UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL · UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 4th Session 12-30 March...

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

4th Session 12-30 March 2007

POSITION PAPER

FIDH17, Passage de la Main d'Or – 75011 Paris, France – Phone +33 1 43 55 2518, fax, +33 1 43 55 1880

[email protected] www.fidh.org

Fédération internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’HommeDélégation permanente auprès des Nations Unies à Genève

c/o Maison des Associations, 15, rue des Savoises – 1205 Genève, SuisseTel : 0041 (0) 22 700 12 88 Fax : 0041 (0) 22 321 54 88

http://www.fidh.org/

mailto:[email protected]

SOMMAIRE

GEOGRAPHIC PRIORITIES

Africa

• Guinea Conakry 5• Central African Republic 6• Democratic Republic of Congo 8• Sudan / Darfur 10

Americas

• Colombia 12• Cuba 14• Guatemala 16• United States of America 18

Asia and Middle East

• Myanmar 20• People's Republic of China 22• Philippines 24• Islamic Republic of Iran 26• Occupied Palestinian Territories 28

Europe

• Russian Federation 30• Uzbekistan 32

THEMATIC PRIORITIES

• Business and Human rights 34• Human rights Defenders 36• Women’s rights 38

UN Human rights Council – 4th Session (12 – 30 March 2007)FIDH position paper

INTRODUCTION

On the occasion of 4th session of UN Human Rights Council, the present position paper documents the priorities of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), for which we would require the UN Human Rights Council to act. The session should pursue three main objectives.

Assessment of human rights violations worldwideThis session will be the second occasion, since September 2006, to debate the situation of human rights violations throughout the world, from both country and thematic perspectives.

Echo the voices of the victimsFIDH wishes that the work of this session, members of the Human Rights Council will be led by an untarnished commitment to echo the voices of the victims of human rights violations, the voices of the voiceless. When freedom to defend human rights is repressed, when people are killed or imprisoned solely for having exercised their rights, victims and persons concerned need to know that they can turn to the international community, and that the Human Rights Council will hear these voices, giving full significance to the protection mandate with which they are entrusted.

Pursue institutional buildingThe session will also be an opportunity to pursue the discussion around the creation of the review of mandates, i.e. the Special Procedures, and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). For the Special Procedures, FIDH believes that there should be an increased possibility to interact with the differents sessions of the Council, a nomination procedure which strengthens and guarantees against State interference, and that their mandate should be reinforced through an increased condemnation of States who refuse to cooperate with them. Concerning the Code of Conduct, this should not include methods of work, and it should ensure that the responsibilities of States are also highlighted in the Code, e.g. sanctions or removal from the Council should States continuously fail to cooperate with the Special Procedures.

As for the UPR, as stated on numeros occasions, FIDH calls for States participating in these negociations to be guided by the objective of strengthening their mandate to protect from human rights violations. This means, in pratice, that the UPR should be action oriented, and performed on the basis of thorough reports from independent sources, including Special Procedures, Treaty Bodies and NGOs. The UPR should not be an isolated review, but should be interrelated to existing monitoring mechanisms and be based on implementing their recommendations. NGOs should be able to participate at all stages of the review. Independent experts should be involved at all stages of the review, and a concrete action-

oriented outcome should aim at improving the human rights situation of the country reviewed.

Main recommendationsFollowing these objectives, the present report documents the human rights situations of some countries where FIDH considers that there has been a significant degradation, requiring a reaction of the United Nations. HRC member States should echo these concerns, either in supporting resolutions on these countries or voicing their preoccupation during the interactive debates.

We would hence require the Council to condemn inter alia the massive human rights violations that have occured in Darfur and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as both governments' non-acceptance into the country of the High-Level Missions of the Human Rights Council. Should these countries repeatedly refuse to comply with Special sessions requests for visits, FIDH believes the Council should envisage sanctions.

Repression and torture continues in Uzbekistan, and the Uzbek government failed once again to cooperate satisfactorily with the 1503 independent expert. As a consequence the procedure should become public. FIDH also calls for a public condemnation of the increasing repression in Iran through the adoption of a resolution.

FIDH also urges the Human Rights Council to maintain the different country mandates, as for each situation, the perpetuation of significant and grave human rights violations requires to do so. In particular FIDH calls for the maintaining of the independent expert on the Sudan and on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba, as well as of the full mandate of OHCHR in Colombia.

Ethnic repression is continuing in Myanmar as well as forced labour, and following the impossibility for the UN to obtain a satisfactory evolution form the Burmese authorities, FIDH calls for a special session of the HRC to be held on this situation.

FIDH calls for the HRC to thoroughly debate and act upon the situations of the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, as repression of human rights defenders, the rule of law, and freedom of expression continues in impunity.

Public condemnation should also occur on the killings of legal left groups and peasants in the Philippines; on the killings at the beginning of 2007 in Guinea with the intent to suppress the local population who were peacefully demonstrating for their rights – in this respect, the Council should support the Hign Commissioner's call for an international fact finding mission. The Council should also condemn the grave human rights violations and humanitarian crisis in the Central African Republic, as well as the killings of women (feminicide) in Guatemala. The United States of America continues to violate human

3


rights by holding detainees in Guantanamo in arbitrary conditions, and is also responsible for torture of detainees.

From a thematic perspective, FIDH calls for the renewal of all the mandates that were to expire this year, in particular the mandate of the UN Special Representatve on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders. We also call for particular attention to be brought on States who repeatetedly refuse to cooporate with UN Special Procedures.

FIDH supports the continuation of the mandate of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights, and believes that the responsibilities of States should be clarified, and if necessary expanded in order to meet the need to effectively protect victim's rights. FIDH asks for the Council to request the Representative to highlight the obligation of States to protect human rights they are bound to comply with, both within their national territory and extra-territorially.

4


AFRICA

1. GUINEE CONAKRY

La FIDH et son organisation affiliée, l'Organisation guinéenne des droits de l'Homme (OGDH), recommandent au Conseil des droits de l'Homme d'adopter une résolution condamnant les violations graves des droits de l'Homme commises en République de Guinée et appelant à la mise en place d'une Commission internationale d'enquête.

Le 10 janvier 2007, les syndicats guinéens soutenus par la société civile ont débuté une grève générale fondée sur des revendications économiques et sociales qui s'est accompagnée de manifestations antigouvernementales réclamant la nomination d'un premier ministre de consensus et exigeant des autorités le respect des droits de l'Homme et de la bonne gouvernance. Ces manifestations ont été réprimées dans le sang par les forces de sécurité faisant environ 60 morts et plus de 150 blessés parmi la population civile.

En dépit de la signature du Protocole du 27 janvier entre les dirigeants syndicaux et les autorités de Conakri portant accord sur la nomination d'un nouveau Premier ministre de consensus, aux pouvoirs élargis, la grève générale a été relancée le 12 février pour contester la nomination à ce poste de M. Eugène Camara, proche du président Lausana Conté. La répression arbitraire des manifestations qui ont suivi l’annonce de cette nomination aurait fait environ 60 morts et de très nombreux blessés. Cette répression aurait été orchestrée par wdes unités spéciales de l’armée, notamment la "Compagnie mobile d’intervention et de sécurité" et le "Bataillon autonome de la sécurité présidentielle", ainsi que par des mercenaires et d'anciens guérilleros en tant que forces paramilitaires gouvernementales.

Par ailleurs, des violations graves des droits de l'Homme, tels des centaines d'arrestations arbitraires, des violences sexuelles et des pillages, ont été perpétrées par les forces de sécurité lors des 12 jours d'état de siège décrété le 12 février par le président Conté.

L'Union africaine dans un communiqué du 16 février 2007 a « déploré les pertes en vies humaines enregistrées lors de la grève générale de janvier 2007, ainsi que celles survenues au cours du mois de février 2007 ». Le Conseil de paix et de sécurité a « condamné fermement l’usage disproportionné de la force et la répression contre les populations civiles » et, à cet égard, a « demandé l’ouverture, en collaboration avec la Commission africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples, d’une enquête indépendante afin d’identifier et de traduire en justice les auteurs des exactions et autres actes de violence perpétrés au cours de ces évènements ».

Les événements ont également été condamnés à plusieurs reprises par plusieurs instances internationales, et notamment par le Secrétaire général de l'ONU M. Ban Ki-moon (22 janvier et 13 février), le Directeur général de l'Organisation internationale du travail M. Juan Somavia (12 février 2007), et la Haut Commissaire aux droits de l'Homme Mme Louise Arbour (24 janvier et 13 février), laquelle a également demandé qu'une commission internationale d'enquête soit dépêchée en Guinée.

En relayant ces préconisations, le Conseil des droits de l'Homme contribuera à une éventuelle sortie de crise durable et à la prévention de nouvelles violations graves des droits de l'Homme.

Ainsi la FIDH et l'OGDH demandent au Conseil des droits de l'Homme d'adopter une résolution

− condamnant fermement l’usage démesuré et excessif de la force par les forces de sécurité guinéennes au cours des récentes manifestations dans différentes parties du pays, entraînant la mort de nombreux civils et faisant de nombreux blessés parmi les manifestants ;

− demandant la mise en place d'une commission d'enquête internationale indépendante pour enquêter sur les massacres récents et sur les violations des droits de l'homme dans le passé, identifier les responsables et les traduire en justice pour qu’il soit mis fin à l’impunité;

− demandant aux autorités guinéennes d'ordonner la libération immédiate de toutes les personnes arrêtées au cours de la manifestation sans avoir fait l'objet de chefs d'accusation valables et, si ceux-ci existent, de faire en sorte que ces personnes bénéficient rapidement d’un procès équitable, tout au long duquel leurs droits procéduraux soient garantis;

− appellant au respect et au rétablissement des libertés individuelles et syndicales.

5


2. RÉPUBLIQUE CENTRAFRICAINE

La FIDH et son organisation affiliée, la Ligue centrafricaine des droits de l'Homme (LCDH), recommandent au Conseil des droits de l'Homme d'adopter une résolution condamnant les graves violations des droits de l'Homme commises en République centrafricaine (RCA) et appelant à la mise en place d'un Bureau du Haut-Commissariat des droits de l'Homme à Bangui.

La situation sécuritaire est extrèmement précaire dans le nord-ouest du pays, notamment dans les régions de Ouham et de Ouham-Pende. La population civile fait face à une véritable crise humanitaire. Les attaques quasi quotidiennes entre éléments armés rebelles et les troupes centrafricaines sont perpétrées en violation du droit international humanitaire : des témoignages font état d'exécutions sommaires, de violences sexuelles, de pillages systématiques. Les villages sont incendiés, notamment sur l'axe Kabo - Kaga Bandoro. Les témoignages font porter la responsabilité de ces crimes tant sur les éléments des groupes rebelles que les membres de l'armée, particulièrement les éléments de la garde présidentielle. Par ailleurs, profitant de l'insécurité généralisée dans le Nord du pays, on assiste à la recrudescence du phénomène des coupeurs de routes qui attaquent et pillent la population.

Le nord-est de la RCA, est également le théâtre d’affrontements réguliers entre forces rebelles et l'armée centrafricaine. Les combats sont menés en violation du droit international humanitaire, entraînant la mort de nombreux civils. Aucun rapport officiel n'établit pourtant objectivement l'ampleur des crimes commis contre la population civile. L'intervention récente de l'armée française au côté des troupes loyalistes et le retour en grace dans la capitale d'un des chefs rebelles, Abdoulaye Miskine, auraient néanmoins atténué le nombre d'attaques ces dernières semaines.

Le 17 janvier 2007, le coordinateur humanitaire des Nations unies pour la République centrafricaine, Toby Lanzer, a déclaré qu' “un million de personnes ont besoin d’aide humanitaire après un an de combats sporadiques entre groupes armés non identifiés et les forces armées centrafricaines dans le nord de la République centrafricaine”. Le nombre de personnes déplacées par les violences à l’intérieur du pays est estimé à 150 000, tandis que 80 000 autres ont fui vers le Tchad et le Cameroun voisins, selon le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les Réfugiés.

Nombreuses sont les personnes qui portent les stigmates de ce pays livré à la violence : femmes, enfants et personnes âgées violés, enfants nés des viols, personnes atteintes du virus du Sida, personnes amputées, orphelins,

perte d'un enfant, membres de la famille assassinés, sous-alimentation... Atteintes dans leur intégrité physique et morale, les victimes souffrent doublement de leur stigmatisation au sein de la société centrafricaine et de l'indifférence générale quant à leur situation d'extrême détresse physique, sociale et économique.

Les défenseurs des droits de l'Homme qui tentent de faire écho à cette situation dramatique sont l'objet de menaces de mort et de harcèlements...

Enfin, il est à relever que la plupart des acteurs de l'actuel conflit en RCA sont les mêmes que ceux présumés hauts responsables des crimes commis en 2002 et 2003 contre la population civile à l'occasion de la tentative de coup d'Etat du général Bozizé, démonstration probante des ravages de l'impunité. En effet, en avril 2006, la Cour de cassation a déclaré les juridictions centrafricaines “incapables” de mener des enquêtes et des poursuites contre les auteurs des crimes les plus graves commis sur le territoire centrafricain à l'occasion de la tentative de coup d'Etat et a renvoyé cette affaire devant la Cour pénale internationale, saisi de la situation en République centrafricaine depuis décembre 2004.

