Summary record of the 40th meeting, held at Lake Success, New York, on Wednesday, 19 May 1948 : Commission on Human Rights, Drafting Committee on an International Bill of Rights, 2nd session
|UN Document Symbol||E/CN.4/AC.1/SR.40|
|Convention||International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)|
|Document Type||Summary Record|
AND SOCIAL COUNCIL
EGONOMIQUE ET SOCIAL
11 June. 1948
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
SUMMARY RECORD OP THE FORTIETH MEETING
Held at Lake Success, New York, on Wednesday, 19 May 1948, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mrs. Franklin D, .ROOSEVELT United States of America
and Rapporteur: Mr. AZKOUL Lebanon
Mr. E.S. B. HENWARD Australia
Mr; H. SANTA CHAZ Chile
Mr. T. Y. WU Chile
Mr. Rene CASSIN France
Mr. A. P PAVLON Union of Soviet Socialist
Mr. E. WILSON United Kingdom
Consultants from Non-governmental Organizations:
MISS. TONI SENDER American federation of Labor
Mr. Van ISTENDAEL International Federation of
Mr. .Van ISTENDAEL Christian Trade Unions
Dr. J. P. HUMPHREY Mr. E. LAWSON
Any corrections of this record should be submitted in writing in either
of the working languages (English or French) and either twenty-four hours,
to Mr. Delavenay, Director, official Records Division, Room CC-119, Lake
Success, Corrections should be accompanied by or incorporated in a latter, on
headed notepaper, bearing the appropriate symbol number and enclosed in an
envelope marked "Urgent" Corrections can be dealt with more speedily by the
services concerned if delegations will be good enough also to incorporate them
in a mimeographed copy of the record
DRAFT INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS . (Continuation of discussion)' Article 16
The CHAIRMAN read 'the' article and recalled that comments on it had been submitted by the Netherlands, Mexico and Brazil, (document E/CN.4/85, pp. 31 and 32). The United. "States of America, preferring an explicit statement of the principle of' freedom of religion,' had presented, an amendment (document E/CN.4/AC.1/20 Page 7) but was prepared to support the Geneva text
Ms. CASSIN (France) pointed out that, the text proposed ;by the French Government (document E/CN.4/82/Add.8) retained the Geneva draft for the first paragraph, with the following purely drafting amendment in
the second paragraph: "Every person has the, right either alone or in
association, to manifest his "beliefs, subject to "respect for public order,
by teaching and practising them, and by worship and observance,"
At the request of Mr. SANTA CRZU (Chile), the, CHAIRMAN read ' out tip relevant text adopted for the draft Covenant. The Chairman added that the United States of America had proposed the following drafting amendment in accordance with the principle of the Geneva text: "Everyone is entitled to freedom of religion, conscience, and belief, including the right, either alone, or in community" with other persons of like mind, to hold and manifest any religious or other belief,1 to change belief, and to practice, any form of religious worship and observance." (document
E/CN.4/AC.1/20, Page 20) .
In reply to a question by Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Re-public) Me, CHAIRMAN explained that the Geneva text pertained to freedom, "of conscience and belief". only while the United States proposal would specifically add to it freedom or religion.
Mr. CASSIN (trance) remarked that, in French freedom of
religion, was already Implied, in the concept' of, "freedom of conscience
and "belief" of which, the former,, although important, was only a part.
However, he would not object to the addition of the word, "religion
On the other hand, the expression "Everyone is entitled to,
had no force when translated literally into French: ("Toute personne
peut se prevaloir du droit a...). It would be better to come straight
to the point by saying "Everyone has the right to .
The CHAIRMAN thought that the. English version might state: "Everyone has. the right, of freedom..which could then he rendered into French as follows: "Toute personne a la liberte de conscience, de religion, de pensee, .etc."
Mr. AZKOWL (Lebanon) thought that it would fee well 11 to add to the second paragraph another sentence on the right to convert other persons to one's own belief.
Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics') felt that a formal declaration was not enough, and requested that the article should be drafted, in more forceful terms, guaranteeing the freedom of conscience in the following manner:
"Every person shall have the right to freedom of thought and to freedom to practice religious observances in accordance with the laws of the country and the dictates of public morality".
In order to avoid Further discussion, Mr. WU (China) proposed that the Committee should revert to the Geneva draft of article 16.
The CHAIRMAN said that the unites, states of America" was prepared to withdraw, its amendment In favour of the Geneva, draft, but pointed out that there was still the USSR amendment to be considered.
