that the administration of justice was central to the
protection and promotion of human rights. When the administration of justice
was hampered by the lack or inadequacy of human, material or financial
resources, the enjoyment of human rights was gravely affected.
48. The draft resolution thus called upon Governments, the international
community and the Centre for Human Rights to consider increasing the material,
financial and human resources they provided to developing countries with a
view to enhancing and strengthening the administration of justice in order to
protect and promote the full enjoyment of human rights. While requesting such
assistance, the resolution acknowledged that it was the primary responsibility
of all Governments to protect and promote human rights.
49. The draft resolution was very similar to resolution 1993/32, which the
Commission had adopted by consensus. She hoped it would do the same with the
current draft resolution.
50. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.31 was adopted.
Draft resolution on human rights and forensic science (E/CN.4/1994/L.43)
51. Mr. PACE (Secretary of the Commission) said that the resolution was
considered to be within the scope of perennial activities. Resources would,
therefore, be provided from within existing provisions for the Economic and
Social Council mandates under section 21 (Human Rights) of the approved
programme budget for the 1994-1995 biennium.
52. Mr. MALGINOV (Russian Federation), introducing the draft resolution on
behalf of its sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of France,
Germany, and the United States of America, and the observers for the
Czech Republic, Greece and Latvia, said that he appreciated the suggestions
of the many delegations that had participated in consultations. In 1992,
the Commission had requested the Secretary-General to compile a list of
forensic-science experts who might provide advice or assistance to various
fact-finding bodies; in the current draft resolution, the Commission was
making the same request in order to expand that list.
53. In the thirteenth preambular paragraph, the words "Commission of
Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution 780 (1992)
of 6 October 1992 and other" should be deleted. He hoped that the draft
resolution, which was similar to that adopted by consensus in 1993, could be
adopted without a vote.
54. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.43, as orally revised, was adopted.
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 10
Draft resolution on the question of arbitrary detention (E/CN.4/1994/L.44)
55. Mr. DAUFRESNE de la CHEVALERIE (France), introducing the draft resolution
on behalf of its sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of
Cuba, Guinea-Bissau, Netherlands, Poland, Russian Federation, Tunisia,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States
of America and the observers for Latvia, Madagascar and the Philippines, noted
that the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had been established three years
previously. The creation of a new mechanism was always an important moment
and it was thus with particular interest that he was submitting the draft
resolution that renewed the Group’s mandate. During its first mandate, the
five experts had elaborated their working methods and given special attention
to cooperation with all those affected by the cases submitted for its
consideration. He was sure that they would continue that dialogue approach.
56. Drawing attention to some changes the sponsors had made in the draft
resolution at the request of delegations, he said that, in the fourth and
fifth lines of operative paragraph 1, the text should read "the importance
that it attaches to respect for the procedures it has established for its
dialogue with States". Secondly, the order of operative paragraphs 5 and 6
should be reversed. Operative paragraph 5 (former 6) would then read "Takes
note in this context of the importance that the Working Group ...". In
operative paragraph 16, the words "or a similar procedure" should be inserted
after the words "Habeas corpus" in the second line. At the end of operative
paragraph 19, the words "within the framework of its mandate" should be added.
57. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the
resolution was considered to be within the scope of perennial activities.
Resources would, therefore, be provided from within existing provisions for
the Economic and Social Council mandates under section 21 (Human Rights) of
the approved programme budget for the biennium 1994-1995.
58. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.44, as orally revised, was adopted.
Draft resolution on the right to freedom of opinion and expression
(E/CN.4/1994/L.46)
59. Ms. BUCK (Canada), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its
sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of Bulgaria, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States
of America and the observers for Latvia, Liechtenstein and Slovakia, said that
it welcomed the first report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, who had been
appointed at the Commission’s previous session.
60. Following consultations with several delegations and among the sponsors,
it had been decided that operative paragraph 10 should be replaced by the
following text:
"Concerned at the number of cases of arbitrary detention ordered
following the exercise of the rights protected by article 19 of the
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 11
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the right
to freedom of opinion and expression, as noted in the third report of the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention;"
61. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the
resolution was considered to be within the scope of perennial activities.
Resources would, therefore, be provided from within existing provisions for
the Economic and Social Council mandates under section 21 (Human Rights) of
the approved programme budget for the biennium 1994-1995.
62. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.46, as orally revised, was adopted.
