Thursday, 31 July 2003, 10:20 a.m.
These notes are unofficial. For official versions see summary records or UN press releases.
[Note: the Sub-Commission had before it the text of the opening remarks of Mr. Bertie Ramcharan, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, which was presented on 28 July 2003]
The Acting High Commissioner made 12 precise points in his opening speech to us. I think I was not alone in understanding the presentation as a form of criticism. The work we are doing did not answer to his 12 challenges. Two types of comments. 1. What the Sub Commission does and its relevance, and 2. How we do it.
I was surprised he said we weren’t dealing with certain issues – e.g., poverty (we have a working paper on extreme poverty submitted this year), education (the Sub-Commission has been instrumental in starting several UN mechanisms), democracy & rule of law (WG on Admin Justice is looking at more effective implementation of domestic remedies), and new threats (biotechnology – Mrs. Motoc is working on a working paper on this topic).
In other areas it is accurate to say we aren't doing anything now. For example, one major omission is our work is the lack of followup of past studies. I think we should adopt a practice rather than a rule that each report should contain some recommendations on what will happen next and those items should be followed up.
As far as work on immediate issues of grave human rights violations are concerned, we have a very real problem here that is not of our making. The session this year has shown we are fumbling in the dark. Fewer NGOs than in the past are participating. Some of the NGO’s who used to speak, when asked why they aren't participating anymore -- their view was, what’s the point. We tried the first year after resolutions were taken away, to adopt a special type of summary record. But the threat that the Commission on Human Rights might further curb our activities caused that effort to fade away.
One proposal as part of this item 2 is to hold an intrasessional working group, to focus on the topic of counter terrorism guidelines. Based on actual practice in states. Perhaps this working group could be started next year, if the TNC working group wraps up its work this year. If so, then a new working group could be created next year. But in the meantime, it would be important to produce documentation for such a new working group. The idea would be to deal with the reality on the ground. Why is this necessary? No other group within the UN is doing it. The digest produced by the UN Office of High Commissioner for example deals with decisions and legislation, but not their application. The Counter Terrorism Committee of the Security Council has asked who could monitor these activities? The Commission can’t because they only look at these things periodically. The thematic procedures can’t either. It seems like the Sub-commission can do this – through an intrasessional working group (so there are no additional financial implications).
We should also consider the NGO recommendations too on item 2 – but I'm not sure how best to do this.
Mr. Bengoa’s proposals are also interesting.
Mrs. Warzazi (Sub-Commission chair): thank you for those comments Mrs. Hampson. Perhaps you could draw up a paper of those recommendations and circulate it to the rest of the members.
10:31 a.m.
I agree with Mrs. Hampson’s proposal – we should have some type of mechanism to deal with the human rights impact of states' counter terrorist measures. This is one of the key issues concerning the promotion and protection of human rights today. I await the more precise formulation of it that Mrs. Hampson has promised. But it sounds encouraging.
I did not perceive Mr. Ramcharan’s statement the same way as Mrs. Hampson. I did not view it as critical of the Sub-Commission. I found it very useful. I think he wanted the Sub-commission to consider what its strategic role should be within the subject areas he raised. What specific role can the Sub-commiission play. Many useful human rights mechanisms have been established over the years within the UN, many at the prodding of the Sub-commission. So it is useful to reflect about where our strategic role is.
To repeat my own suggestion – in line with the proposals made by Mr. Bengoa and Mrs. Hampson – on how to help victims, I think we should study the findings of the special procedures of the Commission, with a view to making recommendations to improve them. I made some concrete proposals yesterday on this subject that I will not repeat here, due to time constraints.
There were several other proposals made by the Acting High Commissioner. One area we should give more attention to is the analysis of the national protection systems in each country. Maybe this can come in part out of Mr. Dcaux’s study on effective universalizaiton of human rights treaties. Another area where I find there is no other body dealing with effectively yet – is the challenge of people on the move. As migrants, as trafficked women, as refugees, etc. There is a huge topic area here. Many dimensions. Nothing is done in seeing their togetherness --the linkage between the different types of people on the move.