Mr. CASSIN (France) also supported the Geneva text, subject to the following drafting amendment to the last sentence.: "de msnifester ses croyances par leur enseignement et leur pratique et par le culte et l'accomplissement des rites". The English version would read: "to manifest his belief in teaching) practice, worship, and observance."
The CHAIRMAN put the following USSR amendment to the vote:
Every person shall have the right to freedom of thought and freedom to practice religious observances in accordance with the laws of the country and the dictates of public morality".
The USSR amendment was rejected by 4 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions'.
The CHAIRMAN then put the Geneva text to the vote together with the following amendment; proposed by the French representative: "to manifest his belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." The amended text was adopted by 6 votes to none with 1 abstention. Articles 5, 6 and 7
Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) proposed a new arrangement of the articles. The first article would begin with the two first paragraphs of the drafting sub-committee's report, followed by an amendment proposed by Chile: "No person shall be imprisoned merely on the grounds of inability to meet a contractual obligation." That text could also be replaced by article 10 of the draft Covenant.
The second amendment would serve to settle problems of arrest and detention. It read as follows: "Everyone has the right to compensation in respect of any unlawful arrest or deprivation of liberty."
A second article would follow dealing with the legal procedure and the rights of the individual in case of accusation. The article would begin as follows? The rights and obligations of every person confronted with a criminal accusation must be determined or Judged by independent
At that point, the following USSR amendment might be
included: "...tribunals which are governed by democratic principles."
before which all persons are equal".
The next paragraph "would define the Judgements "Everyone accused of an offense roust "be Judged within a reasonable" time by courts established beforehand and In accordance with pre-existing laws in. a public trial."
Certain concepts, taken from the last part of the subcommittee's report "would follow, The text might state; "In the Judgments and decisions, everyone has the right to: " followed by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the sub-committee's report A paragraph (d) would deal with the right of defense including the question of interpreters., as provided in the USSR proposal,
Finally, the Committee might express its views with regard to the USSR proposal to take up again article 7, paragraph 2, dealing with war-criminals.
The CEAIRMAN opened discussion on the Chilean proposals.
Mr. WILSON (United Kingdom) thought that most of the United Kingdom amendments were net either by the sub-committee's proposals or by the Chilean amendments.
Mr. CASSIN (France) thought that the Chilean suggestions were interesting. It would be necessary, however, to weigh the provisions carefully in order to achieve the necessary conciseness and precision in drafting,
Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) would have lilted to see some parts of his previously proposed amendments inserted in the sub-committee draft He would agree to basing the discussion on the composite draft presented by Chile Which he supported in principle, subject to a few amendments. He recalled that his proposal stated: "Ml persons are equal before the tribunals" and not: "before the law".
The: CHAIEMAN 'put to the vote first the United Kingdom amendment to replace the first two paragraph of the sub-committee draft by the following sentence: "Ho one may be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention
The United Kingdom amendment was not adopted. Three votes, were . cast in favour of. the amendment and 3 against, with 1 abstention,
The CHAIRMAN read the first paragraph of the sub-committee draft,
Mr. HEYWARD (Australia) and Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) felt that the words "arrest" and "detention" should be retained, While arrests were made by legal authorities detections could be caused by anyone,
Mr. CASSIN (France) considered the expression "can be authorized" to be inexact since arrest or detention could, in fact, occur without authorization. It would be simpler and better to use at that point the text of the draft declaration, article 5. The text would then read: -
"No one may be arbitrarily deprived of his liberty. Arrest or detention may be allowed only according to pre-existing law and in accordance with due process."
On the suggestion of Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), the CHAIRMAN put the first sentence to the vote first: -"No one may be arbitrarily deprived of his liberty." The text was adopted by 6 votes to none.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the English text should begin with the words "No one" instead of the words "No person"; she then opened the discussion of Mr. Casein's proposed text for the second sentence,
Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)' requested that the word "Imprisonment" should be added to the words: "arrest" and "detention", In Russian, at any rate, the "three words had different
/Mr. SANTA CRUZ
Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile), supported that suggestion Arrest and detention, were measures taken "by authorities or tribunals during the period of inquiry, or during the trial, while imprisonment constituted a punishment;. Moreover, the discussion had shown that it would be better not to enter into legalistic terminology'. The representative of Chile consequently proposed a more general formula; "No one may be arbitrarily, deprived of his liberty, except in accordance with pre-existing law and in accordance with due process."