Draft resolution on human rights in the administration of justice
(E/CN.4/1994/L.48)
63. Ms. KOFLER (Austria), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its
sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of Canada, Cyprus and
France and the observers for Belgium, Latvia, New Zealand and Sweden, said
that it dealt with the question of the administration of justice in the light
of the results of the World Conference on Human Rights. Its sponsors looked
forward to working closely with the delegation of Kenya and the other sponsors
of resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.31 at the Commission’s fifty-first session.
64. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.48 was adopted.
Draft resolution on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation
for victims of gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms
(E/CN.4/1994/L.50)
65. Mr. GARRETON (Chile), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of
its sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of Austria, Cyprus,
Cuba and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the
observers for Belgium, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Latvia, Norway,
Philippines, Portugal and Sweden, said that the victims of a violation of
human rights committed by the State which should protect them had to be
compensated when that State failed in its function as a protector and became a
transgressor.
66. It was a well-known fact that Governments frequently presented their
victims as terrorists or delinquents and the agent who had committed the
violation as a hero in the service of his country. The policy of
rehabilitation should begin to establish the truth and restore the victim’s
dignity.
67. In the opinion of the sponsors of the draft resolution, the
Sub-Commission should examine the principles proposed in the expert’s
report with a view to formulating recommendations to the Commission on its
implementation.
68. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.50 was adopted.
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 12
Draft decision on the right to a fair trial (E/CN.4/1994/L.51)
69. Mr. ENDO (Japan), introducing the draft decision on behalf of its
sponsors, which had been joined by the delegation of Germany, said that it
expressed the Commission’s appreciation to the Sub-Commission’s Special
Rapporteurs for their work and endorsed the Sub-Commission’s request to them
to continue their study, taking into account the comments made in the
discussion of their preparatory, preliminary and progress reports. The
Commission would decide to consider, at its fifty-first session, the final
report of the Special Rapporteurs including, if appropriate, the desirability
of a third optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
70. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the decision
was considered to be within the scope of perennial activities. Resources
would, therefore, be provided from within existing provisions for the Economic
and Social Council mandates under section 21 (Human Rights) of the approved
programme budget for the biennium 1994-1995.
71. Mr. KHOURY (Syrian Arab Republic) said that the draft decision seemed to
be pre-empting the Commission’s judgement as to whether or not a third
optional protocol should be adopted. Instructions were being given to the
Special Rapporteurs who might or might not deem a third protocol to be
desirable.
72. Draft decision E/CN.4/1994/L.51 was adopted.
Draft resolution on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture
(E/CN.4/1994/L.47)
73. Mr. KORHONEN (Finland), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its
sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of Germany, Japan, Nigeria
and Tunisia and the observers for Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Senegal and
Spain, said that the text was self-explanatory. He stressed the need for
Governments to contribute to the Fund on a regular basis so that it could
provide assistance to the victims of torture and their families.
74. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.47 was adopted.
Draft resolution on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment (E/CN.4/1994/L.54/Rev.1)
75. Mr. VAN CRAEN (Observer for Belgium), introducing the draft resolution on
behalf of its sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of Cameroon,
Cyprus, Poland and the United States of America and the observers for the
Czech Republic and Malta, said that torture was one of the most serious
violations of human rights and should therefore be the subject of universal
condemnation. He recalled that the World Conference on Human Rights had urged
all States to put an immediate end to the practice of torture and eradicate
that evil forever and had called on all States to cooperate fully with the
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture in the fulfilment of his
mandate.
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 13
76. In that spirit, the sponsors of the draft resolution attached special
importance to the work of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture,
which was aimed at establishing an open dialogue so as to help the Governments
concerned to take the necessary measures to end those degrading acts.
77. As compared with the text adopted the previous year, an additional
paragraph had been included inviting the Special Rapporteur to examine
questions concerning torture directed primarily against women. The text also
stressed the importance of the role played by advisory services and technical
assistance.
78. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.54/Rev.1 was adopted.
Draft resolution on the status of the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (E/CN.4/1994/L.49)
79. Mr. HALINEN (Finland), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its
sponsors, which had been joined by the delegations of Côte d’Ivoire, Germany,
Guinea-Bissau and Mexico and the observers for Greece, Luxembourg and Panama,
said that it urged all States to become parties to the Convention as a matter
of priority. The sponsors hoped that it could be adopted without a vote.
80. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the
resolution was considered to be within the scope of perennial activities.
Resources would, therefore, be provided from within existing provisions for
the Economic and Social Council mandates under section 21 (Human Rights) of
the approved programme budget for the biennium 1994-1995.
81. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.49 was adopted.
Draft resolution on the problem of missing persons in the territory of the
former Yugoslavia (E/CN.4/1994/L.29)
82. The CHAIRMAN said that the draft resolution in question was sponsored by
an observer delegation. In accordance with rule 69, paragraph 3, of the rules
of procedure, unless a member of the Commission requested that the draft
resolution be put to the vote, the Commission would take no action on it.
Since no member of the Commission had commented on the subject, he
assumed that the Commission wished to take no action on draft
resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.29.
83. It was so decided.
Draft resolution on the question of enforced disappearances (E/CN.4/1994/L.45)
84. Mr. DAUFRESNE de la CHEVALERIE (France), introducing the draft resolution
on behalf of its sponsors, said that the new title was intended to evoke the
very important Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance. The report of the five experts comprising the Working Group on
Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (E/CN.4/1994/26) showed that acts of
enforced disappearance had persisted in 1993. It also analysed the causes and
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 14
modalities of that form of organized repression. The draft resolution
embodied the experts’ concern about the growing climate of impunity which led
directly to an increase in enforced disappearances.
85. The sponsors had made a number of changes to the draft resolution. The
sixth preambular paragraph should read "Noting that, according to the Working
Group, the practice of a number of States runs counter to the provisions of
the Declaration". The penultimate preambular paragraph should read, after
"Working Group": "and noting with satisfaction the compilation by the
Secretary-General of a preliminary list of experts in this field". The word
"concerned" should be deleted from operative paragraphs 11 and 12. In
operative paragraph 17, the words "pursuant to its mandate" should be replaced
by "in exercise of its mandate". The phrase "to assess the practice of States
in the light of the Declaration" should be deleted from operative
paragraph 18. In operative paragraph 21, the words "or a similar procedure"
should be inserted after the words "habeas corpus". Lastly, in operative
paragraph 23, the word "Endorses" should be replaced by "Noting with
interest".
86. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the
delegations of Canada, Cyprus, Guinea-Bissau, the Netherlands and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the observers for
the Czech Republic, Latvia, Luxembourg, Madagascar and Portugal, had become
sponsors of the draft resolution.
87. Mr. VERGNE SABOIA (Brazil) said he would like clarification of the
bracketed portion of operative paragraph 14 of the English text.
88. Mr. DAUFRESNE de la CHEVALERIE (France) said that the words "in all
circumstances" were not bracketed in the French original and that the brackets
should be removed in the English version.
89. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.45, as orally revised, was adopted.
Draft resolution on the question of a draft optional protocol to the
Convention against Torture and Other, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (E/CN.4/1994/L.52)
90. Mr. RODRIGUEZ ALPIZAR (Costa Rica), introducing the draft resolution on
behalf of its sponsors, said that it recalled Commission resolution 1992/43
establishing an open-ended working group to elaborate a draft optional
protocol and resolution 1993/34 requesting the working group to meet for a
period of two weeks prior to the Commission’s fiftieth session. The working
group’s meeting had been very well attended and it had made significant
progress. However, since it had not been able to consider all the documents
before it, the draft resolution requested it to meet again for two weeks prior
to the Commission’s fifty-first session (operative para. 2). The sponsors
hoped that, as in the previous year, the draft resolution would be adopted
without a vote.
91. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the
delegations of Bulgaria, Cuba, Cyprus, Germany, the United Kingdom of Great
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 15
Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America and the
observers for Greece, Latvia, Malta and Panama had become sponsors of the
draft resolution.
92. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.52 was adopted.
Draft resolution on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors
and assessors and the independence of lawyers (E/CN.4/1994/L.53/Rev.1)
93. Mr. VAN CRAEN (Belgium), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of
its sponsors, said that it was the culmination of a decade-long process of
reflection and deliberation in both the Sub-Commission and the Commission.
Improving the quality of the rule of law was a prerequisite for an independent
judiciary. The mechanisms proposed in the draft resolution would contribute
to that end. He hoped that, in the spirit of consensus which had prevailed at
Vienna, the draft resolution would be adopted without a vote.
94. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the
delegations of Angola, Australia, Austria, Cameroon, Chile, the Republic of
Korea and Uruguay and the observers for the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland,
Jordan, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Slovakia and Sweden had become sponsors of the
draft resolution.
95. Mr. KHOURY (Syrian Arab Republic) said that his delegation would have
preferred a more balanced text. The draft resolution seemed to stress civil
and political rights over economic, social and cultural rights.