In Europe this is one of the most serious human rights problems. The way in which asylum seekers are being treated is getting worse and worse each year. It is approaching types of concentration camps. This area needs to be very closely examined from a human rights perspective. It is not done in a coherent way anywhere at present. Only the Sub-commission is really positioned to do it.
On the item 2 limitations, Mrs. Hampson is right – the problems we are facing are not of our making, but of the higher bodies.
On the follow up to previous work of the Sub-commission – in previous years we had an agenda item on matters which the Sub-commission has been involved. Perhaps we should bring it back again. So we can keep track of completed studies.
10:37 a.m.
I think we should analyze item 2. This is the center of our problems. The Minnesota Advocates of Human Rights gave an excellent diagnosis of this problem. They even indicated the number of members in the Sub-commission who take the floor is increasingly less. So I think there is a basis for solving this problem. I’m not going to speak further on this. Mrs. Hampson touched on this. I believe the acting High Commissioner mentioned the challenge to be more specific. I think Mrs. Hampson’s proposals are complementary to the proposals I am making. They both serve to enrich the discussion.
Yesterday I made a proposal to reflect Mr. Ramcharan’s challenge. I proposed 3 levels of studies. I would like to repeat this since several members were not present. First, we could reflect Mr. Ramcharan's idea in an initial study concerning the results of the reports of special rapportuers and the follow up mechanisms which the Commission on Human Rights has had and establish an analysis and recommendations for the Commission.
The second type of study we could do would refer to the work of the various working groups. A study on the works and proposals of the Working Groups and other mechanisms of the Commission.
The third level of review is one which Professor Eide has also raised -- a study of the mechanisms of monitoring human rights violations in the treaty bodies. Including the follow up mechanisms, and linkage to Commission mechanisms. Those are the 3 levels I noted.
My proposal to the Sub-commission is very specific. I suggest next week we organize a small committee, composed of members from the various regions, who can draft and discuss a proposal concerning these studes for the consideration anf vote at the plenary of the Sub-Commission.
10:43 a.m.
Just a small comment. I think we should consider the reaction of the special rapporteurs and treaty body experts in suggesting these types of ideas, to avoid affecting any sensitivities because of Mr. Ramcharan’s enthusiasm, which is shared by some of our experts. We should go person to person to make sure that nothing we are proposing to do would be viewed negatively by those whom we would be studying.
[note: Mr. Alfonso Martinez, expert from Cuba, joins at this point]
I agree with the proposals which have been made so far and with Mrs. Warzazi's cautionary note. I think we have to be open to a certain amount of improvisation with these proposals. We shouldn’t meet in parallel. I found a very useful reference document a few years ago, about 30 pages in length, which was a full compilation of all the mechanisms and studies which had been completed through that date. This document would be useful to update and have available in our future sessions. We can act as a sort of a facilitator.
On the subject of country situations, in the past, under the 1503 procedure, we had a good overview of the conditions in all countries where widespread violations were being alleged. This overview allowed us to take the pulse of the world. We no longer have this barometer. We need to prepare seriously for item 2. This year the discussion was very disappointing. The NGO’s didn’t raise too many issues. Some took the floor to say everything was fine. States took the floor – which is appropriate. But only about a dozen took the floor.
Item 2 should not be removed from our agenda. A good discussion of item 2 requires preparation. I think a presessional group would help.
As to recommendations from the Acting High Commissioner, some of them are already part of our work. There is an irony here – the Sub-Commission's special rapporteur on terrorism is not getting enough staff support, but the High Commissioner's office is putting out competing information on terrorism. We need to sort these types of resource issues out.
Mrs. Warzazi. Can you make this document that you mentioned available, this table you refer to? Decaux: I found it, but lost it again. Warzazi: Could you talk to the Secretariat about the date then – so perhaps we can find it.