La FIDH et la LCDH appellent le Conseil des droits de l'Homme à adopter une résolution :

- condamnant les graves violations du droit international humanitaire et du droit international des droits de l'Homme commises par les belligérants contre la population civile en RCA;

- exigeant des partis en conflit le strict respect des dispositions internationales de protection des droits de l'Homme et du droit international humanitaire;

- exigeant des parties en conflit un cessez-le-feu immédiat;

- demandant aux parties en conflit de faciliter la circulation et l'activité des organisations humanitaires dans le nord du pays;

- demandant aux autorités nationales de mettre tout en oeuvre pour que les auteurs des crimes les plus graves soient poursuivis et jugés conformément au dispositions internationales de protection des droits de l'Homme;

- demandant aux autorités nationales de respecter l'intégrité physique et morale des défenseurs des droits de l'Homme, et plus généralement de respecter les dispositions de la Déclaration sur les défenseurs des droits de l'Homme adoptée en 1998 par l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies;

6


- demandant aux autorités nationales d'accepter la visite des Rapporteurs spéciaux des Nations unies sur les exécutions sommaires, extrajudiciaires et arbitraire, sur la torture, sur les détentions arbitraires et sur les défenseurs des droits de l'Homme;

- demandant aux agences des Nations unies présentes en RCA d'apporter leur soutien aux victimes des conflits, notamment aux membres de l'Organisation pour la compassion des et le développement des familles en détresse (OCODEFAD), en aidant aux activités, notamment en fournissant des vivres et des médicaments et en finançant un suivi médical et psychologique;

- appelant la mise en place à Bangui d'un bureau droits de l'Homme du Haut-commissariat ayant le mandat de promouvoir l'Etat de droit par le biais de la coopération technique; de faire des rapports sur l'évolution de la situation des droits de l'Homme dans le pays; et de coordonner avec le BONUCA et tout autre organe du Conseil de sécurité présent en RCA la protection de la population civile, notamment des défenseurs des droits de l'Homme et des victimes de crimes internationaux;

- Encourageant le Procureur de la Cour pénale internationale saisi par le gouvernement centrafricain en décembre 2004 à ouvrir dans les plus brefs délais une enquête sur la situation en RCA.

7


3. RÉPUBLIQUE DÉMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO

La FIDH et ses organisations membres en République démocratique du Congo, l'ASADHO, le Groupe Lotus et la Ligue des électeurs, recommandent au Conseil des droits de l'Homme d'adopter une résolution condamnant les violations graves des droits de l'Homme commises en République démocratique du Congo (RDC) et recommandant le renouvellement et le renforcement du mandat de la MONUC, notamment sur la protection des défenseurs des droits de l'Homme et des victimes des crimes les plus graves.

Les graves violations des droits de l'Homme sont quotidiennes en République démocratique du Congo (RDC).

Au Bas-Congo, des affrontements meurtriers se sont déroulés entre les membres du mouvement politico-religieux Bundu Dia Kongo (BDK) et les éléments de la Police Nationale du Congo (PNC) et des Forces armées de la RDC (FARDC) dans plusieurs parties de la province les 31 janvier et 1er février. Les affrontements à Muanda, Boma et Songolo qui auraient fait plus d'un centaine de victimes ont eu lieu après l’appel du BDK à observer une journée « ville morte » le 1er février en contestation des résultats des élections au Gouvernorat de la Province du Bas Congo. La Mission des Nations unies en RDC (MONUC) a également été la cible des troubles, avec, notamment, l’enlèvement et la destruction d’un de ses chars. Ces événements rappellent combien les opérations de désarmement doivent redoubler d’intensité.

La persistance des violations graves des droits de l'Homme à l'est du pays est également extrêmement préoccupante. Selon le rapport mensuel de la MONUC de janvier 2007, « les militaires des Forces armées de la RDC (FARDC) continuent à commettre des violations graves des droits de l’homme, en particulier des atteintes au droit à la vie, à l’intégrité physique (viol et mauvais traitements de civils) et au droit à la liberté et à la sécurité de la personne humaine (arrestations arbitraires, détentions illégales et enlèvements) au Nord Kivu, au Sud Kivu et en Ituri ». Par ailleurs, « les membres des groupes armés ont continué à commettre des abus des droits de l’homme à l’encontre des populations du Nord et du Sud Kivu, ainsi que de l’Ituri ».

Par ailleurs, les défenseurs des droits de l’Homme qui dénoncent les violations des libertés fondamentales et du droit international humanitaire font de façon récurrente l’objet de menaces, harcèlement et intimidations, de la part des autorités nationales et des éléments des groupes armés.

Après l’assassinat de plusieurs défenseurs en 2005, l’Observatoire pour la protection des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme, un programme conjoint de la FIDH et de l’OMCT, a été amené à multiplier ses interventions en 2006. Pour exemples, plusieurs membres de l’ONG Justice

Plus, basée en Ituri, ont été menacés de mort par des éléments de l’Union des patriotes congolais (UPC) « pour avoir fourni des informations à l’accusation » dans la procédure menée par la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) contre Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. Le président du Groupe Lotus de Kisangani, M. Dismas Kitenge, a fait l’objet d’actes d’intimidation répétés de la part des cadres du Parti du Peuple pour la reconstruction et la démocratie (PPRD) pour être intervenu à une conférence de presse sur les élections présidentielles. M. Mbaya Tshimanga, président de l’organisation Journaliste en danger, a fait l’objet d’un véritable harcèlement judiciaire au motif qu’il « travaillait pour l’opposition ». Pour avoir dénoncé les troubles sécuritaires à l’est du pays, le président de la Voix des sans Voix, M. Floribert Chebeya, est resté en clandestinité plusieurs semaines et les locaux de son organisation ont été fermés plus d’un mois.

Enfin, en dépit de l'engagement de certaines poursuites judiciaires en RDC, la FIDH et ses organisations membres dénoncent avec force l’impunité des auteurs des graves violations des droits de l’Homme et du droit international humanitaire, pour certains encore présents dans les plus hautes sphères politiques et militaires du pays, hypothéquant ainsi l’établissement d’une paix durable en RDC. A cet égard, le procureur de la CPI doit impérativement élargir les charges retenues contre Thomas Lubanga, premier accusé de la Cour sur la situation en RDC, et poursuivre d’autres hauts responsables des violations des droits de l’Homme perpétrées depuis juillet 2002. La FIDH et ses organisation membres insistent également, conformément au principe de complémentarité, sur le fait que les autorités congolaises compétentes doivent renforcer la lutte contre l’impunité des crimes les plus graves.

La FIDH et ses organisations membres appellent le Conseil des droits de l'Homme à adopter une résolution :

− condamnant les violations graves des droits de l'Homme perpétrées contre la population civile, dont la responsabilité incombe notamment aux FARDC et aux différents groupes armés présent à l'est du pays;

− appelant à la mise en place d'une commission d'enquête internationale pour faire la lumière sur les massacres commis au Bas-Congo et mettre en exergue les responsabilités;

− demandant aux autorités congolaises

- de se conformer aux résolutions du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, notamment les résolutions 1493 du 28 juillet 2003, 1533 du 12 mars 2004, 1552 du 27 juillet 2004, 1565 du 1er octobre 2004, 1592 du 30 mars 2005, 1596 du 18 avril 2005, 1616 du 29 juillet 2005, 1649 du 21

8


décembre 2005 et 1654 du 31 janvier 2006, 1698 du 31 juillet 2006;

- de se conformer aux textes internationaux et régionaux de promotion et de défense des droits de l’Homme ratifiés par la République démocratique du Congo ;

- de restaurer l’Etat de droit et l’autorité de l’Etat sur l’ensemble du territoire en coordination avec la MONUC et dans le respect des droits de l’Homme ;

- de procéder au désarmement complet des groupes armés, assurer leur démobilisation effective et leur réinsertion dans la vie civile ;

- d’établir un registre national de détention légale d’armes et renforcer la lutte contre le trafic d’armes en provenance de l’étranger ; garantir que les individus démobilisés responsables d’actes criminels et de violations des droits de l’Homme soient traduits en justice.

- de garantir l’intégrité physique et morale des défenseurs et plus généralement de garantir les droits des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme tels que définis dans la Déclaration sur les défenseurs des droits de l’Homme adoptée par l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies le 9 décembre 1998

- d'inviter les rapporteurs spéciaux

3. recommandant le renouvellement et le renforcement du mandat de la MONUC, celle-ci devant

- établir comme priorité d’action la neutralisation des groupes armés actifs dans les régions de l’Est du pays ;

- s’assurer que le gouvernement congolais garantisse la sécurité et le respect des droits fondamentaux aux populations civiles, notamment aux défenseurs des droits de l’Homme et aux témoins des graves violations du droit international humanitaire appelés à agir auprès des instances judiciaires nationales et internationales ;

- en cas de défaillance des autorités congolaises à cet effet, et en vertu de la résolution 1674/2006 relative à la protection des civils en période de conflit armé, adoptée le 28 avril 2006, assurer directement la protection des populations civiles et des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme en renforçant la capacité d’action de son unité de protection des défenseurs, témoins et victimes des violations des droits de l’Homme ; en rendant effectif son rôle de prévention des violations par l’interprétation extensive de sa capacité d’action « en cas de danger imminent » pour la population civile ;

- élargir son mandat d’assistance des populations civiles aux personnes déplacées ;

- contribuer à la lutte contre l’impunité de tous les auteurs des crimes les plus graves en coopérant pleinement avec la Cour pénale internationale ;

- inciter le gouvernement congolais à poursuivre les réformes des institutions publiques de manière à promouvoir la bonne gouvernance et à favoriser la confiance des populations en ces institutions.

9


4. SUDAN / DARFUR

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Sudan Organisation Against Torture (SOAT) call upon the Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution condemning the serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law, urging Sudan to accept the deployment of an international UA-UN peackeeping mission in accordance with resolution 1706 of the United Nations Security Council, and recommending individual and targetted sanctions should the Government of Sudan repeatedly refuse the unimpeded access of the UN High level assessment mission established following the UNHRC 4th Special Session.

Ongoing humanitarian law and human rights violations in Darfur:

Nearly four years of fighting in Darfur between rebels and pro-government militias has led to the deaths of more than 200,000 people, and forced more than two million people to flee their homes.

The violence has been rising in Darfur in 2006 and 2007 despite the 5 May Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) reached in Nigeria between Khartoum and one Sudanese rebel group – the Sudan Liberation Movement, SLM. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) releasing on February 22, 2007 its latest overview of the situation in Darfur, reported « that almost 50,000 more people were forced to flee violence in the region last month alone ». « New population displacements were registered weekly in January as attacks on villages, sexual violence and intimidation continued to force large numbers of people to move throughout Darfur. Generalized violence, attacks on humanitarian assets and bureaucratic impediments continued to affect humanitarian operations », the overview states. The attacks on aid workers, resulting in the withdrawal of international agencies, mean that access to basic human needs including, water, food, health care and shelter will be cut off for the millions whose lives are dependent on this aid;

The regionalisation of the conflict, including the movement of arms and militia across the Chad and Sudan border and the reports that fighting connected with the Darfur conflict and the unrest in Chad has also spread into the Central African Republic, results in an increase in human rights and humanitarian law violations in those countries;

In 2005 and 2006, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' rights adopted two resolution condemning the serious human rights violations committed in the region, notably calling upon the Janjaweeds supported by the Government of Sudan to « cease with immediate effect all

attacks against civilians and the grave violations of human rights, in particular the forced depopulation of entire areas in the region, rape and sexual violence against women and girls, abduction of women and children »

Considering the ongoing serious humanitarian and human rights violations in Darfur and the neighbouring countries:

FIDH and SOAT express their disappointment at the refusal of the Sudanese Government to grant access of the U.N. High-Level assessment mission to Sudan. Our organisations remind that the Government of Sudan decided to bar the mission from visiting Darfur and announced publicly its refusal to grant visas to the members of the mission, contradicting past agreements between the UNHRC and the Sudanese government.

FIDH and SOAT also condemn the repeated refusal by Sudanese Government of the deployement of an hybrid UN-AU peacekeeping force as recommended by the UN Security Council Resolution 1706 (2006). Our organisations consider that the African peacekeeping force stationed in Darfur has been unable to ensure the security of civilians and aid workers seeking to give assistance to the large numbers in need. During the AU Summit of Heads of State which was held in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) in January 2007, the UN Secretary General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, restated that he wants « concrete commitments that Sudan will open the door to a joint UN-AU force, to replace the current overstretched AU troops ».

FIDH and SOAT welcome the submission of evidence by the International Criminal Court Prosecutor on February 27, 2007 to the Court's Pre-Trial Chamber in connection with individuals suspected of having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Our organisations request the government of Sudan to fully cooperate with the ICC, notably by transferring the suspects to the Court.

Consequently, FIDH and SOAT urge the Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution

− condemning the serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law committed by the belligerents in Darfur and the neighbouring countries;

− condemning the Government's failure to protect its own citizens;

− urging the Sudanese authorities to : − put an end to the violations of human

rights and international humanitarian law against civilians, humanitarian workers and AMIS forces;

− respect the ceasefire agreements, the DPA and all UN resolutions,

− disarm its militias including the Janjawid;− re-engage in a political dialogue with the

10


non signatories of the DPA;− hold accountable perpretators of

international crimes and serious violations of human rights and to fully cooperate with the ICC organs in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1593 referring the Darfur situation to the ICC;

− respect regional and international human rights instruments ratified by Sudan;

− deploring the Government's failure to accept the UNHRC High-Level assessment mission and urging him to grant an unimpeded access to Sudan before the end of the current session;

− should the Government repeatedly refuse such access, recommending the adoption of indivual and targetted sanctions;

− urging Sudan to accept the deployment of an international UN-AU peackeeping mission in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1706 to enforce the DPA agreement, to protect civilians and to support all international agencies and humanitarian organisations in order to ensure immediate, full, safe and unhindered access to the affected people in Darfur in order to facilitate delivery of humanitarian assistance.

11


AMERICAS

1. COLOMBIE

En 2006, la Colombie est toujours ravagée par le même conflit armé interne, caractérisé par tous types d'abus commis aussi bien par les forces armées régulières, les groupes paramilitaires que par les factions de guérillas. La démobilisation des groupes paramilitaires demeure largement factice, malgré les déclarations du Gouvernement. Les groupes armés irréguliers continuent de se financer essentiellement par le biais du trafic des drogues.La population civile reste la plus touchée, entre personnes déplacées, disparitions forcées, exécutions, assassinats et enlèvements. Les défenseurs des droits de l'Homme et les médias sont toujours les cibles privilégiées d'attaques et d'exactions.