96. Mr. CHAKRAVARTI (India) requested a spelling correction in the sixth
preambular paragraph. The name there should read Mr. "Singhvi". His
delegation wished to become a sponsor of the draft resolution.
97. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission), speaking on the
administrative and programme-budget implications of the resolution, said that
the resources required to implement operative paragraphs 2 and 3 were
estimated at US$20,000 for 1994. A statement on the administrative and
programme-budget implications of the resolution would be submitted to the
Economic and Social Council at its forthcoming session in the context of the
Council’s review of the report of the Commission on Human Rights on its
fiftieth session.
98. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.53/Rev.1, as orally corrected, was
adopted.
Draft resolution on staff members of the United Nations and of the specialized
agencies in detention (E/CN.4/1994/L.42)
99. Mr. PRACANA (Observer for Portugal), introducing the draft resolution on
behalf of its sponsors, said that it was similar to resolution 1993/39,
adopted by consensus at the Commission’s previous session. However, in the
light of the deliberations of the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session
concerning the drafting of a convention on the question, some changes had been
made.
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 16
100. In the second line of the fourth preambular paragraph, the words "sending
missions in difficult conditions to" should be inserted before the words
"various parts of the world", the word "in" being deleted. In the same
paragraph, the phrase "particularly in peace-keeping missions and humanitarian
operations in difficult conditions", in the second and third lines, should be
deleted, and the phrase "it is imperative that its staff members", in the
third and fourth lines, should be followed by the words "and other personnel
acting under its authority".
101. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the
delegations of Canada and Guinea-Bissau and the observers for Greece, Latvia,
Luxembourg, Norway and Turkey had become sponsors of the draft resolution.
102. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.42, as orally revised, was adopted.
Draft resolution on the question of human rights and states of emergency
(E/CN.4/1994/2, chapter I, section A, draft resolution II)
103. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the
resolution was considered to be within the scope of perennial activities.
Resources would, therefore, be provided from within existing provisions for
the Economic and Social Council mandates under section 21 (Human Rights) of
the approved programme budget for the biennium 1994-1995.
104. Draft resolution II was adopted.
Draft resolution on the question of the impunity of perpetrators of violations
of human rights (E/CN.4/1994/2, chapter I, section A, draft resolution V)
105. Mr. LEBAKINE (Acting Secretary of the Commission) said that the
resolution was considered to be within the scope of perennial activities.
Resources would, therefore, be provided from within existing provisions for
the Economic and Social Council mandates under section 21 (Human Rights) of
the approved programme budget for the biennium 1994-1995.
106. Draft resolution V was adopted.
107. The CHAIRMAN said that draft resolution VI on the independence of the
judiciary, particularly with regard to judges and lawyers, as well as court
officers, recommended by the Sub-Commission, had been superseded by the
adoption of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.53/Rev.1. Draft decision 3 on the
right to a fair trial, recommended by the Sub-Commission, had been superseded
by the adoption of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.51. Draft decision 4 on the
recognition of gross and large-scale violations of human rights as an
international crime and draft decision 13 on the question of the privatization
of prisons, recommended by the Sub-Commission, had been superseded by the
adoption of draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.33.
108. Mr. CROOK (United States of America) said that his delegation had joined
the consensus on draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.48 without prejudice to its
position that the responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights and the
Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice should be more clearly
delineated in order to avoid duplication. It had joined the consensus on
E/CN.4/1994/SR.55
page 17
draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/SR.31, but wished to point out that the sixth
preambular paragraph departed from the language of the major instruments
adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights. In the event of any
uncertainty, the Vienna texts should prevail.
109. Ms. RAMLI (Malaysia) said that her delegation had joined the consensus on
draft resolution E/CN.4/1994/L.46, despite its reservations concerning the
last preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 6. It supported the right
of freedom of opinion and expression and the Malaysian Constitution provided
for the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms, including individual rights and
freedom of speech, which were essential to a democratic society. It was
concerned, however, about abuse of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression.
110. It welcomed reports on detention, discrimination, threats, acts of
violence and harassment against professionals, in the field of information, as
mentioned in the paragraphs she had referred to, since such reports brought
those individuals’ plight to the attention of the international community. It
also appreciated the important role that professionals in the field of
information had to play. The right to freedom of speech, however, was not a
licence to tell lies. Reports produced on the question should be fair and
truthful but, as many members of the Commission would agree, that was often
not the case.
The meeting rose at 1 p.m.