10:48 a.m.
I have some reactions to Mr. Ramcharan’s opening speech. I acknowledge the emotions and respect his speech invoked in me. I hope we can rise to the challenges that he put to us. I believe the Sub-commissoin can continue to make a valuable contribution on human rights. The high quality of papers I have seen this year and last year, convinces me that the work merits the support of the Commission on Human Rights & ECOSOC.
At the same time, we have to take note of the point that long time senior members of the Sub-Commission have made, regarding the curtailment of time and resources. I’m sure that many others have found irrefutable the arguments of Mr. Bengoa, as I did. If the Commission & ECOSOC have high expectations of the Sub-Commission, then they should give us adequate time and resources to do the job.
Among the challenges listed by Mr. Ramcharan, he did not list one I believe should be at the top of the list. Namely, the formidable challenge of credibility. The whole world has watched with disbelief the distressing trend in the disrespect of universal human rights. States are flouting with impunity their obligations under the UN Charter. It is not surprising that disbelief, cynicysm and pessimism have grown, threatening to overwhelm the world. Some in the human rights community might even feel despondent. Concerns with implementing human rights norms, as elucidated by Mr. Decaux, pale in importance when the world seems to be entering a world of anarchy. At such a time of darkness, it redounds to the great credit of our members, Mrs. Hampson, Mr. Eide, Mr. Weissbrodt, Mrs. Motoc, Mr. Decaux, and many NGO’s who continue to light candles in this oppressive darkness.
One of the challenges listed by Mr. Ramcharan affects more people than others – poverty. Hundreds of millions exist in desperate want. The 1968 World Human Rights Conference, in the Teheran Declaration, confirmed in paragraph 13, that human rights are indivisibile and that the full realization of civil and political rights are not possible, without enjoyment of economic, social & cultural rights. The enjoyment of human rights is dependent upon sound and effective national and international polices of social development. In 1968, the World Conference noted that there were 700 million illiterates in the world, and that this presented an enormous obstacle to all efforts at realizing the aims of the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since 1968, the number of illiterates and the numbers in poverty have further increased. Therefore the question that needs to be raised urgently is what answered is-- what can be done to reverse these trends and to help people living in poverty and want, to raise their standards to a point where they can really think about the enjoyment of human rights.
We know this problem is agitating idealists all over the world. Youth in affluent countries protest whenever there is an international conference on economic issues, especially relating to globalization and world trade. They realize well that the problems of poverty and denial of discrimination can not be resolved until the economic system is made more equitable.
It is appropriate that ECOSOC & the Commission on Human Rights have finally approved the Social Forum as an annual commitment. Credit for this achievement goes largely to Mr. Bengoa, who had full support of the Sub-commission members in pursuing the creation of this mechanism. I think that the Forum will provide the means for addressing the issues underlying the causes of poverty. These issues are both domestic and international. I hope the Forum will address both – especially at the global level. I also look forward to Mrs. Mbonu’s report on corruption – this will also be a very important subject.
I wish to underline that we need to place emphasis on economic, social & cultural rights, even more than civil and political rights.
11:00 a.m.
I’m very happy we’ve decided to examine item 2. Thanks to the Minnesota Advocates. I think they said what all of us have been thinking but have not stated. Our Sub-Commission is moving toward something irrelevant. We are out of date, if you look at item 2. I find this surreal. In a few years time at this rate we’ll be asked to study human rights on the moon. If you look at the Commission proceedings, you can’t see many concrete situations – just generalities. Same thing with the Sub-Commission. I appreciate all the suggestions that were made. I appreciate the wording proposed by Mr. Decaux – followup but not control. I suspect special rapportuers would appreciate some analysis of linkages between their work, and other mechanisms in the UN.