Mr. CASSIN (France)' might accept the additional word! "Imprisonment", If, however, as the representative of Chile had proposed, a more general formula was to be accepted, it would be best to revert to the first sentence of article 5 of the Geneva text, which read:
"No one shall be deprived of his personal liberty or kept in custody except in cases prescribed by law and after due process."
The CHAIRMAN remarked that the first sentence of. the sub-committee text had already been adopted For the second sentence, Mr. Cassin's proposed formulation might be accepted:' "Arrest or detention may he allowed only according to pre-existing law and In accordance with due process."
Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) thought that imprisonment should be mentioned together with arrest' and detention; as suggested by the USSR representative, But it would be simpler to adopt a formula avoiding legal definitions, and to state, for instance, after the principle was laid down:
"Deprivation of liberty is only allowed according to preexisting laws .and in accordance with due process
Mr. WU (China) wondered if the discussion served any useful purpose- He proposed simply accepting the Geneva text and going on to the following articles,
Mr. WILSON (United Kingdom) agreed.
Mr. PAVLOV, (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; would regret the adoption of such a solution, after a three day discussion during which improvements had been wade. He proposed the insertion of the words: "arrest, detention, and imprisonment",
Mr. CASSIN (France) did not think the problem was very complicated. It could he solved by incorporating the word 'imprisonment" in the sub -committee text, With regard to the remainder of the text, a more satisfactory French draft would be possible, hut the present drafting was acceptable.
Mr. AZKOUL (Lebanon) also proposed to use the three words "arrest, detention, and imprisonment". Their meaning was undoubtedly very similar, but each however had an exact and different meaning. "Arrest", for instance, was used more in an administrative senses "detention had, in some way, a political character (reference was often made to political detention); "imprisonment" was punishment for a crime or an infringement of the law. As the three words did not have exactly the same meaning, there was no disadvantage, and probably some advantage, in using all three.
The CHAIRMAN said that the United States delegation did not object to the inclusion of the word "imprisonment" and would like to
see the sentence adopted with the addition of that word.
Mr. WU (China) would generally favour the sub-committee text, which contained the essential ideas expressed in articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Geneva text in abridged form. If the USSR representative insisted that the text should be replaced by his own draft, however, the Chinese delegation would agree,
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the various suggestions submitted had resulted in the following text;
Arrest, detention or imprisonment may be allowed only according to pre-existing law and in accordance with due process."
Mr. PAVLOV (Anion of 'Soviet Socialist Republics) stated that he could not find what had been proposed "by the sub-committee in that text.
Mr. CASSIN (France) affirmed that all the essential Ideas of the sub-committee had been faithfully interpreted.
The CHAIRMAN stated that in order to reach an agreement on the different points of view expressed; it would "be necessary to put both texts to the vote.
The text supported by Mr. Casein was adopted "by 3 votes to 2, with
The Committee passed to the examination of the second paragraph.
Mr. CASSIN (France) asked that the difference between the two very distinct; ideas evoked by the text' should he clearly established.
There' was first of all the question of the legality of arrest. But an' arrest might he legal at the moment when it was made .end become an abuse owing to prolongation of the detention. It was then that the necessity for trial within a reasonable time arose. To avoid any misunderstanding on that point, Mr. Cassin proposed the following texts
"...to immediate Judicial determination the legality of
any detention to which he may be subject and to trial" within
a reasonable time or to release,"
In other words, a distinction should be made between the necessity for controlling the legality of the measures for arrest, and the necessity for trial and verdict, within a reasonable period of time,
The CHAIRMAN said that her delegation would favour the darting sub-committee text, which was more in accordance with the national legislation of the United States.
/Mr. SANTA CURZ
Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) supported Mr. Cassin's views.
The CHAIRMAN thought that the text should first of all specify the principal fact, which was "that any individual who .was arrested should be 'promptly tried or freed; that should be followed "by the idea of verifying the legality of the arrest.
Mr. CASSIN (France) thought it was preferable .to deal "With the facts in their chronological order, as was done in the Geneva text.
The CHAIRMAN remark that that order was respected in the sub-committee text.
Mr. WILSON (United Kingdom) stated that certain ambiguities would have been avoided by adopting the text he had proposed. He would take it up again in the plenary session of the Commission. He considered, however, the Geneva text would be preferable to that of the sub -committee for the reasons expressed by the representatives of France and Chile.
The CHAIRMAN asked Mr. Cassin if he would be willing to accept the Geneva text in place of the one proposed by the sub-committee.