Démobilisation des groupes paramilitaires, impunité et liens avec les forces militairesEn 2006, le gouvernement a affirmé que plus de 30000 présumés paramilitaires ont été démobilisés. De nombreux doutes persistent toutefois sur la véracité de ces déclarations et sur l'efficacité du processus de démobilisation, visant à garantir l'obtention de la vérité, la justice et une juste réparation. L'influence des groupes paramilitaires est toujours forte, en témoignent des rapports sur leur infiltration de l'organisme d'intelligence nationale DAS (Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad), ainsi que la formation de nouveaux groupes, selon le rapport de la Mission de soutien au processus de Paix de l'OEA.

En mai 2006, la Cour Constitutionnelle de Colombie, dans sa résolution sur la Loi 975 ou « Loi de Justice et Paix », qui prévoit une réduction drastique des peines applicables aux paramilitaires responsables de délits et crimes graves, a approuvé ces exonérations de peine mais a également apporté des améliorations substantielles. Effectivement, en vertu des nouvelles dispositions, les paramilitaires doivent reconnaître l'ensemble de leurs crimes et donner réparation aux victimes en puisant dans leur patrimoine légal et illicite, et tout mensonge ou nouveau délit est synonyme de perte des bénéfices de réduction de peine. De surcroît, au titre de l'interprétation de la Loi par la juridiction constitutionnelle, les procureurs doivent mener une enquête sur tous les délits et crimes reconnus par les paramilitaires.

Suite à cette décision, le gouvernement a publié un décret reprenant partiellement les dispositions de la résolution, mais conférant aux dirigeants paramilitaires des réductions supplémentaires des peines, qui les affranchissent de peines privatives de liberté.

Depuis fin 2006, un scandale, dit de « parapolitique », a éclaté en Colombie, laissant apparaître au grand jour l'importance des liens entre les groupes paramilitaires, la

politique et l'armée colombienne. Dans ce contexte, la Cour Suprême de Justice a ordonné l'arrestation de 5 membres du Parlemen. Le Procureur Général de la Nation a, lui, demandé la détention de l'ex-directeur du DAS, allié du Président Uribe, Jorge Noguera.

Après deux ans de blocage et d'inaction totale, doublés d'une campagne médiatique accusant les FARC du massacre du 21 février 2005 contre 8 membres de la Communauté de Paix de San José de Apartadó, la FIDH a reçu avec satisfaction l'annonce de la mise en examen de 56 militaires présumés responsables du massacre, et attend l'ouverture d'un procès juste et équitable, apportant vérité, justice et réparation.

Relations entre le gouvernement et les factions de guérillasEn 2006, le Gouvernement colombien a maintenu des contacts avec l'ELN (Armée de Libération Nationale) dans le but de préparer la tenue de négociations de paix.Les discussions entre le Gouvernement et les FARC (Forces Armées Révolutionnaires de Colombie) sur un possible échange humanitaire, ont été suspendues par le Gouvernement après un attentat à la bombe commis en octobre 2006 où les FARC ont été tenues pour responsables par le Gouvernement.Aussi bien les FARC que l'ELN ont continué à commettre tous types d'abus contre la population civile, notamment des kidnappings, exécutions, attentats à la bombe. Il faut rappeler que les factions de guérillas sont à l'origine de la plupart des utilisations de mines antipersonnelles, ainsi que du recrutement d'enfants soldats.

Déplacés internesAvec un total cumulé de 3,7 millions de personnes déplacées, la Colombie est le deuxième pays au monde (derrière le Soudan) où la crise des déplacés internes est la plus aiguë. Les conditions de vie des personnes déplacées sont innommables. D'après le CICR et l'Eglise catholique, elles n'ont pas accès aux services d'hygiène minimum.La politique gouvernementale en faveur du retour des communautés déplacées sur leurs terres est loin d'être appropriée. Celles-ci, faute de reconnaissance et de prise en compte officielle de leur situation, sont contraintes de rejoindre leurs terres et leurs foyers alors que la sécurité n'y est pas assurée.La FIDH accueille favorablement la mise en place progressive, en 2006, d'un programme conjoint d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, soutenue financièrement par l'Agence des États Unis pour le développement international (USAID) et coordonné par l'Organisation Internationale pour les Migrations (OIM) et la Fondation Panaméricaine pour le développement.

12


Défenseurs des droits de l’Homme1

Tous les types d'abus ont encore été commis en Colombie cette année, contre des défenseurs des droits de l'Homme, des journalistes, des membres de syndicats, de dirigeants paysans, et parfois leurs familles : assassinats et tentatives d'assassinats, disparitions forcées, d'actes d'intimidation, de harcèlement et de torture, arrestations et détentions arbitraires, menaces et agressions, campagnes de diffamation et effractions dans les locaux des ONG; enlèvements, etc.Ainsi de la détention arbitraire et des actes de harcèlement contre Jesús Javier Dorado Rosero, Directeur du CPDH (Comité permanent pour la défense des droits de l’Homme) dans la région de Nariño et membre de la Direction du Syndicat des Professeurs de Nariño, par des agents du DAS (Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad). Ceci révèle un contexte de menaces et d'actes de harcèlement acharné contre les membres du CPDH en 2006, et ce malgré les mesures provisoires de protection dictées par la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l’Homme en faveur de ses membres. L'acte le plus significatif est l'assassinat de Gregorio Izquierdo Meléndez, membre principal du Comité département du CPDH en Arauca, et Présidente du Syndicat des entreprises publiques d'Arauca, le 13 septembre 2006. Le CPDH a également dénoncé l'irruption d'agents de police et l'inspection dans ses locaux de Bogota, sans autorisation.Le Collectif d'avocats “José Alvear Restrepo” a lui aussi dénoncé l'irruption arbitraire et l'inspection sans autorisation, par les forces de police, des sièges du Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria de Alimentos et de la rédaction de l'hebdomadaire Voz, ainsi que le vol de matériel des locaux de la Consultoría para los Derechos Humanos y el Desplazamiento, à Bogotá. Tout cela a eu lieu la veille du 7 août 2006, jour de la prise de fonction du Président Álvaro Uribe Vélez, pour un deuxième mandat. Les agents de police ont prétexté des opérations de sécurité préventive et de lutte antiterroriste.Yolanda Izquierdo a été assassinée le 31 janvier 2007 devant la porte de chez elle. Elle était, aux côté notamment de Manuel Argel, agriculteur, à la tête du groupe de victimes des paramilitaires, présent au cours des dernières audiences de l'ex chef des groupes d'autodéfense Salvatore Mancuso. Elle avait dénoncés les nombreuses menaces dont elle faisait l'objet.

Pour toutes ces raisons, la FIDH demande au Conseil des Droits de l’Homme des Nations Unies d’adopter une résolution sur la situation des droits de l'Homme en Colombie, dans laquelle elle, - exige du Gouvernement colombien qu'il lève la réserve à 1 Les situations des défenseurs de droits de l'Homme cités ont été dénoncées par l’Observatoire pour la protection des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme, qui est un programme conjoint entre la FIDH et l'OMCT.

l'art. 124 du Statut de Rome afin que tous les crimes de guerres commis par les groupes armés en Colombie fassent l'objet d'une enquête et soient jugés par la CPI;- demande au Procureur Général de la Cour Pénale Internationale d'ouvrir une enquête sur la Colombie, prenant en compte toutes les communications qui lui ont déjà été soumises, y compris un document de la FIDH;- exhorte le gouvernement colombien à reconnaître officiellement le travail légitime des défenseurs des droits de l'Homme, ainsi que le devoir qui incombe à toutes les autorités de les protéger et de les soutenir;- demande de mettre en œuvre toutes les recommandations du bureau du Haut Commissaire des droits de l'Homme en Colombie et de renouveler intégralement le mandat de la Haute Commissaire aux droits de l'Homme afin qu'elle puisse réaliser pleinement sa tâche;- exige la révision de la politique de sécurité démocratique à l'aune des obligations internationales en matière de droits de l'Homme et de droit international humanitaire;- demande au Groupe de Travail sur les détentions arbitraires d'envisager la possibilité d'une visite en Colombie dans le but d'enquêter, entre autres, sur les détentions qui résultent de la mise en place des politiques antiterroristes;- demande au gouvernement colombien de signer et ratifier la Convention internationale pour la protection de toutes les personnes contre les disparitions forcées approuvée par l’Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies le 20 décembre 2006;

réclame l'adoption de mesures concrètes pour que des enquêtes soient menées sur les crimes commis, que ceux-ci soient jugés et que des sanctions soient appliquées, afin de respecter les droits des victimes, en particulier en ce qui concerne le procès sur le massacre de la Communauté de Paix de San José de Apartado.

13


2. CUBA

En 2006, malgré un remaniement (certes limité) du pouvoir politique en juillet, la situation des droits de l’Homme à Cuba n'a guère évolué. La FIDH tient à rappeler que la République de Cuba n’a toujours pas ratifié les principaux instruments internationaux de protection des droits de l’Homme, tels que le Pacte International relatif aux Droits Civils et Politiques, le Pacte International relatif aux Droits Economiques, Sociaux et Culturels, ni la Convention Interaméricaine des Droits de l’Homme, principal instrument de sa région. Cuba n'a pas ratifié non plus le Statut de Rome.

Défenseurs des droits de l’Homme 2

Libération conditionnelle Le 28 février 2006, le Tribunal municipal de Playa a prolongé pour raisons de santé la libération conditionelle de M. Oscar Espinosa Chepe, journaliste indépendant, précisant qu’il serait contrôlé par les “facteurs politiques” de son quartier (Parti et de la jeunesse communiste Partido y Juventud Comunista, du Comité de défense de la révolution Comité de Defensa de la Revolución, de l’Association des combattants de la révolution Asociación de Combatientes de la Revolución et de la Fédération des femmes cubaines Federación de Mujeres Cubanas, entre autres), et que sa libération pourrait être révoquée sur la base de leurs informations.Le 5 décembre 2006, M. Hector Palacios Ruiz, membre actif du Projet Varela (projet de 2002 qui demande la tenue d’un référendum au sujet de la liberté d’expression et d’association, la libération de tous les prisonniers politiques, la modification de la loi électorale et la possibilité de créer des entreprises) et libraire indépendant, s’est vu lui aussi accorder la liberté conditionnelle pour raisons de santé.De même, fin 2006, M. Marcelo López Bañobre, membre de la Commission cubaine pour les droits de l’Homme et la réconciliation nationale (Comisión Cubana de Derechos Humanos y Reconciliación Nacional - CCDHRN), demeure en liberté conditionnelle pour raisons de santé.Arrêtés en mars 2003 lors d’une vague d’arrestations massives de défenseurs des droits de l’Homme cubains, MM. Espinosa Chepe, Palacio Ruiz et López Bañobre avaient été respectivement condamnés à 20 ans, 15 ans et 25 ans de prison pour “conspiration”. Les trois hommes, étroitement surveillés, sont susceptibles d’être arrêtés de nouveau à tout moment.

2 Les cas des défenseurs de droits de l'Homme cités ont été dénoncés par l’Observatoire pour la protection des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme, qui est un programme conjoint entre la FIDH et l'OMCT.

Poursuite des actes de harcèlement et des détentions Les actes de harcèlement à l’encontre de M. Juan Carlos González Leiva, président de la Fondation cubaine des droits de l’Homme (Fundación Cubana de los Derechos Humanos), se sont accrus en 2006, bien que sa peine de quatre ans d’assignation à résidence se soit achevée le 10 mars 2006.Mme Tania Maseda Guerra, membre de la Fondation venue le rejoindre en signe de soutien, subit de fait les mêmes actes de harcèlement. De nombreux militants et proches de M. González Leiva, qui tentent régulièrement de lui venir en aide, sont bousculés ou frappés, à l’instar de Mme Yodalis Calderín Nuñez, sa nièce, et du psychologue Antonio Legón Mendoza.

En 2006, Mme Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello présidente de l’Assemblée pour la promotion de la société civile (Asamblea para la Promoción de la Sociedad Civil - APSC) et membre de l’Institut des économistes indépendants, a continué de faire l’objet d’actes de harcèlement incessants de la part des forces de sécurité, de civils, de militaires et de paramilitaires, depuis sa libération conditionnelle le 22 juillet 2004.

Le 28 février 2006, à la Havane, quatre agents du Département de sécurité de l’État (Departamento de Seguridad del Estado - DSE) ont fouillé le domicile de M. Roberto de Miranda Hernández, dirigeant du Collège des professeurs indépendants de Cuba (Colegio de Pedagogos Independientes de Cuba - CPIC), en liberté conditionnelle, et de son épouse, Mme Soledad Rivas Verdecia, membre de l’organisation des Dames en blanc (Damas de Blanco: épouses de dissidents cubains emprisonnés qui, vêtues de blanc, se réunissent chaque dimanche à La Havane et dans d’autres villes du pays pour demander leur libération).

Depuis leur participation à la Journée internationale de la femme, le 8 mars 2006, à l’instar de Mme Aurora Gonzáles Veliz, plusieurs membres de la Fédération latino-américaine des femmes rurales (Federación Latinoamericana de Mujeres Rurales - FLAMUR), dans la province de Pinar del Río, font l’objet de menaces de la part de la police politique.

Arrestation et détention arbitraireLes arrestations qui se fondent sur des motifs politiques sont toujours de rigueur et elles sont, par leur nature même, constitutives de détention arbitraire puisque, en général, aucun fait précis ne peut être reproché à la personne concernée, ou bien les motivations évoquées sont factices. Fin 2006, M. Virgilio Mantilla Arango et Mme Ana Peláez García, membres de la Fondation cubaine qui avaient été condamnés en avril 2004 restent respectivement en détention et en résidence surveillée. M. Virgilio Mantilla Arango avait en effet été condamné en avril 2004 à sept ans de prison et Mme Ana Peláez García à deux ans et demi de résidence surveillée, accusés d’ “atteinte à l’image du président cubain”, de “résistance et de

14


désobéissance à l’autorité publique” et d’ “incitation à troubler l’ordre public”.Le 22 juillet 2005, une trentaine de personnes avaient été arrêtées à La Havane à la veille d’une manifestation pacifique prévue devant l’ambassade française, visant à dénoncer la “normalisation” des relations entre l’Union Européenne et Cuba et à obtenir la libération de prisonniers politiques. Tous avaient été relâchés, à l’exception de M. Oscar Mario Gonzalez Perez, de M. René Gómez Manzano, avocat et vice-président de l’APSC, et de M. Julio César López Rodríguez, vice-président du Front de la ligne dure (Frente Línea Dura). Fin 2006, M. René Gómez Manzano reste en détention.

