Today the debate concluded under item 2 (country violations). Item 3 (administration of justice) was opened and the first two expert reports were presented, on military tribunals and difficulties of proof in crimes of sexual violence. In the morning the Bureau met with NGOs and the discussion soon got into UN reform. In addition, the Sub-Commission took up the topic of UN reform in their regular meeting and will continue the discussion at different times during the remainder of the session. Finally Minnesota Advocates sponsored a noontime meeting with NGOs to evaluate the Item 2 debate this year, and we also presented our Item 3 oral statement, on transitional justice challenges in Peru and Sierra Leone.
The day began with a morning meeting between the Bureau of the Sub-Commission and NGOs. The picture above shows Mr. Kartashkin, the Sub-Commission chair, Mr. Lebahkine, the Secretary of the Sub-Commission, and Vice-Chairs Mr. Salama and Mr. Bossuyt. Also attending was Vice Chair Mrs. O'Connor, and Rapporteur Mr. Yokota.
The Bureau fielded questions from the NGOs and commented on the prospects of and impact that UN reform may have on the Sub-Commission. It is clear that several members have strong feelings about the reform efforts underway and have different views over the likelihood of the Sub-Commission's survival. Mr. Salama identified 6 criteria he felt were important -- 3 "must not's" and 3 "must do's" in Sub-Commission reform. He feels there should be 1. no reduction in size of the Sub-Commission (currently 26 members), 2. no change in the method of selection (currently by election, not appointment), and 3. no term limits. But he thinks the Sub-Commission must reform 4. its selection and quality of research studies, 5. the method of selecting experts for election, in order to improve the expertise of the experts, and 6. its thematic agenda approach so that governments are assured that countries will not be condemned in country-specific resolutions or the equivalent.
Today's item 2 debate concluded with only 6 members taking the floor to discuss country situations (Bossuyt, Chung, Decaux, Salama, Hampson and Pinheiro). In addition Mr. Rivkin (US) and Mr. Alfonso Martinez (Cuba) made brief comments on a possible new working paper on terrorism that Mr. Rivkin has proposed under this agenda item. This number was the smallest number of experts to have spoken under item 2 since 2000 (last year 23 of 25 possible members had spoken, and the year before 10 members). Nonetheless there seemed to be general support for the item 2 debate, with several members both today and in the prior discussion yesterday on Mrs. Hampson's working paper to use the discussion to evaluate new priorities, new patterns of violations, and to identify gaps in existing mechanisms to protect new, emerging types of human rights violations.
Mr. Alfonso Martinez requested that Item 2 remain open on the agenda so that possibly other members could add their remarks tomorrow (presumably this means that Mr. Alfonso Martinez himself intends to make some additional remarks).
In the final segment under item 2, government delegations who wish to respond to any criticisms from NGOs or experts are permitted to do so, in a so-called right of reply. Four governments chose to reply, Sudan, Morocco, Sri Lanka and Colombia. The speaker on Sudan chose to comment on the Item 2 intervention by Minnesota Advocates, noting that some of the statistics given duplicated similar presentations at the Commission on Human Rights, but noting the "excellent objectivity and contribution" of Minnesota Advovcates. They pointed out however that this approach was not the best or only way to compile such information, and encouraged in future efforts that time also be spent on positive developments that had occurred in the countries concerned, and the veracity of the NGO information that was being compiled.
In light of the continuing interest in item 2 issues Minnesota Advocates scheduled an NGO meeting in the afternoon, for the purpose of evaluating the Item 2 debate and discussing ways that NGOs could improvement their participation.
The meeting was well attended (about 40 persons), including two Sub-Commission experts (Mrs. Chung and Mr. Alfredsson). An informal show of hands at the beginning of the session indicated approximately 20 persons in favor of item 2, none against, and 4 undecided. Mr. Alfredsson, who has indicated in some interventions that he favors abolishing item 2 from the Sub-Commission's agenda, said he attended the meeting to hear the views of NGOs and explained that his proposal to abolish Item 2 was intended to be provocative, to stimulate debate, and that at a minimum he would favor a "general debate" item on the Sub-Commission's agenda which would permit NGOs to identify country situations of concern in a manner similar to the present item 2 debate.
The NGOs in attendance felt the meeting was worthwhile and suggested that Minnesota Advocates schedule a second meeting, later in the session, to follow up on some of the ideas expressed. This second NGO meeting on Item 2 will now take place Thursday, August 11th, at 1:30 p.m. The meeting room location will be announced at a later date.
Since the Item 2 discussion ended early in the morning, Mr. Kartashkin, the Sub-Commission Chair, decided to open the floor for a general debate on UN reform for the remainder of the morning session. During the next hour and a half 8 experts and one government (the Russian Federation) were able to make remarks. Members who spoke included Mr. Bossuyt, Mr. Yokota, Mr. Salama, Mr. Alfonso Martinez, Mr. Decaux, Mr. Alfredsson, Mrs. Chen and Mrs. Hampson. Several other speakers indicated an interest to take the floor (including a joint NGO statement to be presented by Pax Romana). Mr. Kartashkin indicated that the debate on UN reform would be continued to a later time, presumably when another opening presents itself in the timetable.
The comments from the debate ranged in approach, with some speakers commenting directly on the proposals now before the General Assembly, and others commenting generally about the dangers of reform where so few actual details have been agreed. All members who addressed the subject of the Sub-Commission itself seemed to favor the current size (26 members) rather than a smaller size, and all but one member (Alfredsson) seemed to be opposed to term limits of Sub-Commission members. Mr. Decaux in his presentation supported continuation of the confidential 1503 complaint procedures and noted that at the Sub-Commission level, in the closed sessions of the Working Group on Communications, the discussions were handled at a very professional level by participants, including the Government against whom a complaint had been filed. Mr. Alfredsson later indicated that he favored abolishing the 1503 process.
NGOs did not get an opportunity to speak in this first session on UN reform, but hopefully will be given the floor at a later time.
The afternoon session was dedicated to item 3 of the Sub-Commission's agenda, on the administration of justice, rule of law and democracy. Two expert papers were introduced, on military tribunals and difficulties of proof in crimes of sexual violence. Minnesota Advocates presented its oral statement during the discussion, on transitional justice in Peru and Sierra Leone. A copy of this statement can be found on the speeches page of this website.
On Friday the Sub-Commission will continue its discussion under Item 3. In the afternoon, parallel working group meetings will take place -- for the working groups on administration of justice, and transnational corporations. Monday, August 1st, is a Swiss holiday. Then on Tuesday, August 2nd, the Sub-Commission will take up Item 4 of its agenda, on economic, social and cultural rights.