UN Human Rights Treaties

UNITED NATIONS
E
Economic and Social
Council
Distr.
GENERAL
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
21 April 1998
Original: ENGLISH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fifty-fourth session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 51st MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday, 17 April 1998, at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. SELEBI (South Africa)
CONTENTS
QUESTION OF THE REALIZATION IN ALL COUNTRIES OF THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
CULTURAL RIGHTS CONTAINED IN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND IN
THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, AND STUDY
OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS WHICH THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FACE IN THEIR EFFORTS TO
ACHIEVE THESE HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING:
(a) PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE RIGHT TO ENJOY AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF
LIVING; FOREIGN DEBT, ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT POLICIES AND THEIR
EFFECTS ON THE FULL ENJOYMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND, IN PARTICULAR,
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE RIGHT TO
DEVELOPMENT;
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.98-12346 (E)
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 2
CONTENTS (continued)
(b) THE EFFECTS OF THE EXISTING UNJUST INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER ON
THE ECONOMIES OF THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, AND THE OBSTACLE THAT
THIS REPRESENTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (continued)
RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE (continued)
EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF BODIES ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO UNITED NATIONS HUMAN
RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS (continued)
REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMISSION
ON PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTION OF
MINORITIES ON ITS FORTYNINTH
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;
(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.4/1998/SR.51
page 3
The meeting was called to order at 10 a.m.
QUESTION OF THE REALIZATION IN ALL COUNTRIES OF THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
CULTURAL RIGHTS CONTAINED IN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND IN
THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, AND STUDY
OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS WHICH THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FACE IN THEIR EFFORTS TO
ACHIEVE THESE HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING:
(a) PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE RIGHT TO ENJOY AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF
LIVING; FOREIGN DEBT, ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT POLICIES AND THEIR
EFFECTS ON THE FULL ENJOYMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND, IN PARTICULAR,
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE RIGHT TO
DEVELOPMENT;
(b) THE EFFECTS OF THE EXISTING UNJUST INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER ON
THE ECONOMIES OF THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND THE OBSTACLE THAT
THIS REPRESENTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (E/CN.4/1998/L.16, 17, 29 and 35)
(agenda item 5) (continued)
Draft resolution on the right to food (E/CN.4/1998/L.16)
1. Mr. FERNÁNDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), introducing the draft resolution, said
that the right to food was not an abstract concept but an inalienable human
right, as reflected in article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights. Hunger was a violation of human dignity and a
consequence of the unequal distribution of the world's wealth.
2. There were a number of changes to be made to the draft. The second
preambular paragraph should read: “Recalling also the provisions of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in which the
fundamental right of every person to be free from hunger is recognized,”. In
the eighth preambular paragraph, the last phrase “
or deprive a people of its
means of subsistence” should
be deleted. In paragraph 6, “the right to
adequate food” should be replaced by: “the right related to adequate food”.
In paragraph 7, the words “of the right to food” should be replaced by the
words: “of the right related to food in article 11 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”.
3. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegations of
Austria, Belarus, the Philippines, the Russian Federation and Tunisia and the
observers for Australia, Costa Rica and Norway had become sponsors of the
draft resolution.
4. Mr. COMBA (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) said that
the estimated full cost of the provisions of paragraph 6 would be US$ 26,900.
No provision had been made under the programme budget for the
biennium 19981999,
so the expenditure would be covered by any available
extrabudgetary resources.
5. The draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted.
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 4
Draft resolution on the effects on the full enjoyment of human rights of the
economic adjustment policies arising from foreign debt and, in particular, on
the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development
(E/CN.4/1998/L.17)
6. Ms. HERRERA CASEIRO (Cuba), introducing the draft resolution, said that,
given the acknowledged importance of the right to development, it was a matter
of concern that political and civil rights tended to be given precedence over
other rights. The draft resolution was designed to strike a balance between
the two. The weight of foreign debt was one of the main factors behind the
deteriorating economies of the developing countries, hindering their economic
and technical development and lowering their standards of living. The draft
resolution would make a contribution towards a just international economic
order and encourage the international financial institutions to provide
greater assistance.
7. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegations of
the Congo and Tunisia and the observer for the Dominican Republic had become
sponsors of the draft resolution.
8. Mr. COMBA (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) said that
the preliminary estimated cost of the provisions in paragraphs 8 and 10 was
US$ 61,700 for the biennium 19981999
and US$ 46,400 for the biennium
20002001.