La FIDH rappelle que la détention arbitraire est interdite au titre de l’article 9 de la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme et que cette interdiction a acquis une valeur de jus cogens, ce qui lie la République de Cuba bien qu’elle ne soit toujours pas partie aux principaux traités et conventions qui protègent les droits de l’Homme. De surcroît, il faut rappeler que les conditions de détention à Cuba ne respectent pas les standards internationaux de l'ensemble de règles minima pour le traitement des prisonniers et des détenus de l'ONU. Les prisonniers sont soumis à des traitements dégradants, à des conditions extrêmement difficiles (insectes, rats dans les cellules) et ne bénéficient pas des conditions d'hygiène minimum. L'eau n'est pas potable et les aliments qu'on leur sert sont avariés. Les personnes détenues - journalistes, défenseurs des droits de l’Homme, dissidents politiques ou syndicalistes - le sont pour avoir exercé leur droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression ainsi que leur liberté de réunion et d’association, protégées au titre des articles 18, 19 et 20 de la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme.

Peine de mortCuba figure toujours parmi les États appliquant la peine de mort, ce que la FIDH déplore. Celle-ci est prévue par le Code de Procédure Pénale pour 112 cas, dont 33 sont des délits de droit commun. Une réforme de 1999 a étendu la peine capitale comme sanction des crimes et délits de trafic de drogue, vol avec usage de la violence et corruption de mineurs. Le 20 décembre 2001, le Parlement a approuvé à l'unanimité une loi qui étend les dispositions contre-terroristes et qui réaffirme l'usage de la peine de mort pour les actes de terrorisme les plus graves. Trois personnes ont encore été condamnées à la peine capitale et exécutées en 2003. Ces exécutions récentes démontrent un manque de volonté politique de la part du régime cubain de mettre en place un moratoire immédiat, en vue d'une abolition universelle et définitive de la peine de mort, dans la lignée de la Déclaration finale du 3ème Congrès mondial contre la peine de mort (Paris, 1er au 3 février 2007).

Pour toutes ces raisons, la FIDH demande au Conseil des Droits de l’Homme des Nations Unies d’adopter une résolution dans laquelle elle :

− Exprime sa grave préoccupation à l’égard de la situation des droits de l’Homme à Cuba;

− Exige la libération immédiate et inconditionnelle des prisonniers politiques et de toutes les personnes faisant l’objet de détention arbitraire;

− Exige que la législation soit modifiée de façon à garantir la liberté d’expression et d’opinion, ainsi que les droits à la liberté d’association et de réunion et en particulier qu’il soit dérogé à la Loi 88 de Protection de l'indépendance nationale et de l'économie cubaine (Protección de la Independencia Nacional y de la Economía de Cuba);

− Incite le Gouvernement cubain à ratifier les principaux instruments internationaux protecteurs des droits de l’Homme et notamment les Pactes de 1966 et le Statut de Rome;

− Exhorte le Gouvernement cubain à retirer la peine de mort de son Code Pénal.

15


3. GUATEMALA

En 2006 la situation des droits de l'Homme au Guatemala s'est dégradée. Malgré les 10 ans des Accords de Paix, ceux-ci sont toujours peu, ou ne sont même pas, appliqués par les autorités concernées. Les défenseurs des droits de l'Homme demeurent les cibles privilégiées d'attaques et de menaces. L'impunité continue de régner, le cas de l'ex dictateur Rios Montt étant tout à fait emblématique à cet égard. Les actions violentes commises contre les femmes ou « féminicides » restent très préoccupant. Le Guatemala fait toujours partie des pays non abolitionnistes de la peine de mort.

Défenseurs des droits de l’Homme 3

Tous les types d'exactions, de violences et d'attaques à l'encontre des défenseurs restent monnaie courante, tels que:− les actes d'assassinats dont ont été victimes, entre

autres, de Mme Meregilda Súchite, dirigeante de la communauté de Tuticopote Abajo et membre du Réseau de femmes de l’Observatoire des droits de l’Homme, mis en place par le Centre d’action juridique des droits de l’Homme; et de M. Antonio Ixbalan Cali, président de l’Association des agriculteurs de Santiago Atitlan, association membre de la Coordination nationale indigène et paysanne, et de son épouse Mme María Petzey Coo.

− de harcèlement et d'intimidation à l'encontre notamment de Mme Gloria Aurora González Vásquez et Mme Argentina Osorio Azañón de l'Association des femmes Ixqik et de plusieurs éducateurs de Casa Alianza – Guatemala.

− les enquêtes bloquées, comme celle sur le meurtre de M. Harold Rafael Pérez Gallardo, avocat travaillant au sein du bureau juridique de l’ONG Casa Alianza Guatemala, qui a été ouverte par le ministère Public. Les auteurs de cet acte n’ont toujours pas été identifiés. Selon le ministère, la PNC n’aurait pas obtenu suffisamment d’informations.

− les disparitions forcées, notamment de M. Oscar Humberto Duarte Paíz, secrétaire de l’Association pour le développement de la ville de Quetzal et des quartiers de Aledeñas, de San Juan Sacatepéquez.

− les menaces y compris de mort, proférées par exemple contre M. Maynor Roberto Berganza Bethancourt, avocat spécialisé dans la défense des droits de l’Homme; Mme Erenia Vanegas, membre de l’Unité de protection des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme du Mouvement national des droits de l’Homme du Guatemala.

− les poursuites judiciaires à l'encontre de

3 Les cas des défenseurs de droits de l'Homme cités ont été dénoncés par l’Observatoire pour la protection des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme, qui est un programme conjoint entre la FIDH et l'OMCT.

syndicalistes, contre MM. José Arturo Ramos Pérez, Francisco Javier López López, Carlos Rolando Ramos Rodríguez, Delfino López Alonzo et Alejandro López Esteban, membres du Syndicat Clermont, affilié à la Confédération centrale générale des travailleurs du Guatemala.

− les enlèvements : M. Erwin Estuardo Orrego Borrayo, dirigeant du Front d’urgence des vendeurs des marchés du Guatemala.

− les détentions arbitraires : M. José Xoj, dirigeant de la Coordination des organisations paysannes et indigènes de Petén.

− les vols ou tentatives de vol avec effraction, notamment dans les locaux de nombreuses ONG.

Création d'une Commission indépendante de l'ONU visant à lutter contre l'impunité La FIDH accueille très favorablement l'accord signé le 12 décembre 2006, entre Ibrahim Gambari, Secrétaire général adjoint aux affaires politiques de l'ONU et le Vice-président guatémaltèque, Eduardo Stein, qui vise à aider le Guatemala dans sa lutte contre l'impunité et prévoit l'établissement d'une Commission internationale contre l'impunité. Celle-ci a un mandat initial de deux ans pour enquêter sur « l'existence de groupes et d'organisations de sécurité illégaux et clandestins » et pour aider les autorités judiciaires guatémaltèques à engager des poursuites.

Cour Pénale International (CPI)En 2003, le Tribunal Constitutionnel de Guatemala a déclaré que le Statut de Rome n'était pas contraire à la Constitution du Guatemala, malgré cela, aucune initiative en vue d'une signature et d'une ratification du Traité n'a été prise.

ImpunitéAprès de longues années d’impunité et face à l’inaction du système judiciaire guatémaltèque, les autorités judiciaires espagnoles ont lancé en juillet dernier des mandats d’arrêt internationaux, et transmis aux autorités guatémaltèques des demandes d’extradition à l’encontre de sept personnes exerçant les plus hautes responsabilités afin qu’elles soit jugées en Espagne pour génocide, torture, disparition forcée et exécutions extra-judiciaires. La justice guatemaltèque a accepté ces mandats d'arrêts le 18 novembre 2006. Elle doit maintenant exécuter les demandes d'extraditions, en particulier celle de l'ex dictateur Ríos Montt, l’un des principaux accusés, car il s’est officiellement porté candidat à la députation lors des prochaines élections générales qui auront lieu en septembre 2007. Les dépôts de candidature seront ouverts le 2 mai prochain, et le Tribunal Suprême Electoral les validera dans le courant de l’été. A cette date, il bénéficiera de 4 ans d’immunité parlementaire.Si les plaintes déposées par des associations de victimes, au Guatemala, en Espagne, et devant la Cour Interaméricaine des Droits de l’Homme, ne connaissent pas d’avancées majeures, il risque ainsi de n’être jamais

16


inquiété, et les millions de victimes du conflit, de ne jamais recevoir la réparation morale qu’elles réclament depuis tant d’années.

FéminicideLes actions violentes commises contre les femmes restent très préoccupant et pour la plupart impunies. Les motifs qui les sous-tendent en sont également variés (politique, violence domestique, crime fondé sur la différence sexuelle, vengeance des mafias). Il n'existe pas encore d'analyse précise du phénomène, de ses origines, de toutes ses manifestations; toutefois, un schéma particulier semble prendre corps: celui de violations systématiques à l'égard de la femme fondées sur sa seule condition de femme. Le Guatemala a ratifié, dans le domaine du droits des femmes, aussi bien la « Convention sur l'élimination de toutes les formes de discriminations à l'égard des femmes » en 1982 que la «Convention interaméricaine pour prévenir, sanctionner et éradiquer la violence contre les femmes » en 1995 et la « Convention contre la torture », ainsi que, plus généralement, la « Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme, » le « Pacte International relatif aux droits civils et politiques » et la « Convention Américaine des droits de l'Homme », qui reconnaissent le droit à la vie.

Peine de MortEn réponse à la persistance de la pratique de la peine de mort, le Gouvernement avait annoncé avoir deux projets de loi : un pour abolir la peine de mort et un autre pour clarifier le droit de grâce, mais aucun de deux n'a à ce jour été adopté. Comme l'a rappelé le Comité des droits de l'Homme des Nations Unies, le crime de kidnapping sans avoir causé la mort de la victime ne peut être considéré comme un crime des plus graves au sens de l'article 64 du Pacte, il ne peut donc donner lieu à l'application de la peine de mort5. Or pour ce seul crime il y a aujourd'hui, au Guatemala, 11 condamnés à mort.

Considérant la gravité de la situation tant sur le plan des droits civils et politiques que sur celui des droits économiques et sociaux, la FIDH demande au Conseil des droits de l’Homme des Nations Unies d’adopter une résolution sur le Guatemala dans laquelle elle :

Exhorte le Gouvernement guatémaltèque à lutter contre l’impunité et à améliorer le système de justice en exécutant les demandes d'extraditions des principaux responsables des crimes de génocide.

Demande instamment aux autorités de garantir leur soutien 4 Conformément à l’article 6 du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques la peine de mort ne peut être infligée que comme sanction des crimes les plus graves.

5 Comité des Droits de l'Homme des Nations Unies, observation finales sur le rapport du Guatemala 17, A/56/40, 2001

aux défenseurs des droits de l’Homme et à respecter les accords de paix de 1996.

Appelle le Congrès guatemaltèque à adopter les mesures législatives nécessaires à la ratification du Statut de Rome.

Soutien l'accord entre les Nations Unies et le Guatemala sur la création d'une Commission internationale contre l'impunité au Guatemala.

Incite le Guatemala à la mise en place d'un moratoire immédiat, en vue d'une abolition universelle et définitive de la peine de mort, dans la lignée de la Déclaration finale du 3ème Congrès mondial contre la peine de mort (Paris, 1er au 3 février 2007), et à la ratification du protocole additionnel de la Convention Interaméricaine des Droits de l’Homme contre la peine de mort et du second protocole facultatif du Pacte International relatif aux Droits Civils et Politiques sur l’abolition peine de mort.

Demande à toutes les autorités guatémaltèques de mettre en œuvre les réformes et mesures nécessaires à l’accomplissement des recommandations du Bureau du Haut Commissaire des Droits de l’Homme du Guatemala et de conserver l’intégralité de son mandat de consultant et observateur de la situation des droits de l’Homme, notamment en ce qui concerne les droits des peuples indigènes.

17


4. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Violations of human rights in the context of the “War on Terror”

The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), express their deep concern at the continuing human rights violations being committed by the United States in the context of the so-called “War on Terror,” and in particular with regards to detainees’ rights. Enforced disappearances, arbitrary and indefinite detention, torture, and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and denials of effective remedies and due process, constitute patent violations of the United States’ obligations under international customary law and treaties it has ratified.

Treatment of Detainees and the situation in GuantánamoSince gaining control of detainees, the U.S. military has held them virtually incommunicado at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, under conditions that violate their constitutional and international rights. Isolation for up to 30 days, beatings, round-the-clock interrogations, extreme and prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation up to 50 days, sensory assaults, removal of clothing, hooding, and the use of dogs, are interrogation techniques approved for use by the Military at Guantánamo by the most senior Department of Defense lawyer. It has also been proven that these techniques have been applied in other U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As more information has become available, it is clear that many of those who have been held at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay– some as young as 13 or as old as 80 – are not violent terrorists or “enemy combatants” but merely individuals caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, often with tenuous (at best) connections to terrorist organizations. Out of the 760 men who have been detained at Guantanamo, only 3 are currently charged with a crime, and over 350 have been released. Yet, about 395 remain detained indefinitely, without access to justice. In some cases it appears as though the seizure and detention of a person involved a mistaken identity or a mistranslation of an Arabic, Pashtun, or Dari name.

The United States has indicated publicly that close to one hundred of the prisoners have been cleared for transfer or release. Yet, it has not moved swiftly to accomplish those transfers. No transparency exists in this process nor are timetables firmly established.

On February 16, 2006, five United Nations Special Rapporteurs released a report determining that the prison is a “torture camp” and demanding that the U.S. shut down the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, release or try the detainees and “refrain from any practice amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” Similar

conclusions were issued by the UN Human Rights Committee in May 2006 and the UN Committee against Torture in July 2006. The ICRC called said that the entire system at Guantanamo was “tantamount to torture.”