I think all of the proposals are very useful. But to be effective I think we should concentrate on just a few items that could revitalize item 2. The Minnesota Advocates suggested that NGO’s be asked to submit early comments, so we can prepare for our item 2 discussion. I think the suggestion of a committee that might come up during the session – is good too. There can be a resolution or proposal on these ideas this year, so that next year we won’t have to talk about the moon.
11:06 a.m.
Today we see that there isn’t just custom in human rights, but some texts become classics almost immediately, like the opening remarks of Mr. Ramcharan. Some of these things I’m going to say, may not be appreciated by all my colleagues. As soon as you join an organization, you become somewhat narcissistic. I think we need to be self-critical.
When Mr. Ramcharan raised his issues, it is true that we analyze all of these subjects now in some way or another. I think the key question, however, is how this is done? What is the relevance of what we are doing? Only reports from the 70’s and 80’s appear in the literature. What happens bfore or after that? Who uses our studies? How do NGO’s and others use them? If we are going to consider the ways in which we work, we should look at these types of issues. Of course there is a question of resources. All of these reports take effort. The Commission gets support for their studies, but not our's.
There is a famous book by Ankara [ed. note: didn't get this, not sure of the name], from Harvard, where he describes passion as the human abilty to go beyond his or her limitations. I think this is what we need to do. We are facing very serious limitations at the present time. Going back to concrete proposals, we were relegated to just being a think tank after 1999 – but we’re not working as a think tank at present. We draw our reports at home. We work alone. We submit them here.They might be slightly improved by comments from colleagues. But I don’t think that works. We need to collaborate more. If we don’t focus on certain topics, we aren’t going to have good work.
Secondly we need to know what is going to be written in the preliminary, progress and final reports of a study. To unify what we are doing here. To see how we can work with the people we are aiming this work at – the NGO’s. I don’t think we have sufficient interaction with NGO’s while we are preparing our reports. So I think we should have a working group to look at these issues. To develop this think tank aspect more effectively.
As Mr. Pinheiro said, we aren’t content with just being a thinktank. We want to do more. Before 1999 we did it --we considered & voted on specific country situations. We tried to raise this last year to the Commission. It didn’t work. If the NGO’s want to have this, we can try. But personally I’m a bit skeptical. When a body loses a power to sanction, it does lose some relevance. We have to increase our relevance by producing better studies.
With regard to the concrete proposals made by my colleagues -- not all the special procedures of the Commission examine massive violations. Only the country rapporteurs do that. Another proposal which was made, along the same lines, is to have a directory of human rights. All of the texts for the year, combined into a single text. There are some financial implications obviously.
I welcome the comments of Mr. Decaux on the way we work with the Office of High Commissioner. We have legitimacy. We represent all the regions of the world. This is why it is regrettable what happened to Mrs. Koufa. On counter terrorism measures proposed again this year – we should also listen to Mrs. Koufa’s views of this too, before we act.
11:14 a.m.
Regarding the points raised by the Acting High Commissioner, I have the following comments. I am more cautious and pragmatic than others.
1. We believe the challenges Mr. Ramcharan raised are real challenges. However these challenges confront the entire UN system, not just the Sub-Commission. The whole of humanity is confronted with these challenges. Many of the challenges mentioned can not be addressed solely in this Sub-Commission. They pertain to many other agencies. Our Sub-commission should perform our existing duties in a better, more satisfactory way. We are restricted by our terms of reference and mandate. We are not supposed to address all human rights issues in the world.
2. The Sub-commission is faced with a very realistic challenge. The mandates given to us far exceed the resources that are available. Including financial, human, & material resources. This is obvious. Many of my colleagues have proposed very useful recommendations. These merit our study. But that will take some time to digest.
3. We welcome wide participation of NGOs and other observers. However they should base their expectations of the Sub-commission on more realistic estimations. Because of the specific methodologies and mandates given to this Sub-commission. We should not be expected to perform in the same way here in the Sub-Commission as in the Commission. Same methodology should not be copied. We can improve the effectiveness of item 2, but not revert to the methodologies of the past.