No provision had been made under the programme budget for
19981999.
The potential for absorption, as well as any net resources
required, would be in the final implications statement submitted to the next
session of the Economic and Social Council in the context of its review of the
Commission's current session. The resources for the biennium 20002001
would
be in the proposed budget for that biennium.
9. Mr. SUMI (Japan), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting,
said that Japan had extended various kinds of assistance to heavily indebted
countries and would continue to do so. The draft resolution, however, linked
the problem of foreign debt to the question of human rights, thus introducing
inappropriate elements and diverting attention from the real nature of the
problem, as well as failing to reflect the agreed language on the issue in the
Vienna Declaration.
10. It was not clear what “just and equitable international economic order”
was envisaged in paragraph 3. The matter would need to be clarified by
involving economic experts and the Commission was thus not a suitable forum.
11. Cooperation between developing and developed countries was indispensable
in considering the issue. It was therefore regrettable that there had been no
consultations on the draft resolution, which made Japan's serious efforts to
settle the foreign debt issue more difficult. His delegation would therefore
vote against the draft resolution.
12. Ms. RUBIN (United States of America) said that, while believing that
freedom from hunger and the freedom to achieve an adequate standard of living
were fundamental to the dignity of every individual, her delegation considered
that the draft resolutions proposed under agenda item 5 did little more than
establish more thematic mechanisms than the Commission and the Office of the
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 5
High Commissioner could handle properly. They all proposed new appointments,
or extensions to existing mandates, of special rapporteurs or independent
experts. The proliferation of new mechanisms would overstrain the capacity of
the Office of the High Commissioner. Moreover, those resolutions related to
issues that were being dealt with more effectively elsewhere.
13. The current draft resolution attempted to impose external conditions on
terms which the debtors and creditors had already agreed upon. The Commission
was not the proper forum for such discussions. Her delegation would therefore
vote against the draft resolution.
14. Mr. MUÑOZLEDO
(Mexico), supported by Mr. BENITEZ (Argentina), said
that, while mechanisms for the promotion and protection of economic, social
and cultural rights should be strengthened, the appointment of a special
rapporteur on the consequences of foreign debt was the wrong way to go about
the matter. Any examination of the measures adopted by Governments, the
private sector and international financial institutions to alleviate the
effects of foreign debt in developing countries would be limited to national
measures to the detriment of consideration of the measures that the
international community as a whole should be taking to deal with the problems
facing indebted developing countries. His delegation would therefore abstain.
15. The draft resolution was adopted by 27 votes to 16, with 9 abstentions.
16. Ms. GLOVER (United Kingdom) said she wished to reiterate the importance
her delegation attached to the proper observance of rule 28 of the
Commission's rules of procedure, in particular the need for any programme
budget implications to be submitted in good time. She recalled the existing
procedures for dealing with potential additional expenditure, set out in
General Assembly resolutions 41/213 and 42/211 and elsewhere, and emphasized
the importance of the role of the Fifth Committee in such matters. Her
statement should be taken as applying to all resolutions adopted by the
Commission that raised similar issues.
Draft resolution on human rights and extreme poverty (E/CN.4/1998/L.29)
17. Mr. BERNARD (France) said that the draft resolution, of which the
delegations of Bhutan, Brazil, China, Germany, Guinea, Pakistan and Uruguay
and the observers for Andorra, Australia, Georgia, Iraq, Malta and Norway had
become sponsors, took the achievements of the World Conference on Human Rights
and the World Summit for Social Development a stage further by providing for
the appointment of an independent expert to evaluate the relationship between
the promotion and protection of human rights and the elimination of extreme
poverty.
18. Being aware of the constraints on the budget of the Office of the High
Commissioner, his Government intended to make a specific financial
contribution to the Office to support part of the activities connected with
the new mandate.
19. Mr. COMBA (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) said that
the cost of appointing an independent expert, in accordance with paragraph 6,
of the draft resolution was estimated to be US$ 61,700 for the biennium
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 6
19981999
and a further US$ 15,500 for the biennium 20002001.
As no
provision had been made for those costs, their amount would be included in the
statement of programme budget implications to be submitted to the Economic and
Social Council.
20. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegation of the
Sudan had joined the sponsors of the draft resolution.