The situation has worsened since these reports were issued. The U.S. has completed the building of a new permanent prison known as "Camp 6." Such facilities are designed to maximize the sensory deprivation of the prisoners. Every prisoner is kept in solitary confinement. The lights are on continually, and there are no windows to the outside. Limited outdoor recreation is provided; some prisoners, only taken out for exercise at nighttime, are never exposed to daylight.In September 2006, the President announced the transfer into Guantanamo of 14 so-called “high value” detainees who had previously been held for years in CIA “black sites.” Since these transfers, the United States government has erected insuperable barriers to access to these detainees. Lawyers have been prevented to meet with their clients, on grounds that their knowledge of the types of “alternative interrogation methods” that were used on him, and of the locations of the “black site” prisons where he had been held, is “top secret.”

The Military Commissions Act 2006 and the impossibility for the detainees to challenge the legality of their detention

On September 29, 2006, the Military Commissions Act (MCA) was passed by the U.S. Congress. It purports to retroactively (back to 9/11) strip from any “alien detained by the United States,” anywhere in the world, who is “detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination” the right to file a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his or her detention. This provision ostensibly applies to all Guantánamo detainees whose habeas petitions were pending in the federal trial courts at the time of the law’s passage. Another section of the statute prohibited any court from reviewing any aspect of the treatment, detention, transfer, trial or conditions of confinement of an detainee designated an “enemy combatant.” This inability to file civil suits prevents detainees from holding accountable perpetrators of abuses and their commanders, in violation of international human rights law’s imperative to provide effective remedies.

Retroactive amendments (back to 1997) have also been made to the U.S. War Crimes Act in order to immunize possible authors of war crimes. Indeed, “grave breaches” to the Geneva Conventions have been narrowly limited and redefined. The President is given sole discretion to punish other violations of the Geneva Conventions that do not rise to the level of “grave breaches” – including degrading treatment in violation of Common Article 3 – and to approve whatever interrogation techniques he deems legal and appropriate. In addition, the MCA states that no US court may apply international law to determine whether

18


Common Article 3 has been violated and is punishable.

Also, according to the MCA, evidence obtained by coercion is admissible in a military commission if it is (1) reliable, (2) probative, and (3) serves the “interests of justice.” The standard for evidence obtained through coercive interrogations is very low – evidence obtained from interrogations prior to December 2005 (enactment of the Detainees Treatment Act) can be admitted even if it is found to result from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

The practice of extraordinary renditions

FIDH strongly condemns the U.S. Government’s practice of “rendering” persons under its control to countries and/or secret detention facilities where it is aware torture occurs. It is not publicly known how many people the Government has rendered to indefinite detention and torture, although estimates range from 150 to many thousands.

As pressure to close the facility mounts, the use of illegal transfers from Guantánamo to human rights abusing regimes seems likely to increase. The U.S. must ensure that detainees are not sent to countries where they face torture or persecution.

The Government also claims to get “diplomatic assurances” from the foreign government that the detainees will not be tortured, but such assurances are unenforceable, not monitored and not open to public scrutiny. Potential transferees cannot challenge the credibility or reliability of these assurances before an independent judicial body, and there is no requirement that the United States government take the past human rights history of the receiving country into account.

FIDH and CCR call for the adoption of a resolution publicly condemning these policies and practices and the content of the new legislation. The resolution should urge the United States authorities to, inter alia:

− cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteurs and provide immediate, complete, and unimpeded access to the Guantánamo detention facilities and the detainees being confined there;

− fully implement the recommendations of the five Special Rapporteurs in their February 16, 2006 report on the circumstances of Guantánamo;

− guarantee the physical and psychological integrity of all detainees held by the United States government in Guantánamo and the observance of all human rights in accordance with the government’s international and regional undertakings;

− amend the Military Commissions Act in order to authorize all detainees to challenge the legality of their detention before the courts and to fully implement the United States’ obligations under the Geneva Conventions and, international human rights and

humanitarian law;− guarantee the independence of the judiciary in

conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and United Nations basic principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, including among other things, executive compliance with the decisions of the federal judiciary;

− promptly charge and try all detainees against whom the United States intends to bring charges, in accordance with international fair trial obligations;

− treat the detainees held at Guantánamo who are eligible for release or transfer in accordance with international obligations and principles, including the principle of non-refoulement, and thereby refrain from rendering individuals to countries where there are substantial grounds to believe that they would face an imminent risk of grave human rights violations, including torture and persecution;

− take immediate and concrete steps to investigate all military and intelligence officers and soldiers who are alleged to have participated in the torture, abuse, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of the Guantánamo detainees, and prosecute those involved to the fullest extent of the law; and

− respect its international obligations when the United States seeks to override or restrict fundamental rights with the aim of combating terrorism.

19


ASIA and MIDDLE EAST

1. MYANMAR

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Altsean Burma maintain their serious concerns regarding the institutionally entrenched, systematic and widespread violations of human rights occurring in Burma. Despite more than 29 resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights calling for national reconciliation and democratization in Burma, as well as the actions undertaken by the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his office over the past ten years, and the four envoys to Burma mandated by the UN Commission on Human Rights, the State Peace and Development Council's (SPDC) unlawful methods of political and ethnic repression have consolidated.

Over the past year, the Burmese military junta has not undertaken any action in favour of national reconciliation. Indeed, in September 2006, the regime publicly declared that it will never engage in discussions with the NLD and ethnic minorities. Instead, NLD leaders and democracy activists have increasingly been subjected to harassment including arbitrary arrests and restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly.

The reform process proposed in the road map and the work of the National Convention have produced absolutely no concrete results and the military campaign in the ethnic ar-eas of eastern Burma is having a terrific effect on human rights with 27 000 internally displaced people in 2006 alone in the region.

Repression of diverging opinionThroughout 2006, democracy activists in Burma have been subjected to severe repression. They are still arbitrarily arrested by the military junta. In September 2006, the three most prominent student leaders of Burma, Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi and Htay Kywe were arrested by the Burmese military regime; thanks to the international pressure, they have been released on 11 January 2007. All had already served over 15 years in prison. They have been released in 2004 and 2005 and since then, they have been working tirelessly to bring about democratic changes in the country by peaceful means.

Only days after the most recent visit to Burma by UN Under-Secretary for Political Affairs, Mr. Ibrahim Gambari, in May 2006, during which he was allowed to meet briefly with Aung San Suu Kyi and called for her release, her detention was once again arbitrarily prolonged for yet another year.

The effective laws and judicial system do not facilitate the emergence and strengthening of the civil society in Burma. The 1988 Association Law enacted by the regime prohibits

formation and function of independent organizations. The judiciary is not able to provide protection for civil society activists given that it is subservient to the ruling military regime.

The dire humanitarian crisis is worsened by the increasingly strict conditions imposed by the Burmese regime on humanitarian organizations, in some cases amounting to a complete denial of access, so that they are unable to carry out their missions to help the thousands of displaced facing the greatest needs. In 2006, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which is mainly contributing to protect and promote the rights of prisoners in Burma, was forced to temporarily shut down five field offices. To date, the regime has prevented the ICRC from resuming prison visits suspended since December 2005.

Repression of ethnic communitiesThe Burmese regime's attacks on ethnic communities has been continuing throughout 2006.

Attacks on villages in ethnic areas by the army since late 2005 have led to extensive forced displacements. There is reportedly a total of 540,000 internally displaced persons in Burma with minimum prospects of return and resettle-ment. The regime does not recognize the existence of inter-nally displaced persons within its borders and severely re-strict access to them by United Nations agencies and other humanitarian actors.

In November 2005, the SPDC began an offensive targeting communities in Eastern Burma which has continued to this date. Unusually, the offensive continued throughout the wet season, targeting villages unprotected by armed oppo-sition groups, leaving communities trapped in the jungle shelters while their crops and homes burned and home-lands lain with new landmines. Those arriving in Thailand report witnessing SPDC soldiers commit extra-judicial killings, rape and torture. An estimated 27,000 have been displaced in the offensive, 2,000 prisoners and countless civilians have been used as porters, and 341 people have been documented as killed.

In western Myanmar, the Rohingya Muslim minority has long been discriminated against, and is denied citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Law. Rohingya asylum-seekers continue to flee to Bangladesh and Malaysia. In Burma, Rohingyas are subject to serious abuses, notably forced labour (brick-baking, construction of roads, bridges, model villages and military facilities, camp maintenance, porter-ing), arbitrary taxation, extortion and land confiscation, re-strictions on freedom of movement, persecution of political and community leaders, torture, and destruction of mosques and madrassa.

Forced LabourForced labour involving portering, sentry/patrol duty, mili-tary and SPDC infrastructure projects, and commercial

20


agriculture activities is still prevalent throughout Burma. Burma has acceded to the International Labour Organiza-tion (ILO) Convention No. 29 that prohibits forced labour, and in 2000 it issued an Order outlawing the practice. However, it is not being effectively implemented due to a lack of political will. In 2005, the regime announced a pol-icy of prosecuting people who lodged what it considered to be “false complaints” of forced labour, leading to a situa-tion where the victims rather than the perpetrators are pun-ished. The State-controlled press has also published arti-cles attacking ILO. The effect of this has been to strength-en the sense of impunity enjoyed by those who benefit from forced labour.

In June 2006, the ILO Conference of States parties required from Burma concrete results in two areas: releasing any person who had been imprisoned following contacts with the ILO and achieving an agreement with ILO on a credible mechanism for dealing with complaints of forced labour with all necessary guarantees for the protection of complainants. However, in November 2006, because of the lack of progress on those points, the ILO governing body asked the ILO Director-General to bring the relevant documentation to the UN Security Council when it considers the situation in Myanmar and to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for any action that may be considered appropriate.

The hydropower project planned on the Salween River with joint venture between the Burmese regime and Chinese and Thai state-owned companies is particularly worrying. The Salween River flows southward through Shan and Karenni States in the East of Burma, and along the Thai-Burma border through Karen and Mon States. Damming the river poses a threat to the livelihoods of local ethnic nationality communities and will inevitably lead to a massive population displacement and the eradication of indigenous cultures. One of the dams – Weigyi – will be built on the border of Burma’s Karen and Karenni States. Although much of the area has already been cleared out by military offensives and forced relocations, approximately 30,000 people will be impacted, with 26 villages and two entire towns submerged. An entire tribe of people the Yintalai, who now number a mere 1,000, are threatened with expulsion and assimilation when they will be forced off to relocate with no compensation, or any consideration of the animistic traditions that necessitate access to homeland.

Of concern to communities living in affected states is the “Shwe” natural gas pipeline project proposed by India, and another proposed pipeline cutting across the length of Burma to China. A pipeline corridor to India is already being cleared. The area is already becoming increasingly militarized, and reports of forced labor in the context of infrastructure development have already emerged. The human rights implications of the pipeline to China, which will cut across several states is feared to be devastating.

FIDH, and Altsean Burma call upon the Human Rights Council (HRC) to convene a special session of the Human rights Council on the human rights situation in Burma. In that framework, the HRC should urge the Burmese authorities to:

− Put an end to the harassment, arrest and detention of members of the National League for Democracy and political activists;

− Immediately and unconditionally release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners;

− Ensure the immediate, safe, and unhindered access to all parts of the country for international humanitarian organizations to provide assistance to the most vulnerable groups of the population;

− Immediately cease military operations and attacks against civilian populations in ethnic areas;

− Stop the use of forced labour, duly protect victims bringing legal suits in forced labour cases against any retaliation and fully cooperate with the ILO;

− Stop dam projects on the Salween River in view of its tremendously damaging impact on the environment and human rights of local communities;

− Begin a meaningful, transparent and inclusive dialogue with all political parties and ethnic groups in order to achieve a genuine process of national reconciliation

21


2. PEOPLE's REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Human Rights in China (HRIC) express their serious concern regarding alarming human rights trends in China in 2006, including the repression of human rights defenders, the rule of law, and freedom of expression, including censorship of the media and the Internet. FIDH and HRIC are further concerned about the failure of the Chinese Government to take steps to remedy the detention of individuals found to be arbitrary by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and to implement the numerous recommendations of UN Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures.

Hardening official attitude towards Human Rights Defenders results in increasing crackdowns in 2006Continued detentions and heavy sentences for journalists, lawyers, Internet activists and other human rights defenders reflect the Chinese government’s hardening attitude in the lead up to both the 17th Party Congress in 2007 and the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008. In particular, heavy sentences, detentions and arrests in 2006 send a chilling message to human rights defenders and others seeking to express their views. These sentences and arrests include those of Chen Guangcheng (self-taught lawyer and activist, sentenced to four years and three months in prison for gathering a mob to disrupt traffic); Ching Cheong (journalist, sentenced to five years imprisonment for subversion); Gao Zhisheng (lawyer, sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended, for subversion); Yan Zhengxue (artist, detained October 18, 2006, currently awaiting trial on charges of subversion); and Zhao Yan (journalist, sentenced to three years imprisonment for fraud).

In addition, numerous individuals that travel to Beijing to petition the government for reasons ranging from official corruption, to land seizures, to withholding payments, are detained and often sentenced to periods of reeducation-through-labor (RTL). Others are brought up on criminal charges. On December 18, 2006, three petitioners, Du Yangming, Wang Shuizhen, and Tian Baocheng, were given prison sentences ranging from one to two-and-a-half years in prison on charges of “causing a disturbance.”

Threats to building a Rule of LawConcerns related to building a rule of law and independent judiciary remain and are becoming more serious. Tightening regulations, procedural obstacles, and increasing harassments and threats against lawyers, all demonstrate an increasingly severe crackdown on the legal profession. This crackdown has important implications for legal defense work, access to justice, due process rights, and the development of an independent, transparent and accountable rule of law.

The trend of physical harassment of lawyers is particularly

alarming, and also reflects the growing use of both police and extrajudicial violence against individual human rights defenders.