11:21 a.m.
I don’t know if criticism was intended by Mr. Ramcharan or not. The Commission was so clear in their resolution this year. Remember last year we had a chairman’s statement on a death penalty case. Also in thematic resolutions there were mentions of some country situations. The Commission has now made it clear that we can not mention governments implicitly or explicitly.
I read the Minnesota Advocates statement. It’s true what they say. It's up to us to change this. Or would it fall to the Commission to do this? We can make proposals. But can the Commission agree? Won’t that again bring back onto the table the problems the Sub-commission had 2 years ago. We can’t do work without referring to states. That is the reality.
We shouldn’t do things that will threaten the existence of the Sub-Commission. We have to work to be effective and useful, without causing further problems between us and the Commission.
11:25 a.m.
I listened carefully to all the statements made today. I agree with almost all of them. I also found the statement of the Acting High Commissioner very inspiring and useful. Especially the following 3 points: 1. Relief for the victims of gross violations, 2. Challenge of national protection systems. 3. Challenge of people on the move.
To elaborate on each of these. I completely agree on the need to provide relief to victims. They need immediate relief. The Sub-commission is not equipped to provide immediate relief, but we are in a good position to study the existing mechanisms of the UN to determine whether they are adequately dealing with this issue of immediacy.
On the challenge of national protection systems – Mr. Eide spoke several times during this session on this. While universal application of treaties is important, we need to make sure also that they are fully implemented and applied in the domestic legal systems. There are countries in the world where a national protection system doesn’t exist at all. But there are also cases where the system exists but in nominal form only. It's not effective. Here there is a need for reinforced monitoring. Such as special procedures, treaty bodies, UNESCO, and the ILO. We have to look at them carefully and see if they are addressing the immediate needs of victims.
Thirdly, the movement of people. This is not a new phenomenon, but at no time in history have we witnessed such a continuous movement of people as we have seeing today. They desperately need protection. The present mechanisms of UNHCR, despite all the good things it is doing, are not adequate to address all of these issues, due to limits in its mandate, and lack of resources. This is a growing phenomenon. I agree in this respect with Mr. Eide’s comments too.
11:33 a.m [note: debate is suspended to permit a previously scheduled presentation on UN documentation guidelines to be held]
12:09 p.m. [discussion resumes]
I listened to my colleagues’ statements and the NGO statements. I too was very impressed by the opening speech of Mr. Ramcharan. Also, it was very valuable input from the representative of Minnesota Advocates. It was a very sharp analysis of what had transpired on this issue, since the vote was removed in 2000. I too was very distressed about the lesser attention given by the media too.
I think it is very important to improve the function of the Sub-Commission. There are two specific proposals I would like to address. I am reminded by what Nietzhe had to say – human, all too human. In the effort to fight a monster, one should not become a monster. I think it is very important to determine what we can do in the field of evaluating counter-terrorist activities. I favor Mrs. Hampson’s idea, although I’m not sure the TNC group can finish its work this year or not.
Secondly, Mr. Bengoa’s proposal, which was similar to the one made by the Minnesota Advocates. I agree that groups should be formed to see how we can better evaluate these things.
On the question of poverty, I wonder whether the Sub-commission is in the best place to formulate a strategy for poverty reduction. Mrs. Mbonu is going to give us a very important presentation related to this subject (corruption). Poverty is a social phenomenon of complex factors. The approach should include anti-discrimination and other factors. We sometimes are confronted with a view that poverty is a natural outgrowth of a market economy.
Finally I was interested in what Mr. Chen had to say. We shouldn’t feel that we are in the center of the universe. We should be mindful of the limitations within which we work.
I believe Mr. Ramcharan’s speech is not necessarily very thought provoking. How do they expect us in 14 days to deal with all of these items. We have 28 reports before us this year.