21. Ms. RUBIN (United States of America) said that, while her delegation
would have liked to be able to join a consensus on the draft resolution, it
could not accept the proposals contained in paragraph 6. The programme of
action agreed to at the World Summit for Social Development addressed
appropriately the concerns of the international community on poverty and
called upon Governments to integrate goals and targets for combating poverty
into overall economic and social policies.
22. It also listed at great length specific actions to be taken to eradicate
extreme poverty. Efforts had already begun to encourage observance and
implementation of those findings by working through international development
organizations such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and by
addressing the issue in international forums already established to deal with
the problem.
23. An attempt to draft a new declaration would add little to the efforts to
address extreme poverty, whereas a considerable investment would be required
to support the associated activities. The subject matter would also duplicate
other efforts and would not be a productive use of the Commission's resources.
Her delegation thus urged others to join in voting to delete paragraph 6 from
the resolution.
24. Mr. SUMI (Japan), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting,
said that his delegation recognized that human rights and extreme poverty was
one of the most important issues before the Commission and would thus vote in
favour of the draft resolution. It was concerned, however, about the
financial implications of the nomination of an independent expert. While it
greatly appreciated the announcement that the French Government would make a
contribution, it was still not clear how the rest of the costs would be
covered.
25. At the request of the representative of France, a vote was taken by
rollcall
on the draft resolution.
26. Congo, having been drawn by lot by the Chairman, was called upon to vote
first.
In favour: Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana,
Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba,
Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark,
Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea,
India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique,
Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland,
Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal,
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 7
South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Uruguay, Venezuela.
Against: United States of America.
Abstaining: None.
27. The draft resolution was adopted by 51 votes to 1.
Draft resolution on the question of the realization in all countries of the
economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, and study of special problems which the developing countries
face in their efforts to achieve these human rights (E/CN.4/1998/L.35)
28. Mr. MADUREIRA (Observer for Portugal) said that the delegations of
Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, Russian Federation, Tunisia, the
United Kingdom and Uruguay and the observers for Cyprus and Malta had become
sponsors of the draft resolution. In the light of the widespread desire for
higher visibility of economic, social and cultural rights, the draft
resolution had been oriented towards pragmatic steps towards the realization
of those rights.
29. The sponsors had thus decided to focus on the right to education,
including access to free primary education for all, as a first step. The
appointment of a special rapporteur would undoubtedly yield progress in that
area. His Government, which was fully aware of the financial implications of
such a step, would make a contribution to its implementation and he invited
other Governments to follow suit.
30. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegations of
Argentina, Belarus and Congo had become sponsors of the draft resolution.
31. Mr. H.K. SINGH (India) said that his delegation, which had consistently
advocated a higher profile for economic, social and cultural rights, welcomed
the increased emphasis placed on those rights at the Commission's current
session. The two key elements discussed during the negotiations on the draft
resolution had been the need for a mechanism to promote the enjoyment of
economic, social and cultural rights and the identification of rights which
might constitute the focus for such a mechanism.
32. Although the informal consultations had taken place in a positive and
constructive spirit, his delegation was not convinced that adequate
deliberation had preceded the move to establish a new mechanism of the
Commission. It would have preferred an approach beginning with the
examination of existing efforts to promote the right to education throughout
the United Nations system by means of a synthesis report by the
SecretaryGeneral.
The Commission could then subsequently have evaluated the
need to set up its own mechanism in that area and identified a clear and
specific mandate to ensure that such a mechanism could contribute meaningfully
to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 8
33. In any event, the new mechanism being established must be provided with
adequate financial and human resources to fulfil its mandate. The special
rapporteur should devote particular attention to the role of international
cooperation and assistance in promoting the realization of the right to
education.
34. Mr. COMBA (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) said that
the estimated full cost of appointing a special rapporteur for a threeyear
period was US$ 61,700 for the biennium 19981999
and US$ 46,400 for the
biennium 20002001.
No provision had been made for that expenditure in the
programme budget for 19981999.
Those costs, taking into account the
potential for absorption, would be included in the final report on the budget
for the biennium. The offer by the Government of Portugal had been noted.
35. Mr. DENNIS (United States of America) said that, in view of the
programme budget implications of the draft resolution, he wished to propose
the following amendments thereto. In paragraph 7, at the end of the second
line, the phrase “within existing overall United Nations resources” should be
added; in paragraph 8, the phrase “from within existing overall United Nations
resources” should be inserted after the words “for a period of three years” in
the fifth line of the proposed draft decision.