Mr. CASSIN (France) replied in the affirmative with the reservation that one correct idea should be taken from the sub-committee text, that was, the obligation- to notify the accused of the charges made against him. That idea had been omitted from the Geneva text, and it was necessary to correct that omission. Mr. Cassin added that he would be more willing to accept the proposed substitution if, in the English text, the words "a reasonable time" were replaced by "the shortest delay".
As a result of the various suggestions made, the Committee had before it the folio-wing text:
'Everyone who has been deprived of his liberty 1ms the right, to be promptly informed of the reasons for his detention
and to immediate judicial determination .of the legality of ,any measures to which he may be subject and to" trial within a reasonable time or to release."
Mr. PAVLON (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) proposed that the - part' of the text on which; there appeared to be general agreement should be put to the vote as had been done previously.
The CHAIRMAN put the following sentence to the vote: "Everyone who has been deprived of his liberty has the right to be promptly informed of the reasons for his detention."
The sentence was approved by 5 votes to none, with 2 abstentions.
With regard to the last part of the paragraph, the CHAIRMAN thought it might be preferable to return to the Geneva, text.
Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) stated that whatever 'test was: adopted should contain sufficient guarantees with regard to the notification to the accused of the charges made against him, and the time .within which he would be triad. Mr. Pavlov added that that period of time should not only be as short as possible, but he asked for measures which would make it possible to fix a data for the trial from the moment of the accused's detention.
According to the CHAIRMAN, the Geneva text covered that require-ment perfectly
Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) wished to define the scope of the present discussion, What was in question was not, in his opinion the time which the tribunal would require to judge a case, at the appropriate moment with complete independence, and within a period of time which, it was simply stated should be reasonable, What was in question was the duty of the authority, arresting an individual, to place him, without delay, at the disposal of the courts.
Mr. HETWARD (Australia) supported the Geneva text,
Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) 'stated that he would also return to the Geneva text, but that he wished to make it more specific, He expressed his thought by taking as an example a person suspected of stealing. Once that person was arrested, it would be necessary, first of all, to give a competent opinion on the legality of the arrest. But that was not sufficient; it would also be necessary for the arrested person to know the period of time within which he would be tried, as his detention could not be prolonged indefinitely merely on suspicion. That, suspicion must he either specified or abandoned within a reasonable time,
Mr. CASSIN (France) agreed that the idea expressed by the USSR representative was very interesting but he thought that the Committee should remain within certain limits. The best measures established by the Geneva text and by the sub-committee had been retained, but the boat must not be overloaded, as that would bring the risk of even those governments who had the greatest respect for individual liberty, rejecting the text finally drawn up.
The USSR representative's suggestion was rejected by 2 votes to 1, with 4 abstentions.
The next text put to the vote was .taken from the Geneva draft, with the addition of the word "imprisonment", and the measures previously adopted with regard to the notification of the charges. The text read as follows:
"Everyone who has been deprived of his liberty has the
right to be promptly informed of the charges made against
Everyone placed under arrest, detention or imprisonment shall have the "right to immediate judicial determination of the measures taken against him and to trial within a reasonable time' or to release;" Those paragraphs were adopted: "by; 4 votes to none with 2 abstentions.
The CHAIRMAN requested the Committee to decide on various amendments, the first of which followed the old Geneva draft of the international covenant.
"No one shall he imprisoned or held in servitude merely on the grounds of inability to meet a contractual obligation." The amendment was adopted by 3, votes to 1, with 3 abstentions, A second amendment, based on paragraph (d) of the last sub-paragraph of the Drafting Committee*e proposals, was as follows:
"Everyone has a right to compensation in respect of any unlawful arrest or illegal deprivation of liberty," The amendment was adopted by 4 votes to 2, with 1 abstention. The next item under consideration was an amendment submitted by the Chilean delegation, which did not appear in either the Subcommittee or the Geneva text,
"The rights and obligations of each person and the criminal accusations against him must be determined or Judged by independent and impartial tribunals, before which tribunals all persons are equal." The USSR delegation submitted the following amendment to that text;
"The Judicial procedure of each state must be established on democratic principles,"
Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) asked that a vote should first be taken on his amendment, with which everyone should be in. agreement,
Mr. WILSON (United Kingdom) stated that he would vote against the amendment because he feared that the expression "democratic principles" did not mean the same thing to him and to his USSR colleague.