I feel uncomfortable with the statement made by the Minnesota Advocates. On page 2 of their statement, they compared the press release of 1999 and 2002. The first one mentions countries. The 2nd one doesn’t mention any countries. But recall what we went through here when we used to mention countries. Time was wasted. We have a lot of work to do. We have important things to discuss. Consider terrorism alone. Mrs. Hampson mentioned terrorism yesterday in item 2. These are the types of things that we should be doing on item 2. I heard some beautiful statements – like Mr. Weissbrodt’s statement on torture. They didn’t mention countries. Let’s not go back to the polemics of the past where we were wasting time. We were repeating what the Commission was doing. This is an expert body. Let’s take the few days given to this body to do something we are supposed to do.
Concerning no. 6 in Mr. Ramcharan's speech, democracy and rule of law. This is important. We should look inward into where we aren’t doing enough – like counter terrorism.
12:22 p.m.
I wish to comment on the Minnesota Advocates speech and the challenges posed by the Acting High Commissioner in his opening speech. For me it is a challenge to this Subcommission, how to harmonize the philosophy of human rights to the practical needs of those we purport to protect from human rights violations. If we are going to meet the challenge, we need to understand very carefully the distinction between philosophy and intellectual approach of making human rights real, and the practical obstacles to overcome in making the right a reality. It seems to me the introduction of the Social Forum last year, provided a window opportunity. I would like to continue the Social Forum but with direction. Use the NGO’s to assist us in getting on the ground information for topics we are going to discuss. So that when we come to discuss, we are able to look at what is happening in a region and take that information into consideration in our deliberations. I think the comments made are a serious call for us.
12:25 p.m.
I would like to express my ideas on item 2. As far as I’m concerned, item 2 began to lose its feasibility 10 years ago. Its practical value is dubious. This explains my reluctance to take the floor on this item.
Why is this so? For a series of circumstances, our credibility was being undermined. I’m going to be somewhat self-critical. This began because of specific actions we on the Sub-commission took. I think we should view this with serenity and objectivity. We were unable to go beyond condemnations and concerns when taking up country resolutions. I don’t remember any decision taken in item 2 on developed countries. Possibly my memory is not serving me well. If there are examples, please let me know.
Secondly, we began to get the impression that we were protecting our independence. We voted in secret. The secrecy extended not only to our voting, but we couldn’t even explain why we voted the way we did. It was a form of double self censorship. As colleagues may recall, I never supported that. I believe people should know how we we are voting. My interest in item 2 began to decline far before the Commission told us not to vote. I think the agreement reached by consensus in the Commission, means that at least for a period of time, the Sub-Commission should refrain from taking these types of deliberations. I think it would be cautious of us, not to limit our knowledge, but instead to let the Commission take this subject. It is for the Commission to consider whether the time has come to limit those restrictions. We should keep to what we know and wait and see.
I’ve heard some of the proposals made by colleagues. I apologize for not hearing them all, since I've been out of the room some of the time. Everyone is in a position to evaluate this. No reason to avoid evaluating official documents concerning item 2.
In connection with statements made by the Acting High Commissioner, I would like to make the following comments. We should look at these challenges he has posed to us. However, any decision by us under item 2 can not be in conflict either subtly or directly with the Commission’s prescriptions.
The scope and nature of Mr. Ramcharan’s remarks surprised me. I'll give a few examples. He said there was a need to meet the needs of victims of human rights. He knows the special procedures in the Commission permit mentioning countries by name. On the challenge of protection, Mr. Ramcharan urged national and regional strategies. What has been the Sub-commission’s role? Our silence can be explained. Any preventive matters leads to turbulence. We all know that anything done preventively can be tricky. Perhaps our silence implied that anything done in this field, undermined the principle of sovereignty. As to the question on the challenge of democracy and rule of law, I absolutely agree that those countries in which there is an ideal means of including the population/s participation on an egalitarian basis in government, are those countires with a better chance of achieving equal footing. But it is not up to us to impose a given electoral process in a given country. So I wondered what we should be saying on that subject.