36. Mr. MADUREIRA (Observer for Portugal) said that the general feeling
among the sponsors of the draft resolution was that, although they shared the
concerns expressed by the representative of the United States of America
regarding the financial situation of the Office of the High Commissioner, the
amendments proposed could not be accepted, not only because it was too late to
change a text that had been the object of wide consultation but also because
it was not up to the Commission to find a solution to the very real problem
involved.
37. Mr. LOFTIS (United States of America), speaking in explanation of vote
before the voting, said that his delegation had, on a number of occasions,
asked whether there would be any additional programme budget implications and
had been assured that there would not, only to learn that very morning that
there were such implications. He regretted that his delegation would be
unable to support the draft resolution, which contained some very good ideas,
because of its concern that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights was being overloaded with burdens it could not bear. He requested that
the draft resolution be put to the vote.
38. The draft resolution was adopted by 52 votes to 1.
39. Mr. SUMI (Japan) said that his delegation had voted for the draft
resolution because the issue was such an important one, although it shared
some of the concern expressed by the representative of the United States
of America regarding the financial implications.
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 9
RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE
(agenda item 12) (continued) (E/CN.4/1998/L.37)
Draft resolution on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance (E/CN.4/1998/L.37)
40. Mr. BA (Senegal), introducing the draft resolution, drew attention to a
correction to paragraph 50: the phrase “the rules of procedure” in the second
line should be replaced by the words “resolution 1996/31”. He urged all
delegations to contribute their ideas to the preparatory process for the
forthcoming World Conference against Racism and Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.
41. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegations of
Brazil, El Salvador, France, Germany, India and Uruguay and the observers for
Iraq, Israel and Turkey had become sponsors of the draft resolution.
42. Mr. COMBA (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) said, with
regard to the financial implications of paragraphs 17, 19, 44, 47, 49, 51, 52,
57 and 59 of the draft resolution, that the preliminary estimated full costs
of the activities concerned would be US$ 270,000. No resources had been
appropriated for those activities in the budget for the biennium 19981999.
If the resolution was adopted, preparatory activities for the World Conference
would be implemented using extrabudgetary resources.
43. The draft resolution was adopted.
EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF BODIES ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE UNITED NATIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS (agenda item 14) (continued) (E/CN.4/1998/L.15)
Draft resolution on the effective implementation of international instruments
on human rights, including reporting obligations under international
instruments on human rights (E/CN.4/1998/L.15)
44. Mr. SPLINTER (Canada), introducing the draft resolution, drew attention
to a modification of paragraph 14, whereby the phrase “at the earliest
opportunity” would be replaced by “at the latest by 31 December 2000”.
45. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegation of
Denmark and the observer for Hungary had become sponsors of the draft
resolution.
46. Mr. COMBA (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) said that
the cost of the translation into five official languages and publication of
the revised Manual on Human Rights Reporting was estimated at US$ 408,000. Of
that total amount, US$ 197,100 could be covered from voluntary contributions
with the balance coming from extrabudgetary resources.
47. The draft resolution was adopted.
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 10
REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMISSION
ON PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTION OF
MINORITIES ON ITS FORTYNINTH
SESSION (agenda item 15) (continued)
(E/CN.4/1998/L.45, L.46, L.47, L.48, L.50, L.57, L.59, L.79;
E/CN.4/1998/2E/
CN.4/Sub.2/1997/50, chapter I, draft resolution and draft
decisions 5 and 10)
Draft resolution on the work of the SubCommission
on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (E/CN.4/1998/L.45)
48. Mr. HÖYNCK (Germany), introducing the draft resolution, said that it was
essentially through its studies that the SubCommission
fulfilled its function
as the Commission's thinktank
and contributed to its work. By adopting that
draft resolution, the Commission would supersede the draft resolution
recommended to it by the SubCommission.
It was the opinion of the sponsors
that, by following the suggestions contained in paragraph 9 of the draft
resolution, the SubCommission
would further increase its effectiveness within
its regular fourweek
session.
49. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegations of
Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, El Salvador, India,
Russian Federation, Ukraine and Uruguay and the observers for Australia,
Cyprus, Estonia, Romania, Slovakia and the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia had become sponsors of the draft resolution.
50. Ms. SMOLEIC (Uruguay) drew attention to an error in the Spanish version
of the text: in paragraph 9 (a), “fiftyfifth”
should be “fiftieth”.