The USSR amendment was rejected by 3 votes to 1, with 3 abstentions,
The CHAIRMAN put to the vote the first part of the Chilean amendment which read;
"The rights and obligations of each person and the criminal accusations against him must be determined or Judged' "by Independent and impartial tribunals..." The text was adopted by 3 votes to none, with 4 abstentions.-
The' CHAIRMAN put the last part of the Chilean amendment to the vote. It read;
"..."before which tribunals all persons are equal." The Chairman pointed out that the text fulfilled the aim of the USSR representative who favoured the following texts "All men are equal before the law."
The end of the Chilean amendment, was adopted by 3 votes to 1. with 3 abstentions,
The CHAIRMAN called for discussion of the following Chilean proposal:
'Any person accused of an offence shall be tried within a reasonable time, in accordance with the law in force and in a public trial."
Mr';' CASSIN :(France) thought that the text should be limited .to the passage providing for public trial, and that the reference to "reasonable time" might, be omitted in the interest of: brevity. It; was already mentioned,
Mr. SANTA CRUZ, (Chile), replied that the provision previously, adopted specified that" any individual placed' under arrest must be brought to ferial within a reasonable time, while the text under discussion involved the statement that the trial of any accused person, whether under arrest or not, must take place within a reasonable time.
The ,CHAIRMAN put the following amendment to the vote;
"Any person accused of an offence must be judged within a reasonable time by courts established beforehand and in accordance with the law in, force at the time the, offence was committed and in a public trial." The amendment was adopted by 2 votes to 1, with 4 abstentions,
Mr. CASSIN (France) said that he had not realized that the text contained the words "in accordance with the law in force at the time the offence was committed". That clause honoured the principle of non-retroactivity of laws and, under those conditions, the representative of Prance agreed to have his vote added to those in favour of the text just approved,
The CHAIRMAN then called for discussion of the next amendment, worded as follows:
"In judgments and rulings, everyone shall have the right:" That text would be followed by the principles indicated in subparagraphs a), b), c) etc. of the Sub-Committee's text.
Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) explained that some of the principles Involved, for example the prohibition of torture and cruel or degrading treatment, applied not only to persons in custody but also to persons sentenced.
The CHAIRMAN was of the opinion that, since the rest of the text related to trial procedure, the provision dealing with torture, mutilation and cruel or degrading 'treatment should form a separate article. Moreover, that arrangement would give the text greater force,
Mr. CASSIN, (France) also be live that the provision should be placed at the end, The text under discussion involved trial procedure Logically, the Committee should now consider the USSR amendment relating to war criminals which 'France supported, Actually that provision constituted an' exception to the principle set forth In the paragraph which had Just been adopted,
Next, the Committee should tales up the problem of presumed innocence and only after that the question of torture and mutilation
Mr. SANTA CRUZ;(Chile) had no objection .to the proposal that the paragraph on torture, mutilation etc. should he placed in a separate article. He also agreed that, the Soviet amendment should be voted upon immediately,
Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) pointed out that his amendment was 'not .a new text since it merely repeated paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Geneva draft.
The CHAIRMAN read the text of the USSR amendment; which was;
"Nothing In this Article shall prejudice the fair trial of any person for the commission of any apt which, at the time. It was committed was criminal according to the general principles of "law 'recognized by civilized nations,1'
Mr. CASSIN (France) agreed in principle with the text but would prefer that it be .clarified as follows,: "This provision, shall pot, prejudice.." Actually the provision of the text immediately preceding was involved
The CHAIRMAN recalled that, the .United States. did .not favour provisions of that kind, If, t however the Committee decided otherwise the text might read:
/"These shall not,'
"These shall not prejudice the trial and' punishment of any person for the commission of any act...
Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.) felt that the word "these" lacked precision, He would prefer keeping the original text*. "Nothing in this Article shall prejudice He would however accept: "The preceding provisions shall not prejudice..."
Mr. CASSIN (France) accepted that wording,
The CHAIRMAN' put the following amendment to the vote:
"The preceding provisions shall not prejudice the trial and
punishment of any person for the commission of' any act, which at the
time it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles
of law recognized by civilized nations."
The amendment was adopted by 4 votes to 1, with 2 abstentions.
