29 July 2003
Item 2: Question of violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation, in all countries, with particular reference to colonial and other dependent countries and territories: report of the Sub-Commission under Commission on Human Rights resolution 8 (XXIII)
Thank you Madam Chairperson.
My organization would like to comment under this item 2 on the state of the item 2 debate itself, with a view to some reflection, evaluation, and possible structural and procedural changes. We have sought to speak as late in the debate as possible, in order to reflect this year’s debate in our comments, but part of the irony here is that, even though signing up at the end of the NGO list, at 5:59 p.m yesterday evening, here we are in the first meeting of the Sub-Commission’s item 2 discussion with most of the debate left to be held. However, we hope the comments we wish to share are nonetheless relevant to the debate which will unfold for the remainder of this agenda item.
First, let me emphasize that we are not advocating removing item 2 from the agenda. Far from it. That would be a great loss to the cause of human rights. Rather we are hoping you see what we have seen – that the quality and quantity of the debate has declined substantially in the last several years, and needs a new approach.
Surely anyone who has been observing the Sub-Commission in the last several years, will have noticed the overall decline in the proceedings under item 2. In the year 2000 the Sub-Commission was told that it could no longer vote on country-specific resolutions. Since that time, participation has been declining, documentation relating to item 2 has been limited or non-existent, follow up of promises made by States in the item 2 debate has been missing or left to an anecdotal process only, and the focus on current, pressing, new or emerging human rights violations – something that the Sub-Commission used to do with exceptional clarity and courage – is missing altogether.
But even the reporting of the Sub-Commission’s debate itself has been poor or non-existent since the power to vote has been taken away. In theory the Sub-Commission’s item 2 debates are faithfully recorded in its summary records and its annual report. Now that there are no country specific resolutions or reports, and no listing or following of country specific conditions, this is the only place where an interested person could actually learn about the details of country situations which arose during the Sub-Commission’s debate. But as of this morning, our unofficial effort to obtain the relevant summary records of the last three years of item 2 summary records revealed that only 1 of 6 summary records for 2002 are available, only 3 of 7 records for 2001, but all of the 6 summary records for 2000 are available. We also tried to access the summary records through the UN website, but these records too were incomplete.
The decline of the Sub-Commission debate is further illustrated by today’s proceedings, and the proceedings scheduled tomorrow afternoon. Parallel working group meetings both days have obviously taken away some of the participation, by both the Sub-commission members and NGO and other observers.
Even Press Release coverage since 1999 when the Sub-Commission still had the vote, is telling. In 1999, the item 2 debate began with the following press release paragraph:
“The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights heard this morning from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) alleging violations of fundamental rights and freedoms in Pakistan, Iran, Mexico, China, Sri Lanka, Australia, the United States of America, Morocco, Peru, Colombia, Indonesia, the Congo, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, and Bahrain.”
A comparable Press Release last year, in 2002, began with
“The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights began its debate this morning on the question of the violation of human rights anywhere in the world, with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and Sub-Commission Experts noting, among other things, that both terrorism and misguided or over-vigorous responses to terrorism could result in violations.
NGOs also charged, as in previous years, that human-rights offenses were occurring in various countries and regions.”
So even the UN press personnel have apparently decided that beginning with a list of countries named in the item 2 debate is no longer appropriate.
The decline is also reflected in the numbers of Sub-Commission members participating in the Sub-Commision debate. In the 1990’s, when there was a vote, it was common to see 20 or more of the Sub-Commission’s 25 eligible members to speak on subjects of concern to them under item 2. In the last 3 years, this number has declined to 14 or 15 members only. We would challenge each of the current members to consider adding their voice to the debate this year, to change this declining trend and make the item 2 debate more valuable.
So what can the Sub-Commission do about this steady decline? We have several suggestions that the Sub-Commission may wish to consider:
1. Follow up on statements made by Government observers in their interventions and rights of reply. Follow up each year on what was said the prior year. If a government feels it is appropriate to make certain promises or assurances on the floor of this proceeding, why shouldn’t there be a systematic record of that, and a follow up mechanism designed around that?
2. Perhaps the Sub-commission could assign one of its expert members to prepare a working paper reflecting the state of Agenda item 2 and recommending possible reforms.
3. Sub-Commission members, in preparing their remarks each year, should ask for the follow up information from Governments, a list of conditions raised in the prior year, and other relevant statistics which the Secretariat might be asked to compile for the Sub-Commission members
4. We would suggest different modalities in seeking NGO input. In addition to the regular statements which are being made, and should be continued. For example, could NGO’s be invited to submit short summaries each year, calling the Sub-commission’s attention to particular situations of human rights violations that are new or urgent and explaining why they are new and urgent? Could these summaries be compiled in a simple document by the Secretariat? Could the Sub-commission members use this information in preparing their remarks on item 2?
These are just a few examples of possible reforms. We would encourage an open dialogue.
Thank you Madam Chairperson.