51. The draft resolution was adopted.
Draft decision on human rights and scientific and technological developments
(E/CN.4/1998/L.46)
52. Mr. van RIJSSEN (Observer for the Netherlands), introducing the draft
decision said that the SubCommission
had recommended to the Commission
draft decision 10, whereby a special rapporteur on human rights and scientific
and technological developments would be appointed. The subject was a
sensitive one of great importance, to which the Commission devoted its
attention every other year under a specific agenda item. The reasons for the
submission of the draft decision were more procedural than substantive in that
the person proposed as special rapporteur had ceased to be a member of the
SubCommission,
and the sponsors were of the opinion that studies for the
SubCommission
should be undertaken by its members or alternate members on the
basis of extended working papers in which the subject in question was clearly
identified.
53. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegations of
Canada and Japan and the observer for Portugal had become sponsors of the
draft decision.
54. The draft decision was adopted.
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 11
Draft decision on the question of human rights and states of emergency
(E/CN.4/1998/L.47)
55. Mr. van RIJSSEN (Observer for the Netherlands), introducing the draft
decision, said that, while it was important for the SubCommission
to devote
continued attention to the question of human rights and states of emergency,
it hardly seemed necessary for it to receive a full report every year. An
update of the list might be sufficient, and that could best be produced by the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. He drew attention to an
editorial error in the penultimate line of the draft decision where the word
“Commission” should be “SubCommission”.
56. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegations of
Canada, Poland and the United Kingdom and the observer for Portugal had become
sponsors of the draft decision.
57. Mr. H.K. SINGH (India) said he did not believe that openended
consultations had been held regarding the draft decision although they would
have been both important and useful. While reports listing States which had
proclaimed, extended or terminated states of emergency were important,
improvements could be considered that would enhance their usefulness, and it
was necessary to consider whether it was sufficient to report on current and
continuing situations only rather than listing all such cases since 1985. It
should also be considered whether annual reports were required or whether
biennial or even triennial reports would suffice. Moreover, it should be
clearly indicated how a state of emergency was to be defined.
58. The draft decision did not address those issues, but merely called on
the Office of the High Commissioner to take responsibility for preparing
updated lists. That aspect needed to be examined also, and his delegation
would have some hesitation in adopting a draft decision to replace an
independent expert by the Secretariat without adequate consideration. Further
discussion on the draft decision was required, and its adoption should be
deferred to allow for consultations.
59. Mr. van RIJSSEN (Observer for the Netherlands) suggested that further
consideration of the draft decision be deferred pending consultations with the
delegation of India.
60. It was so decided.
Draft decision on a study concerning the right to freedom of movement
(E/CN.4/1998/L.48)
61. Mr. van RIJSSEN (Observer for the Netherlands), introducing the draft
decision, said that the right to freedom of movement was a very important
subject which was closely related to other areas of concern to the
United Nations. Any discussion of it which did not take full account of what
was happening elsewhere in the United Nations system might lead to a sterile
debate, so the SubCommission
was being requested to take the matter up again
at its next session with a view to defining the subject of the study more
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 12
precisely. After a full discussion had been held, the Commission might then
be seized of the issue at its fifty-fifth session and in that regard, the
words “on the basis of a further and extended working paper” should be added
at the end of the text.
62. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegations of
Canada and Japan and the observer for Portugal had become sponsors of the
draft decision.
63. The draft decision was adopted.
Draft resolution on minimum humanitarian standards (E/CN.4/1998/L.50)
64. Mr. WILLE (Observer for Norway), introducing the draft resolution, said
that, at its fifty-third session, the Commission had requested the
Secretary-General to submit an analytical report on the issue of fundamental
standards of humanity. That report (E/CN.4/1998/87 and Add.1) had
identified issues that needed further study and the Secretary-General was
being requested, in coordination with the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC), to continue to consult on the issues identified for further
clarification and to submit a report to the Commission at its
fifty-fifth session.
65. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegation of
Austria had become a sponsor of the draft resolution.
66. The draft resolution was adopted.
Draft resolution on the traffic in women and girls (E/CN.4/1998/L.57)
67. Ms. CALLANGAN (Philippines), introducing the draft resolution, said that
the traffic in women and girls was a menacing problem which respected no
borders, and indifference or inaction would merely aggravate the situation and
embolden the traffickers, thus victimizing more helpless women and girls. The
problem could not be solved alone and it could not be eradicated overnight.