Undermining Freedom of Expression and Access to InformationFreedom of expression in China is restricted for both individuals and the media. Restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and information are enacted by legal, technical and social tools, resulting in censorship, self-censorship and the availability of only limited, government-approved, information. In particular, the comprehensive state secrets system limits access to information and reporting on a range of issues including natural disasters and pollution, application of the death penalty, and the criminal justice system. The resulting lack of transparency throughout the Chinese legal and governing system undermines good governance, an independent rule of law, and sustainable development.

Despite protections in the Constitution and promises related to freedom of expression and the media in the lead-up to the 2008 Olympics, the practice of restricting reportage and detaining journalists has continued. Whereas regulations passed in December 2006 allow foreign journalists relatively free access to report in China, they are currently set to expire following the Olympic Games, and official announcements made in January and February 2007 limit the subject and scope of information that can be reported on by all journalists. At the same time, technical controls regulate what information individuals have access to online, and criminal sanctions can be imposed on individuals that seek to express views considered politically sensitive on web logs, Internet forums and in e-mails.

RecommendationsThese disturbing trends that are both systemic and have serious consequences for individuals have developed despite numerous recommendations made by UN Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures, including those related to individual detentions. In the lead up to China’s review by the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism in whatever form it may take, we urge Human Rights Council members to consider the many recommendations made to China that have not been implemented. These include:− Close monitoring of implementing recommendations ,

including those related to arbitrary detention and women’s rights. Both the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention noted that many of the recommendations made in earlier reviews and country visits remain unimplemented in reports made in 2005 and 2006 (UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women);

− Take steps to remedy the detention of individuals found to be arbitrarily detained, including Yao Fuxin, Yang Jianli, Liu Xianbin, Zhao Changqing, Hu

22


Shigen, and Zhao Yan (UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention);

− Lessen controls on the Internet to make scientific and other information more widely available (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights);

− Take legislative measures to make a clear-cut exemption from criminal responsibility of those who peacefully exercise rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention);

− Define the crime of torture in accordance with the Convention against Torture (Special Rapporteur on Torture);

− Reforms of the Criminal Procedure Law , to fall in line with fair trial standards laid out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Special Rapporteur on Torture).

23


3. PHILIPPINES

2005 and 2006 have been black years indeed for human rights in the Philippines. Politically motivated extrajudicial killings have reached unprecedented levels, and very few - if any - have been prosecuted and condemned for such acts.

The exact number of extrajudicial killings varies according to different sources, but all converge to denounce the high number of killings, the fact that they are politically motivated, and in their immense majority thought to be perpetrated most often by members of the military, by the police, or by groups linked to them. The number of cases is clearly on the rise since 2005. In addition, with the coming election for the Congress in May 2007, local groups expect a further increase of violence.

According to Karapatan, 206 civilians were killed in 2006 (189 in 2005). Among them, 165 were affiliated with various peaceful and legal left organisations (Bayan and Anakpawis in particular), while 17 human rights defenders, members of Karapatan, are also among the victims.

The main victims of the killings are members and leaders of legal organisations (peasant and fishermen organisations, teachers’ associations, women’s groups, workers unions, etc), perceived by the authorities as close to the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA).

In 2006, there have also been several cases of extrajudicial killings of farmers in connection with agrarian reform. In those cases, the police investigations were extremely flawed – and the landlords belonging to powerful families enjoy total impunity.

A Schizophrenic PolicyBayan, an umbrella mass organisation ideologically close to the CPP, and its members (left political parties, trade unions, etc) are legal organisations in the Philippines; however, they are regularly designated as “fronts of the NPA” in the speeches of high level militar and government officials. Such statements make them legitimate targets. In the provinces, it is reported by various sources that the military exert harsh pressure on civilians, inducing them not to support those groups if they want to avoid repression.

This situation is paradoxical since those groups, unions, parties and NGOs are legally entitled to operate in the Philippines. That amalgam clearly contributes to the fact that the leaders, members and sympathisers of legal organisations and political parties have been victims of numerous targeted extrajudicial killings. Even if they might share the same ideology, a clear distinction should be drawn between peaceful legal parties and organisations

on the one hand, and the armed groups on the other hand.

Total ImpunityThe perpetrators of the extrajudicial killings are rarely identified by the police and never brought to justice. No high level military has ever been put on trial for involvement in human rights violations. According to various testimonies, the lawyers taking up cases against members of the army or the police are generally harassed and threatened. The witnesses and the relatives of the victims are also threatened, if not killed. There is no meaningful witness protection programme in the Philippines, in spite of the existence of the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act of 1991.

Human rights defenders face huge risks in order to document the violations and assist the victims. The tribute they paid in 2006 is particularly heavy. The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme of FIDH and OMCT, recorded 23 cases of extrajudicial killings of human rights defenders in 2006 alone.

In July 2006, in her State of the Nation Address, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared “In the provinces under the jurisdiction of the 7th Division, Jovito Palparan is fighting the enemy. He will not retreat until people are free from the terror of the night and are able to see the dawn of justice and freedom”. This was interpreted by local human rights groups as a green light for further human rights violations against civilians by the Army since Jovito Palparan is well known for being involved, directly or through henchmen, in numerous cases of disappearances, torture and extrajudicial killings of civilians.

The authorities explain the high number of extrajudicial killings as being the result of an internal purge within the CPP. Such purges have indeed taken place in the 1980s and in the beginning of the 1990s, when the CPP arrested, tortured and even killed many of its own supporters, accusing them of being agents of the military. Since the mid-1990s, certain target killings have taken place of left leaders who decided to leave the armed struggle and compete for the elections instead.

However, all local human rights groups concur to definitely reject such an explanation for today’s large number of killings. Such an explanation is also contradicted by the fact that the so-called left groups fiercely denounce those killings.

Following the national and international indignation at the high number of extrajudicial killings over the past year, the government established the Melo Commission in August 2006 to inquire in media and activists’ killings. Its composition has been largely criticised by local human rights groups as resulting in a lack of credibility and impartiality. In addition, it could not compel witnesses to testify; it did not have a witness protection programme;

24


and the Melo Commission announced that it would achieve its work by the end of December 2006, which constituted a very short timeframe.

Since the appointment of the Commission, the extrajudicial killings have continued unabated. FIDH welcomes the public release by the government of the Melo Commission report, on February 23, after the UN special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions in visit in the country the same month recommended to do so.

On 31 January 2007, after it received the Melo Commission’s report, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo “urged the Supreme Court (SC) to form a special court that will conduct a speedy trial of all cases of extrajudicial killings in the country”. The President also “ordered newly appointed Defense Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane Jr. and Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Hermogenes Esperon Jr. to come up with an updated document on the principles of command responsibility focusing on the alleged involvement of retired Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan in extrajudicial killings”.

FIDH recalls that the State has a duty to protect the rights to life and to physical integrity. It should consequently prevent, but also investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of such human rights violations. A “special court” conducting “a speedy trial” does not seem an appropriate response to the extrajudicial killings. Only prosecution of high level officials for human rights violations will send a signal to the authors of extrajudicial killings that such behaviour will not be tolerated anymore.

The large number of extrajudicial killings combined with the systematic impunity of the perpetrators obviously generates a climate of fear, particularly detrimental to democracy. There are credible reports that members of the security forces are often involved in the extrajudicial killings, or did not intervene to prevent them. The fact that the victims are by large found among the leaders and members of so-called left groups gives credit to those who denounce the existence of a concerted plan to neutralise those opposition groups. The various declarations by high level military and even government officials blurring the line between legal organisations and illegal armed groups are of utmost concern in that regard. Beyond eliminating them, the objective of such policy may also be to bring those groups back in the clandestine armed struggle, which would further justify a strong militarization in the country.

FIDH calls upon the UN Human rights Council to urge the government of the Philippines to:

− ensure that a fully independent body be in charge of the investigation of the cases of extrajudicial killings

− put in place a meaningful programme of protection of victims and witnesses before, during and after the enquiry and the judicial procedures

− drop the charges of rebellion filed against civilians

belonging to the opposition in the absence of meaningful evidence against them, and free Congressman Crispin Beltran

− publicly and unambiguously denounce attacks on legal left groups, and put an end to allegations of collusion between peaceful opposition groups and illegal armed groups

− ensure that there is no intrusion of the military into civil administration

− adopt the Bill on torture implementing the UN Convention Against Torture, ratified by the Philippines

− ratify the newly adopted UN Convention on Enforced Disappearances and adopt an implementing legislation

25


4. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

Harassment of union leaders, human rights activists, journalists, bloggers and any persons having an independent or differing opinion has been continuing in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Repression has been increasing over the past months in particular against women’s rights groups, trade union members, as well as religious and ethnic minorities. Lawyers have also been increasingly targeted for defending cases perceived as sensitive by the authorities.

Ethnic MinoritiesSince the beginning of this year, executions have been on the rise in Khûzistân, a neighbouring region with Iraq where the Arab minority is living. Protests asking for increased autonomy (right to publish in Arabic, etc) had taken place in the region in April 2005. Violent clashes had opposed protesters to the police, resulting in a number of injured. Since then, bombings occurred in Ahwaz and other cities in the region. The Iranian authorities replied to those attacks through massive condemnations to death of men belonging to the Arab minority.

On 9 November 2006, the Iranian Supreme Court confirmed the death sentences for "Mohareb" ("being at war with God") against ten persons belonging to the Arab minority. The trial of the ten men had however been held in secret, access to their lawyers had been denied during the pre-trial phase, and six lawyers who had been defending them had been arrested and subsequently freed on bail, in blatant violation of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.

Three of the ten men were executed in mid-December. In spite of a call launched by three UN independent experts to stop the execution of the remaining seven sentenced to death “following a secret, grossly unfair trial”, four of them were executed in late January. The last three, Majed Alebooghasbish, 30, Ghasem Salamat, 41, and Abdol-Reza Sanvati, 34, were executed on February 14, 2007.

On 13 February 2007, eleven members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards have been killed after a car bomb hit their bus in Zahedan, capital of the Sistan-Baluchestan province which borders both Afghanistan and Pakistan in South eastern Iran. The Baluch ethnic minority is living in that province, which is among the poorest in Iran. Iran's Fars news agency said “a group called Jundallah [Allah's brigade, a Sunni group] under the leadership of Abdolmalek Rigi, [head of] the eastern rebels in the country... took responsibility for this terrorist act.” On 15 February, the UN Security Council condemned the "terrorist attack" against the bus. On 19 February 2007, Nasrollah Shanbe-Zehi, sentenced to death by a local branch of the revolutionary court, was hanged in public at the site of the bombing for his alleged role in the attack.

FIDH and LDDHI vigorously denounce such executions, which follow blatantly unfair trials. Under such circumstances, it is totally impossible to know whether those persons really participated in terrorist acts, or were simply political activists asking for more autonomy or for the independence of the province. No crime, whatever its gravity, can justify such a denial of the fair trial guarantees, which constitute a non-derogable right, even “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation” (Art. 4 of the ICCPR as interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee). Our organisations fear that Iran may currently be executing political prisoners – and not the real authors of violent attacks, which would be an extremely worrying move.

On 14 June 2006, Mr. Saleh Kamrani, lawyer in Tehran, disappeared. He has reportedly been detained in the Evin prison, without charges, and subsequently released. Before his arrest, Mr. Kamrani had defended political prisoners arrested after they had protested against the publication in May 2006, in a pro-government newspaper, of a comics which had offended many Turk-Azeri citizens. He had already been victim of harassment in the past because of his activities in favour of the defence of ethnic minorities.

Women’s RightsA campaign on women’s rights launched last August by local groups in Iran has been repeatedly targeted by the authorities. The on-line campaign is asking for the elimination of all forms of legal discrimination against women in the Iranian legislation, and for the legislator to review and amend existing laws, so that they conform with the government’s commitments to international human rights conventions. The “For one million signatures” website was shut down several times since its launch, and the campaigners had to reopen it on new domains.

In addition, on January 27, 2007, Ms. Mansoureh Shojaei, Ms. Sedigheh Taghinia (alias Tal’at Taghinia) and Ms. Farnaz Seifi, three journalists at the forefront of the campaign, were arrested at the Imam Khomeini Airport, and prevented from leaving the country. They were on their way to India to participate in a journalism workshop. They were transferred to the 209 section of the Evin Prison, in Tehran, and subsequently released on bail the next day. A hearing should take place in March on the basis of unknown charges.

Human rights defenders and trade unionistsIn the Evin prison, the pressure against political prisoners is on the rise. In November 2006, dangerous prisoners condemned for ordinary crimes have been transferred to the Evin prison in order to provoke and beat political prisoners. Among the victims, Nasser Zarafchan, lawyer and human rights defender, has been beaten on November 13, 2006.

Mr Nasser Zarafchan was arrested in August 2002 and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment in connection with

26


statements made about the regime's role in the murder of intellectuals in 1988. He has been denied access to medical treatment following severe illness and his requests for medical leave have been blocked by the Chief Prosecutor of Tehran. He remains in detention despite his deteriorating health.

On 16 July 2006, the Revolutionary Court of Tehran sentenced Mr Abdolfattah Soltani, lawyer and founding member of the DRHC, to 5 years imprisonment on charges of disclosing classified information, in connection with his role as defence lawyer in the case of Ms. Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian photographer who died in 2003 following torture and ill treatment in custody. Mr Soltani had called into question the fairness and independence of the trial following her death. He had been freed on a 100 000 euros bail in March 2006, after spending more than seven months in prison. His appeal is still pending.

Dozens of journalists, webloggers and students are regularly brought before courts, although most of them are freed on bail. In January 2006, e.g., Mr Arash Sigarchi, journalist and blogger, was sentenced to three years in prison for “insulting the Supreme Guide” and “propaganda against the regime” and imprisoned several days later. He is still in prison.

The members of the Tehran Workers’ Union and of the Suburb Bus Company’s Union (Sherkat-e Vahed) are being increasingly repressed. On 19 November 2006, Mr. Mansoor Osanloo, President of the trade union, and Mr. Ebrahim Madadi, Vice-president, were arrested by plainclothes police officers, who refused to show any warrant. Mr. Osanloo had already been in jail from December 2005 to August 2006. He was eventually released on 19 December 2006, after he paid a bail of 150 millions toman (125.000 euros). Mr. Osanloo’s trial will take place in March.