The CHAIRMAN read the following amendment:
"During the trial everyone is entitled, in all criminal
cases, to a fair hearing and to be presumed innocent until proved
The USSR had proposed an amendment as follows:
",.,1s entitled to have full knowledge of all documents "before
the court and shall have the right to address the court in his native
The representative of China had introduced an amendment guaranteeing defence but had withdrawn It
Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) felt that It was not necessary to go into the details of defence since the forms might vary according to national legislation. What was necessary was to assure the guarantee, of defence. Accordingly the USSR representative proposed the
"Every 'accused person is "entitled' to the right of defence. In case a 'person who does not know the language. Used by the court is prosecuted, the accused shall be entitled, through an' interpreter to be fully informed "of the material in .the case and to .address the court in his: own language.." The idea had already been accepted when the covenant was discussed,
Mr. CASSIN (France) observed that the statement "Pendant le Jugement" might appear to limit the guarantees to the final procedure. It would be better for' the French' text to reads "Pendant toute la procedure",
Mr. WILSON (United Kingdom) accepted the USSR proposal in principle but. thought it unnecessary to go into all the details. It would in any case be paradoxical for the declaration to be more detailed than the covenant.. If the declaration must deal with the same ideas, it should at least repeat the terms of the covenant itself;
Mr. WU (China) supported Mr. Wilson's statement. The Geneva articles expressed the same principle and did it, better; than the proposed text, A' declaration was not intended for the intellectual- or -the jurist
but rather for the man in the street. The Chinese delegation would therefore; vote against the amended article
Mr. WILSON (United Kingdom) stated that he would also vote against the amended, article for the same reasons,
Mr. HEYWARD (Australia) also felt that it would be better to retain the Geneva text,
The CHAIRMAN was of the opinion 'that it would really be a pity merely to return to the original text after so long a debate.
Mr. CASSIN (France) shared the misgivings' expressed by his colleagues from China and the United Kingdom. The Committee, however, had accomplished useful work and should not lose hope. The representative of Prance proposed retention of the first texts adopted "by the Committee up to its consideration of questions of criminal procedure, From that point on, the Committee could retain the wording of Article 7 of the Geneva draft and improve it by making it shorter.
The CHAIRMAN felt that it was "better not to reconsider texts which had already "been voted upon. She proposed that the discussion, which in any case was nearing its end, should he closed and that "both the Geneva text and the text drawn up by the Drafting Committee should be sent to the full Commission,
Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) supported the Chairman's proposal. He urged the Committee not to lose courage and to continue the discussion.
Mr. SANTA CRUZ. (Chile) considered the text of the Sub-Committee as well as the Geneva text acceptable provided that the version which was adopted included the statement that an accused person was entitled to be heard in his native language and the presumption that an accused person was innocent until proved guilty.
The CHAIRMAN thought that the two' texts could "be sent to the Commission together and proposed a vote on the following paragraph:
"Any person being tried is entitled to a fair hearing. In criminal cases, the person being tried must be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
"When a person who does not know the national law is prosecuted, he shall be entitled, through an interpreter, to be fully informed of the material of the case and to address the court in his own language."
/it was decided
It was decide to vote first on the last sent sentence
The sentence was adopted by 3 votes to 1, with 3 abstentions,
The entire paragraph was adopted by 3 votes to none, with 4 abstentions.
Before the entire text was voted upon, Mr. CASSIN (France) asked The Geneva, text and the text drawn up fry the Drafting Committee should allotted to the Commission. Technically he had the Impression that the see had not distorted the text entrusted to it, From the standpoint rity, there was still a great deal to he achieved, He hoped that Commission would aid in the task.
Mr.. WILSON (United Kingdom) did not oppose either of the two and also recommended the submission of both, He, however, felt that the 5g Committee must by a vote express Its opinion on the text drawn up course of Its discussion.
The entire text was rejected fry 3 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions, by 4 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions, the Committee decided to transmit by to the full Commission' both the Geneva text and the text which had seen rejected,
By 6 votes to none, with 1 abstention, it was also decided to submit following text to the Commission:
"No one shall be subjected to torture, mutilation or to cruel or inhuman treatment or indignity,"
as 17 and 18
The CHAIRMAN recalled that the Commission had decided ret to draft native text of the two articles until it was Informed of the opinion Conference on Freedom of Information, That Conference had recommended he two articles should be combined In a single article for which it had and a text, Since, however, it would be difficult for the Committee
/to reach any
to reach any decision without a rather long discussion, the Chairman suggested:
that the question should he referred to the Commission which could reach
a decision on the basis of the suggestions presented by the Conference on
Freedom of information or otherwise.
MR. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stated that he would not oppose that procedure provided the Commission was at the same time notified of the proposals on the same subject drawn up by his delegation,
The Committee voted unanimously to transmit all texts in connection with Articles 17 and 18 to the full Commission.
The meeting rose at 5.40 p. m.