It called for concerted action by the international community and for the
support of relevant United Nations bodies, international organizations and
nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs).
68. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegations of
Bangladesh and Guatemala and the observers for the Dominican Republic, Greece,
Nigeria, Spain, Thailand and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had
become sponsors of the draft resolution.
69. The draft resolution was adopted.
Draft Resolution on the human rights of persons with disabilities
(E/CN.4/1998/L.59)
70. Ms. CULLINANE (Ireland), introducing the draft resolution, said that it
was an important step in mainstreaming the human rights of persons with
disabilities in the Commission's work, and she was particularly encouraged to
see that it was being supported by sponsors from all the regions.
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 13
71. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegations of
Germany, Poland, Sudan and Tunisia and the observers for Algeria, Australia,
Belgium, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway and
Togo had become sponsors of the draft resolution.
72. The draft resolution was adopted.
Draft resolution proposed as a replacement for draft decision 5 of the
SubCommission
on the privatization of prisons (E/CN.4/1998/L.79)
73. Mr. KUEHL (United States of America), introducing the draft resolution,
said that it asked the SubCommission
to reconsider its recommendation that a
special rapporteur on the privatization of prisons be appointed. There were
two main reasons for presenting that draft resolution. In the first place,
the Commission had, in its resoluton 1997/22, requested that special attention
be paid to the process of selecting studies to be undertaken by the
SubCommission
and it was the belief of the sponsors that that test had not
been met. Secondly, the SubCommission
had envisaged that the study would be
carried out by one of its members but in fact the person concerned was no
longer a member of the SubCommission.
The sponsors therefore deemed it
appropriate that the SubCommission
should review its draft decision 5 with a
view to determining if there were still adequate reasons for the Commission to
approve it. If so, the Commission could consider the proposal at its
fiftyfifth
session.
74. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the delegation of
Japan had become a sponsor of the draft resolution.
75. Mr. FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that his delegation, which had
received the text of the draft resolution the previous evening only, would
have liked to have had openended
consultations before adopting it. He
appealed to all delegations presenting draft resolutions to make every effort
to ensure transparency.
76. Mr. KUEHL (United States of America) said he had noted the remarks of
the representative of Cuba and also the fact that he had not requested that
consideration of the draft resolution be deferred.
77. The CHAIRMAN said it was unacceptable that openended
consultations were
not held when every provision had been made for them. If members of the
Commission insisted that the Chairman held openended
consultations then they
too must do so.
78. The draft resolution was adopted.
79. Mr. KUEHL (United States of America) explained that the text of the
draft resolution in question had been made available to all regional groups at
least 72 hours in advance and his delegation had discussed it with many other
delegations. As it was a technical matter, his delegation had taken the view
that openended
consultations would not be appropriate.
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 14
Draft resolution recommended by the SubCommission
on organization of the
sessions of the SubCommission
(E/CN.4/1998/2E/
CN.4/Sub.2/1997/50)
80. The CHAIRMAN said he took it that the draft resolution in question
had been superseded by the adoption of the draft resolution contained in
document E/CN.4/1998/L.45.
81. It was so decided.
Draft decision 10 recommended by the SubCommission
on human rights and
scientific and technological developments (E/CN.4/1998/2E/
CN.4/Sub.2/1997/50)
82. The CHAIRMAN said he took it that draft decision 10 had been superseded
by the adoption of the draft decision contained in document E/CN.4/1998/L.46.
83. It was so decided.
QUESTIONS 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 8) (continued) (E/CN.4/1998/L.43, L.49, L.53L.
56, L.58,
and L.60L.
62)
Draft resolution on hostage-taking (E/CN.4/1998/L.43)
84. Mr. BOYTCHENKO (Russian Federation), introducing the draft resolution,
said that hostagetaking
was a gross violation of human rights and a barbaric
practice that could not be justified under any circumstances. As it was a
phenomenon that transcended national frontiers, the international community
must take decisive and coordinated action to bring such practices to an end.
The second and third lines of paragraph 1 should be modified to read: “is an
illegal act constituting a serious obstacle to the full enjoyment of all
human rights and is, under any circumstances, unjustifiable”.
85. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the representatives
of Bangladesh, Ecuador, Poland, Sri Lanka, Uruguay and Venezuela and the
observers for Australia, Pakistan, Spain and Turkey had become sponsors of the
draft resolution.