In Iranian Kurdistan, on 13 November 2006, a Revolutionary tribunal condemned Mahmoud Salehi Spokesperson of the organisational committee to establish trade unions and former Chairperson of the Saqez Bakery Workers’ Union, and Jalal Hosseini, member of the Saqez Bakery Workers’ Union, to heavy prison sentences (respectively 4 and 2 years imprisonment) for having organised a sit-in on the occasion of the 1st May 2006 celebrations. They appealed their sentence and are currently free on bail. Those two trade unionists had already been condemned to respectively five and three years imprisonment in November 2005 on the charge of association with the banned political association Komala (Kurdish nationalist organisation). Because they had participated in the same sit-in, Mr. Mohsen Hakimi, member of the Iranian Writers’ Association, was condemned to two years in prison on 27 November 2006; and Mr. Borhan Divargar, member of the Saqez Bakery Workers’ Union, was also condemned to two years in prison on 17 October 2006. Their appeal is still pending.

They are currently free.

FIDH and LDDHI urge the Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution on the human rights situation in Iran and to appoint a Special Rapporteur on Iran. FIDH and LDDHI call on the Iranian authorities:To immediately and unconditionally free all those arbitrarily detained;To guarantee the physical and psychological safety of all those detained;To conduct effective investigations into allegations of violations of human rights;To put an end to discrimination against minorities, and women's groups;To implement fair trial guarantees;To adopt an immediate moratorium as a first step towards the abolition of the death penalty;To implement the recommendations of the UN human rights mechanisms and treaty bodies;To ratify CAT, CEDAW and the Statute of the ICC, without incompatible reservations.

27


5. OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES

FIDH remains deeply preoccupied by the grave human rights and humanitarian law violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and deplores the refusal by Israel to let the mission mandated by the Human Rights Council investigate the human rights violations perpetrated in Beit Hanoun.

Restrictions on MovementThe Israeli Army has continued to impose a tightened siege on the OPT and imposed severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem. Rafah International Crossing Point has remained under closure since 25 June 2006, even though it has been opened for few hours during the last few weeks. FIDH, informed by its member organization the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, notes that commercial crossings, especially al-Mentar (Karni) crossing were partially reopened, but many goods and medical supplies are still missing in markets in the Gaza Strip. On Friday, 16 February 2007, IOF opened the new Erez International Crossing Point under new procedures. Yet, according to Palestinians who traveled through the new crossing point, the Army imposes the same restrictions on their movement as in the past. FIDH recalls that the closure of the border crossings amount to a form of collective punishment against the civilian Palestinian population. These measures constitute violations of the right to freedom of movement as enshrined in the UDHR and the ICCPR.

Annexation WallThe construction of the wall, has been accompanied by the creation of a new administrative regime, the “permit regime”, regulated in a series of orders issued by the Israeli Military Command in the Occupied West Bank, turning the lives of Palestinians living near the wall and those who make a living from farming, into a bureaucratic nightmare. The construction of the Wall inside the West Bank has continued since the last session of the Human Rights Council. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) issued a new military order seizing 44600 square meters of land in Brouqin and Kufor al-Dik, southwest of Nablus, for alleged military purposes to establish a security fence. The IDF plan to initiate a new stage of the construction of the Wall in the area. The construction of this section of the Wall will isolate large areas of land in the two villages, and will deprive them of their need for expansion. Additionally, the IDF issued 17 military orders concerning areas of land isolated by the Wall to the west of Ethna village, west of Hebron. According to the orders, 11 Palestinian families would be forced to leave their houses and not to build any structure in the area.Around Occupied East-Jerusalem, the length of the wall will be 180km, out of which 5km only will follow the Green Line. The construction of the wall multiplies the

surface of East-Jerusalem by 2.3 by including big new settlements together with their development zones.The construction of the wall is resulting in the destruction of large amount of property and is in violation the right to property as enshrined in article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in customary international law. Israel is also depriving the Palestinians from enjoying their most basic rights granted by the ICESCR and violates the right to work, the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to food, the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the right to education.

Settlement ActivitiesThe settlement activities have continued and worsened all over the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, since the Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip. Israeli settlers living in the West Bank continued their systematic attacks on Palestinian civilians and property. The Israeli army also continued to destroy civilian property for the purpose of settlement expansion.As an example, over a period of 7 days, between 15 and 21 February 2007, the IDF demolished 12 houses and a number of animal farms, claiming that they were built without licenses. IDF also demolished a house in Qutna village, northwest of Jerusalem, for the same reason. Additionally, IOF confiscated 21 donums of land in Tulkarm, and 665 square meters in Beit Ummar village, north of Hebron. Israeli settlers launched 5 attacks on Palestinian civilians, which injured 3 Palestinian civilians (two children and an old man).On 28 February 2007, Israeli governing bodies unveiled a preliminary plan to build a new settlement of 11000 units near the East-Jerusalem's Airport, that would be connected to another settlement in Beit El area by a tunnel. If approved, it would be the largest Israeli settlement project in East Jerusalem since 1967.FIDH recalls that the establishment of settlements violates international humanitarian law. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the occupying power to transfer citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power to undertake permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law it leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.

Furthermore, FIDH stresses on the necessity to intervene to put an immediate end to Israeli destruction of Islamic holy sites in Occupied Jerusalem, around Al Aqsa Mosque. Israel was officially planning to replace a damaged wooden bridge leading to Al Aqsa Mosque with a stone ramp. Following protests of Palestinians, the mayor of

28


Jerusalem has decided to stop these works. Nevertheless, separate excavations will continue, which may endanger Al Aqsa foundations. FIDH, following its member organization the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, recalls that these works constitute a violation of cultural and religious rights of the Palestinian population as well as the entire Muslim community. Moreover, the destruction of Islamic holy sites by the Occupying power constitutes a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.

Serious violations of economic and social rights As previously stated by FIDH, following its mission in the OPT between 25 June and 2 July 2006. poverty and unemployment have risen in dramatic proportions in the Gaza strip and in the West Bank. According to the World Bank's previsions in March 2003, it was estimated that by the end of 2006, the average personal income would decrease by 30 percent in real terms, that unemployment would increase to 40 percent (from 23 percent in December 2005) ; and that poverty levels would climb from 44 percent to 67 percent. The financing plan proposed by the European Union and adopted by the Quartet is a step forward in the humanitarian support to the Palestinian population.Unfortunately, it does not guarantee the payment of salaries to the Palestinian civil servants, notably in the education and health care departments. The interim funding mechanism proposed by the World Bank on May 7, 2006 would have enabled the payment of these salaries.Deplorably, the Quartet did not choose to provide so.Consequently, the salaries of the civil servants of the PA have not been paid since March 2006. The Palestinian Authority has 152,000 civil servants, an average of 6 persons depend on each one of those civil servants. Thus, over 900,000 persons, almost one quarter of the total population of the OPTs, are affected by the nonpayment of salaries to the civil servants in the OPTs, and are currently essentially without any financial resources. The recent transfer of Tax payment by Israel has not benefited the Palestinian population that remains in an extreme dire financial situation.

FIDH therefore calls upon to the Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution which, inter alia:− strongly condemns the violations of international

humanitarian law and human rights perpetrated by all the parties in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories;

− requests the United Nations Security Council to deploy an interposition force in the OPTs granted with the mandate to halt the worsening of the humanitarian crisis by ensuring the supply of food, water, medicine, fuel and electricity to the Palestinian population, and to ensure protection of the Palestinian civilian population;

− demands that the Quartet reviews the mechanism of humanitarian aid aimed at the Palestinian population, following the World Bank propositions, in order to

enable the payment of salaries to the Palestinian public servants, notably in the education and health care departments, and requests the Israeli government to stop withholding the taxes which are the property of the Palestinian Authority;

− requests the government of Israel, the occupying power, to respect international humanitarian law and human rights and consequently to stop immediately any current military operation in the OPT;

− requests the government of Israel to free unconditionally the Palestinian ministers, the members of the Palestinian Legislative Council currently detained , and the Palestinian Armed Groups to release the Israeli soldier captured in the Gaza Strip.

29


EUROPE

1. RUSSIAN FEDERATION/CHECHNYA

Extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture and looting are still ongoing in Chechnya. Impunity is still high, and only few crimes are followed by a proper investigation. FIDH observed last year that torture is still a key element of the anti-terrorist activity of security services in Chechnya and the decisions of courts on the cases related to terrorist activity or participation in illegal armed formations in a great number of cases are based on evidence extracted under torture and self-accusations.

Nearly all witnesses declare that grave human rights violations, including torture, murders and disappearances are carried out against the civilian population by law-enforcement bodies, especially paramilitary « ethnic Chechen » units belonging to the Russian enforcement structures, which benefit from an ever present impunity.

Illegal places of compulsory detention created from the very beginning of "counter-terrorist operation" remain the place where the use of torture is particularly widespread. Prisoners of unofficial places of detention fail to be officially registered either as detained or arrested people, and many detainees disappeared from these unlawful prisons without trace. FIDH is particularly concerned about allegations of torture and ill-treatments of detainees in the Second Operational Investigative Bureau (ORB-2) and its sub-offices in the Chechen Republic.

The unresolved nature of the Chechen conflict is tremendously affecting the human rights and humanitarian law situation in three neighboring republics of Chechnya: Ingushetia, North Ossetia and Kabardino-Balkaria. The wide range of systemic human rights violations and the impunity of security forces for their criminal acts contribute to the overall deterioration of the security situation in the entire Northern Caucasus region.

Freedom of expression

Freedom of expression and above all of the media is increasingly violated. Pressure is exerted on the national TV channels preventing live broadcasting, free political debates with opposition parties, free information about the Russian political situation. The organized stifling of expression also concerns the written press, as a growing numbers of titles have been bought by financial companies close to the president or state controlled (Gazprom), such as the recent transfer of ownership of the critical daily newspaper Kommersant. The tragic murder of Anna Politkovskaya is a recent example.

Human rights defenders

Attacks on Human Rights Defenders are increasing alongside restrictions of their rights. Many organisations

are subject to legal proceedings, to regular tax inspections, threats, attacks and theft of data.

In April 2006 a law entitled “Amendments to Some Federal Laws of the Russian Federation”, came into force addressing all non-profit organisations, including those working on the defence of human rights. This law restrains the capacity of international or foreign NGOs acting in the country, to toughen the registration conditions for NGOs, and to strengthen the powers of the authorities to interfere in their activities.

The new legislative obstacles to freedom of association and the ensuing exploitation of the judicial system continue to be combined with many smear campaigns, orchestrated at the highest official level, and aim at discrediting the independent organisations and their members. For example, on January 22 and 23, 2006, Mr. Sergei Ignachenko, official representative of the Russian secret services (FSB), accused several human rights NGOs, including the Moscow Helsinki Group, the Nizhniy-Novgorod Committee against Torture, the Centre for Democracy and Human Rights and the Eurasia Foundation, of being funded by the British Secret Service. Similarly, on September 27, 2006, Mr Ramzan Kadyrov, President (former Prime Minister) of the Republic of Chechnya, said in an interview with Novosti, that human rights organisations in Chechnya lacked objectivity in that they only “defended terrorists” without “caring about the fate of their kin”. Such accusations are a real danger to defenders insofar as they still provide their violators with a certain “legitimacy” and, in addition, they stigmatise them in the eyes of the general public.

In her annual report published in March 2006, Hina Jilani, Special Representative of the Secretary General on the situation of human rights defenders reiterated her « concerns regarding the personal safety and security of human rights defenders in the Russian Federation ». Furthermore, she said she was « concerned regarding the restrictions on freedom of association and expression allegedly being imposed on human rights organizations and the labeling of those connected with these NGOs as terrorists ».

Racism and radical nationalism

For several years observers have noted the development of radical nationalist and racist movements and attacks in Russia. The bomb explosion thundered on August 21, 2006 on the Cherkizovskiy market in Moscow killed 10 people instantly, and wounded more than 50 individuals. As the investigation demonstrated, terrorists belonged to nationalistic groups and this crime was racially motivated since the market employees are often ethnically non-Russian.

Mass riots took place on 2 and 3 September 2006 in a small town of Kondopoga in the North of St. Petersburg between Chechen and Russian inhabitants. Many people

30


were beaten, two Russian ethnic men were killed, two more died – presumably - in the hospital, some others were seriously injured.

On April 7, 2006, Mr. Samba Lampsar, student and active member of the NGO African Unity, was assassinated by an unknown person in Saint-Petersburg. The presumed weapon of the crime, which was decorated with a swastika and the inscription “White Power”, was found nearby.

FIDH notices that efforts to combat the hate offences continue to lag behind the radical nationalist activity. Furthermore, the proceedings are extremely long, the sentences are often probational and, indeed, many racist offences are never detected.

Law enforcement bodies

Moreover, law enforcement bodies, especially police, continue to be a source of human rights violations. Arbitrary detentions, torture, humiliating and cruel treatment, falsification of evidence are still current issues. Effective mechanism of control over the law enforcement structures are lacking. The situation of the penitentiary system is also preoccupying.

Situation in the Russian army

FIDH also notes with a great concern the extremely serious situation in the Russian army. A practically established system has grown up of hazing young soldiers who have been recruited for military service which leads to their murder, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and other human rights violations. Psychological torture is used, as are refined methods of extorting money, intimidation and humiliation but typically there is no action by the commanding officers and the crimes and offences in the unit are concealed. The Prokuratura and military authorities cannot and will not provide an effective investigation into cases of torture in the RF Armed Forces, particularly with regard to the existing procedure of preliminary inquiry by the commanding officers of military units. On their return to civilian life, young men bring a violent and even criminal type of behaviour. The lack of rehabilitation for victims of violence and their perpetrators means that more serious crimes are committed.