I think these questions would have been more appropriate four years ago, before this Sub-Commission had 25% of its working time taken away. This pattern recently of holding parallel working groups and plenary meetings is impossible. We don't have time for more work.
Lastly I am bothered by this expression think tank. We’re a lot more than a think tank. I don’t think we should be limited to analyzing what takes place on the moon. We have a lot of work to do.
12:37 p.m.
I was listening to Mr. Alfonso Martinez. I quite agree with him when he describes the impossible mission. We’re going to end up with documents as short as a Gettysburg Address. A page per study. Those colleagues who made various proposals may feel nostalgic for the past. There may be some nostalgia. But what we want to do is to innovate, to be creative, & constructive.
I’d like to make some comments on Mr. Ramcharan’s statement. I’ve consulted some colleagues. They seem to be convinced that Mr. Ramcharan absolutely does not want to damage any human rights mechanism. Or criticize it. He is fully familiar with the limits. There seems to be some ambiguity in the reading of the first paragraph of his statement.
As far as special procedures are concerned, these are procedures of the Commission on Human Rights. The Commission is the only body competent to evaluate these procedures. The Sub-Commission must work in the framework of its mission, which is specified in E/CN.4/104 [sic, ed. note --not sure about this document reference], in paragraphs 52 and 53. I am sure all of the delegates are familiar with the content of this report.
As far as item 2 of the agenda is concerned, this is something we’ve had for a long time. I don’t think it is appropriate to re-open this item. The Commission and ECOSOC don’t want to consider it again. This issue was taken up last Thursday in ECOSOC, where they refused to reopen consideration. In 1999 and 2000, we discussed the revision of the mandate of the Subcommission. Many proposals were made, including reduction of session and reduction of members. The Like-Minded-Group gave much support to the Sub-Commission. A solution was identified at that time.
I would like to talk about another challenge – the survival of the Sub-Commission. It is a very important body. And it should survive. But if we continue to re-open consideration of item 2, I think it can have harmful effects. The chairman of the Sub-Commission should perhaps be present at our Commission meetings when we are reviewing the status of the Sub-Commission, to better understand the problem that the Sub-commission is in.
12:44 p.m.
The Sub-commission should be guided by the mandate that has been provided for it by the Commission and ECOSOC. We note with satisfaction the view expressed by many experts, that the Sub-commission must stack up its work on the basis of its existing mandate.
As noted by the documentation prepared for this session, many reports were not submitted by the deadlines. As a result it was not possible for the reports to be translated into all the languages of the UN. In the view of our delegation, it shows that there are problems with the implementation of the existing established mandate of the Sub-commission. We would like to call the attention to the members to comply with these standards.
I would also like to refer to legal implications. First, we feel the Sub-Commission can not take on the function of a mechanism of mechanisms. As mentioned by the government of Saudi Arabia, this is for the Commission on Human Rights to do. There was a very good interactive dialogue at the Commission this year with the other mechanisms. We believe the role of the Sub-commission in this respect is only to deal with specific issues, not to coordinate the mechanisms of the Commisison, or to give any recommendations to them.
12:48 p.m.
The Chinese delegation has listened to the statements of the Acting High Commissioner, the experts and NGO’s. We found some observations very interesting. The Subcommission as think tank has an important duty to peform. We need to improve it.
We would like to make 2 points. 1. The Sub-Commission must abandon country resolutions, per the 1999 decision of the Commission. The decision has improved the process. Less confrontation. More efficient. We welcome this development. We think a very good atmosphere is necessary to improve efficiency. We live in developing countries. There is a great gap in poverty. To improve efficiency.
2. Some experts have made statements relating to China in these discussions. Some of these comments are not accurate. Not based on facts. If you are interested, we are willing to provide materials to study.
12:52 p.m. debate closed