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 15
86. Mr. CHÁVEZ (Peru), noting that the revision introduced a substantial
change of wording, requested that consideration of the draft resolution should
be deferred until a later meeting.
87. It was so decided.
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.4/1998/L.49)
88. Mrs. THOMPSON (Observer for Costa Rica), introducing the draft
resolution, said that the purpose of the draft optional protocol was to
establish a preventive system of visits by a group of experts to places of
detention. The draft resolution provided for the possible extension of the
next session of the open-ended working group by one week to enable it to
complete its task and thus obviate the need for a further extension of its
mandate. The additional week would be requested only if the working group
felt it was in a position to complete the draft optional protocol in 1998.
89. At the request of a number of sponsors, the words “within existing
resources” had been inserted after the words “extending it to three” in
paragraph 1 of the draft resolution recommended to the Economic and Social
Council in paragraph 8.
90. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the representatives
of Belarus, Canada, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States of
America and the observer for Greece had become sponsors of the draft
resolution.
91. Mr. COMBA (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) said that,
in the event that the open-ended working group extended of its planned 10-day
session by an additional five working days, substantive servicing would be
provided by the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
and the costs thereof would be absorbed from within the existing resources
under section 22 of the 1998-1999 programme budget. The conference servicing
requirements would be covered within existing resources under section 27 (e)
of the 1998-1999 programme budget.
92. No provision had been made under the programme budget for 1998-1999 to
cover the travel costs of participants in the activities of the working group
under paragraph 4 of the draft resolution. It was assumed that participation
by representatives of Governments, specialized agencies and relevant
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations would entail no costs for
the United Nations. It was envisaged that the Special Rapporteur on torture
could combine his participation with a trip to Geneva for consultations with
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
93. The cost of participation by the Chairperson of the Committee against
Torture would involve additional travel and per diem costs of US$ 7,700, which
could be absorbed within existing resources under the programme budget
for 1998-1999.
94. The draft resolution, as orally amended, was adopted.
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 16
Draft resolution on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors
and assessors and the independence of lawyers (E/CN.4/1998/L.53)
95. Mr. DÉKÁNY (Observer for Hungary), introducing the draft resolution,
said that the independence of the judiciary was a fundamental pillar of
democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms. The draft resolution was largely based on those adopted in previous
years and he hoped that it could be adopted without a vote.
96. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the representatives
of Japan and the Russian Federation and the observers for the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia and Togo had become sponsors of the draft resolution.
97. The draft resolution was adopted.
Draft resolution on human rights and forensic science (E/CN.4/1998/L.54)
98. Mr. LEHMANN (Denmark), introducing the draft resolution, said that its
purpose was to ensure the widespread availability of forensic expertise in the
documentation of torture and other violations of human rights. As the draft
resolution had been the subject of open-ended consultations, he trusted that
it would be adopted by consensus.
99. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the representatives
of Belarus, Italy, Japan and the Philippines and the observers for Greece and
Finland had become sponsors of the draft resolution.
100. The draft resolution was adopted.
Draft resolution on United Nations staff (E/CN.4/1998/L.55)
101. Mrs. DIOGO (Observer for Portugal), introducing the draft resolution,
said that the Secretary-General, referring to the recent increase in attacks
on and the use of force against United Nations staff and other personnel
acting under United Nations authority, had expressed particular concern that
nobody had ever been charged or brought to justice for causing the death of a
United Nations staff member.
102. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the representatives
of Argentina and Brazil and the observers for Armenia, Australia, Costa Rica,
Egypt, Greece, Israel and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had become
sponsors of the draft resolution.
103. Mrs. PÉREZ DUARTE y NOROÑA (Mexico) said that, while her delegation
supported the draft resolution, it had made a statement when the
General Assembly had opened the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and
Associated Personnel for signature to the effect that, while her Government
recognized the importance of protecting United Nations staff, it considered
that more time was needed to clarify certain principles underlying the
relations between States and peace keeping operations. It was to be hoped
that the lack of clarity in the wording of the Convention would not impede its
practical implementation.
104. The draft resolution was adopted.
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 17
Draft resolution on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment (E/CN.4/1998/L.56)
105. Mr. BRUUN (Denmark), introducing the draft resolution, highlighted its
main points and, noting that it was the product of several open-ended
consultations, expressed the hope that it would be adopted without a vote.
106. Mrs. KLEIN said that the representatives of Argentina, Belarus, Senegal
and Venezuela and the observers for Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Georgia, Iceland and
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had become sponsors of the draft
resolution.
107. Mr. COMBA (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) said with
reference to the budgetary implications of renewing the mandate of the
Special Rapporteur on torture for a period of three years, that financial
provisions of US$ 98,400 for activities related to the mandate had been
included under section 22 of the programme budget for 1998-1999. Requirements
relating to the third year of the mandate would be included under section 22
of the proposed programme budget for 2000-2001.
108. The draft resolution was adopted.
Draft resolution on human rights in the administration of justice in
particular of children and juveniles in detention (E/CN.4/1998/L.58)
109. Mr. STROHAL (Austria), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its
sponsors, who had been joined by the representative of Brazil and the
observers for Cyprus, Greece, Haiti and Norway, said that the administration
of justice was a core area for the establishment of human rights guarantees,
as witnessed by the large number of United Nations standards relating thereto.
A particularly welcome development was the establishment of a Coordination
Panel designed to provide more focused technical assistance in the
administration of justice for children and juveniles.
110. As a result of widespread consultations, the words “to the greatest
extent feasible” had been inserted in the fifth preambular paragraph after
“separated from adults” and also in paragraph 15, the last phrase of which had
been modified to read: “children and juveniles are separated from adults to
the greatest extent feasible, unless it is considered in their best interest
not to do so”.
111. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the representative of
Canada and the observers for Australia, Israel, New Zealand and Togo had
become sponsors of the draft resolution.
112. The draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted.
Draft resolution on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances
(E/CN.4/1998/L.60)
113. Mr. BERNARD (France), introducing the draft resolution on behalf of its
sponsors, noted that France had inadvertently been omitted from the list.
Given the importance of the struggle against an intolerable form of repression
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 18
of which human rights workers and their families were frequently the victims,
he expressed the hope that the draft resolution on enforced and involuntary
disappearances would be adopted, as in previous years, by consensus.
114. Two changes had been made to the text. A new subparagraph 2 (i) had
been inserted to read: “To continue its deliberations on its working methods
and to include these aspects in its report to the fifty-fifth session of the
Commission on Human Rights”. The words “ou arbitraires” should be deleted
from the French version of paragraph 11.
115. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the representatives
of Brazil, Ecuador and the Russian Federation and the observers for Armenia,
Costa Rica, Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had become
sponsors of the draft resolution.
116. Mr. COMBA (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) said, with
reference to the budgetary implications of the renewal of the mandate of the
Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances for a period of
three years, that financial provisions of US$ 317,800 for activities related
to the mandate had been included under section 22 of the programme budget
for 1998-1999. Requirements relating to the third year of the mandate would
be included under section 22 of the proposed programme budget for 2000-2001.
117. The draft resolution, as orally revised, was adopted.
Draft resolution on the question of arbitrary detention (E/CN.4/1998/L.61)
118. Mr. BERNARD (France), introducing the draft resolution, said that in the
previous 12 months the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had been informed
of over 100 new cases of alleged arbitrary detention. Some of those cases had
been the subject of communications to the Governments concerned. The Working
Group had also made 55 urgent appeals concerning 563 persons, including at
least 11 women, and carried out two field missions.
119. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the representatives
of Ecuador, the Russian Federation and Uruguay and the observers for Armenia,
Costa Rica, Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had become
sponsors of the draft resolution.
120. The draft resolution was adopted.
Draft resolution on the right to freedom of opinion and expression
(E/CN.4/1998/L.62)
121. Ms. McVEY (Canada), introducing the draft resolution, said that it was
largely based on previous resolutions. Among the new elements, however, she
drew attention to paragraph 7 concerning women victims of violence and
paragraph 9 (f) concerning the challenges of new information technology,
including the Internet.
122. Mrs. KLEIN (Secretary of the Commission) said that the representatives
of Argentina, Brazil, Denmark, Ecuador, India, Luxembourg, Nepal, Poland,
Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America and
E/CN.4/1998/SR.51
page 19
Uruguay and the observers for Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire,
Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Mauritius, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia had become sponsors of the draft resolution.
123. Mr. FERNÁNDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) suggested that the words “que no se
invoque como pretexto” in the Spanish version of the fifth preambular
paragraph be replaced by “que no se invoque como excusa injustificada”, the
original English version remaining unchanged.
124. It was so agreed.
125. The draft resolution was adopted.
The meeting rose at 1 p.m.