Recommendations

FIDH requests the Council on Human Rights to recognize the gravity of the situation prevailing in the Russian Federation, notably in Chechnya, and ask the authorities to inter alia:

− condemn on-going grave violations of human rights in Chechnya, in particular extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture in and around the Republic and impunity of authors of these violations,

and urge Russian authorities to put an end to the practice of illegal prisons, disappearances and all acts of violence against civilians;

− remind Russian authorities that all legislative or institutional reform must comply with principles of democracy and the Rule of Law, particularly the representation of all trends making up society and urge them to comply with human rights instruments on freedom of the association;

− guarantee the physical and psychological integrity of human rights defenders and stop immediately all acts of violence and harassment towards them, stop all acts of defamation against human rights defenders, carry out a complete and impartial investigation on cases of attack and harassment;

− urge Russian authorities to fight racism through the adoption of appropriate statutes and creation of efficient mechanisms;

− improve conditions of the military service and carry out an independent investigation into the widespread systematic practice of torture in the Russian army;

− invite the Human rights council's special procedures that have requested a visit, according to their terms of reference, including the SRSG on human rights defenders, the SR on the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the SR on freedom of religion or belief;

− More generally comply with the provisions of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, as adopted by the United Nations on December 9, 1998 and other international mechanisms.

31


2. UZBEKISTAN

FIDH expresses its deepest concern at the ongoing systematic repression in Uzbekistan. Dangerous trends noticed recently were especially flagrant during and after the Andijan's events.

Systematic repression against human rights defenders and civil society organisations

Human rights defenders are being subject to a wave of systematic repression that followed the events of Andijan in May 2005. The authorities have continued to make use of this repressive context to muzzle the civil society, and further suspend many organisations on the basis of restrictive laws adopted or reinforced in the last few years. Many of them were condemned for longs prison sentences, placed in psychiatric hospitals or were forced to leave the country.

The offices of the Eurasia Foundation, of Freedom House Uzbekistan and of Counterpart International were closed following complaints from the Ministry of Justice. Furthermore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ordered the closure of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (HCR), on March 17, 2006, on the grounds that the HCR had completed its mission and that there was no reason to justify its continued presence in Uzbekistan, illustrates the willingness of the Uzbek authorities to deny any external interference in their internal affairs6.

Signatures on amendments of freedom of association in January 2006, provides many restrictions. In particular, organisations holding any meeting or assembly requires the previous authorisation of the competent national authorities. Additionally, the support or funding of “political activities” by an organisation will be sanctioned by a fine. These amendments also aim at dissuading foreign NGOs from participating in the political situation of the country (article 239 of the Criminal Code), such as an activity led by political parties or “mass movements”. The involvement of a foreign NGO in such activities will be sanctioned by a fine.

In this context, Uzbek defenders, already the victims of fierce repression for several years, have become increasingly isolated. Their situation has once again deteriorated considerably in 2006.

Administration of Justice and death penalty

The FIDH international fact-finding mission went to Uzbekistan in May 20057, and compiled a testimony which confirmed the following: the judiciary remains wholly

6 See press release by FIDH, 22 March 2006.7FIDH Report "The Death Penalty in Uzbekistan: Torture and Secrecy" N426/2, October 2005

dependent on political authorities, it is largely corrupt, and several persons condemned to death have been judged on the bases of confessions extracted through torture.

Since the independence of Uzbekistan, hundreds of people have been condemned to death at unfair trials, and have been executed without any assurance of due process of law. It is currently impossible to identify how many people are condemned to death each year, as the governement has failed to publish comprehensive statistics about the number of death sentences and executions. Families of executed persons are not informed about the date of the execution, nor are they given the remains of their dear ones.

The presidential decree of 1 August 2005 provides for the abolition of the death penalty as of 1 January 2008. After this date, all death sentences will be replaced by a sentence of life imprisonment. No moratorium has been planned for the period between now and the 1 of January, 2008, which increases the threat of execution to people already sentenced to death and those presently on trial. The decree on the abolition of the death penalty also provides for the construction of a special prison to receive all the inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. It will be built at Jaslyk, in the region of Kungrad, where the climate is extremely harsh.

Many are condemned to death based on confessions obtained under torture, and corruption is an integral part of the investigation, trial and appeal process in such cases.

The FIDH welcomes the presidential decree announcing the abolition of the death penalty in 2008, but regrets that it is does not have an immediate effect, or as a minimum, that a moratorium is not adopted on executions until full abolition will be in force.

Torture and ill-treatment

Torture is commonplace in all detention centres, however, it is particularly widespread in custody and during the initial stages of the inquiry. Provisional detention centres are under the mandate of the Ministry of the Interior, not the Ministry of Justice, and this makes supervision of procedures more difficult. The Uzbek government does not allow independent visits to detention centres, places of temporary detention, police cells, preventative detention centres or the premises of the NSS.

Torture and ill-treatment are endemic, systematic, routine and often used to extract confessions. Confessions obtained under torture and used as the only evidence to ensure a conviction, demonstrate flagrant disrespect for the law. Under the law, the accused has the right to a lawyer within 24 hours of their arrest. However, those detained are often held as witnesses, eventually to be accused and arrested themselves. Sometimes, family members of those detained are also arrested and forced to confess through

32


methods of torture, in order to support charges of the accused through confessions and witness statements.It is extremely difficult to prove that torture has taken place, and to obtain an independent medical certificate to that effect. Whilst under investigation, detainees can only request a doctor in the event of a dire emergency. Doctors called to attend to prisoners are under the mandate of the Ministry of the Interior, and lack independence and ob-jectivity. Extraditions to Uzbekistan

After the events in Andijan, hundreds of people were arrested and accused of terrorism, a crime punishable by the death penalty. Many of those who fled the repression in neighbouring countries are now turned back and face torture and death, in violation of non refoulement principles.

On 10 August 2006, Louise Arbour expressed her grave concern at the deportation of four Uzbek refugees and an asylum seeker who had left the country after Andijan events by the Kyrgyz Republic to Uzbekistan.

FIDH expresses its deepest concern at numerous allegations of disappearances of Uzbek asylum seekers on the South of Kyrgyztan organized by Uzbek secret services. According to HCR8, on 10 July 2006, one Uzbek asylum seeker disappeared, in then days which followed, HCR lost sight of four others Uzbek nationals.

On 24 October 2006 Mr Rustam Muminov, of Uzbek nationality, was returned although the European Court for Human Rights had decreed provisional measures to be taken by the Russian authorities to prevent his extradition to Uzbekistan. Since his extradition, no information concerning the whereabouts or detention of Mr Rustam Muminov have been made public.

Recommendations

FIDH requests that the Human Rights Council recognize the gravity of the situation prevailing in Uzbekistan, and adopt a resolution by which it will transfer the 1503 procedure into a public realm, transfer the mandate of the independent expert into one of a Special Rapporteur on Uzbekistan, with the task of presenting a report to the UN Human Rights Council.

The resolution should also urge the Uzbek authorities to, inter alia:

− cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, as well as with the different UN Human Rights Special Mechanisms ;

− create an international mission to investigate events in

8 www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/UNHCR/b93b9d0ef8f18148bdb95a7c215e21a7.htm

Andijan, and to establish accountability for the acts of violence ;

− take immediate and concrete steps to tackle endemic corruption, investigate corrupt officials and prosecute to the full extent of the law ;

− guarantee the independence of the judiciary in conformity with the ICCPR and the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of Judiciary ;

to guarantee the physical and psychological integrity of all citizens, and observe human rights in accordance with international and regional undertakings ;

− cease harassment and intimidation of people whose views differ from the authorities ;

− treat the Uzbek refugees extradited to Uzbekistan from the other countries in accordance with international obligations and to release them from detention or promptly charge and try them in accordance with international fair trial principles ;

− to put an end to all acts of harassment and reprisals against human rights defenders in Uzbekistan in conformity with the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the United Nations’ General Assembly on December 9, 1998 ;

− render its laws on the freedom of association consistent with international human rights law ;

− adopt an immediate moratorium on the executions till the death penalty will be completely abolished ;

− more generally, conform with the provisions of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and with all other international human rights instruments to which Uzbekistan is a party.

The resolution should also urge the Russian, Ukrainian, Kyrgyz and Kazakh authorities to, inter alia refrain from further deportation of refugees and asylum seekers to countries where there are substantial grounds to believe that they would face an imminent risk of grave human rights violations, including torture, and where their life is in danger, as in Uzbekistan where the death penalty is still practiced and the right to a fair trial is not guaranteed.

33

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/UNHCR/b93b9d0ef8f18148bdb95a7c215e21a7.htm

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/UNHCR/b93b9d0ef8f18148bdb95a7c215e21a7.htm


THEMATIC PRIORITIES

1. BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

FIDH has closely followed the work of Professor John Ruggie, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General, on the issue of transnational corporations and other business enterprises and human rights.9 The Special Representative offered a detailed response to the position paper FIDH prepared, on the basis of the interim report submitted to the Council in February 2006.10 This has constituted the beginning of a sustained dialogue, focused in particular on the second component of the mandate of the Special Representative, which requests that he ‘elaborate on the role of States in effectively regulating and adjudicating the role of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights, including through international cooperation’.11

No one denies the need to further improve the accountability of transnational corporations which commit human rights violations directly or by complicity. When large corporations operate in weak governance zones, where the territorial State has essentially retreated, or where they operate under the jurisdiction of authoritarian States who routinely commit serious human rights abuses, the territorial State is either unable or unwilling to effectively control the operations of transnational corporations. Where the competition for inward investment places States in a weak bargaining position vis-à-vis foreign companies, they may be led to offer tax holidays, exemptions from local regulations, or special advantages which seriously limit both the beneficial impact of the presence of foreign investors on the territory, and the ability of the host State to monitor the behaviour of corporations thus induced to invest within the State concerned. Similar to individuals, transnational corporations should not be authorized to commit human rights violations, or be complicit with such violations (whether by aiding, abetting, encouraging the violations, or by benefiting from them), and be left unpunished – and the

9 UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/69, ‘Human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises’, adopted on 20 April 2005 by a recorded vote of 49 votes to three, with one abstention (chap. XVII, E/CN.4/2005/L.10/Add.17).

10 Both the position paper of FIDH, of March 15, 2006, and the answer of the SRSG J. Ruggie, of March 20, 2006, are available on the website of FIDH : www.fidh.org

11 On 3-4 November 2006, a seminar on extraterritorial state legislation as a tool to improve the accountability of transnational corporations was organised in Brussels under the mandate, jointly with the Secretary General of FIDH and in cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The seminar benefited from the support of the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External Trade and Development Cooperation, and of the Human Security Policy Division of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

victims, without effective remedies.

When the UN Sub-Commission for the promotion and protection of human rights adopted the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights,12

FIDH strongly supported both this initiative and its result. The Norms represent the most elaborate effort to date, clarifying implications for the activities of companies and human rights universally recognized by the international community.

At the same time, like the UN Commission on Human Rights itself in Resolution 2005/69, FIDH does acknowledge the weaknesses and ambiguities of the Norms adopted in August 2003 by the Sub-Commission on Human Rights, in particular the vagueness of notions such as “sphere of influence” or “complicity,” to delineate the extent of their human rights obligations. It acknowledges that the Norms leave open a crucial question: how the means of implementation, in particular regards to the State, ensure that no human rights violation committed by a transnational corporation is left unpunished and without remedy.

However, doctrinal and practical uncertainties cannot be used to remain passive. FIDH believes that market-based solutions and voluntary initiatives are not an adequate alternative. FIDH believes other routes must be explored, in particular regarding the obligation of States to control transnational corporations.

FIDH supports the continuation of the mandate of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights, and is confident that he will offer constructive recommendations in his final report.

In keeping with the classical understanding of the international law of human rights as primarily addressed to States, we might seek to emphasize the obligation of States not only to protect the human rights of all persons under their jurisdiction, but also to contribute to the protection of human rights outside their territory, both by controlling the private actors on which they may exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction and by taking into account fully their human rights obligations in the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements, especially where such agreements liberalize trade or investment, and thus grant rights to transnational corporations. As stated in resolution 2005/69 of the Commission on Human Rights, that the responsibilities of States should be clarified and, if necessary, expanded, in order to meet the need to effectively protect the rights of the victims of the activities of transnational corporations.

In the view of FIDH, the primary responsibility of the territorial State, under the jurisdiction of which the

12 U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/38/Rev.2 (2003).

34


violation occurs, is not necessarily exclusive of the responsibility of other States, in particular that of the national State of the parent corporation of the multinational group. By agreeing to consider a company as its ‘national’, a State should accept the responsibilities this entails. By analogy to the 1982 Montego Bay Convention on the Law of the Sea which defines the duty of the flag State to ‘effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag’,13 States could be imposed an obligation to adopt legislation, applicable to all the activities of any corporation considered to have its nationality, wherever the corporation operates, and ensuring in particular that a) the company respects the human rights recognized in the main international instruments, in particular the core UN human rights treaties and the 8 main conventions of the International Labour Organization ; that b) the company effectively controls its subsidiaries, affiliates or franchises, whatever their nationality, in order to ensure that they respect basic human and labour rights ; and that c) it inserts a provision concerning respect for the rights listed in all its contracts with suppliers or sub-contractors.14 In addition, States could be obliged to impose sanctions and to provide for remedies, ensuring that any violation, by a company to whom such legislation is addressed, of its prescriptions, will lead to effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, and that the victims will have a right of access to courts in the home State in order to seek compensation, unless the victims have access to effective local remedies, in the jurisdiction in which the abuses were committed.

13 See Article 94 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), signed in Montego Bay on 10 December 1982.14 Inspiration could be sought from international instruments

imposing extraterritorial obligations on States (obligations to control their nationals), such as the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions adopted on 21 November 1997 (in force since 15 February 1999), or the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 54/109 of 25 February 2000.

35


2. DÉFENSEURS DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

En 2006, les défenseurs des droits de l’Homme ont, dans un grand nombre d’Etats, continué de payer au prix fort leur détermination et leur engagement en faveur des droits de l’Homme et des libertés fondamentales.

En 2006, la FIDH et l'OMCT, dans le cadre de leur programme conjoint, l’Observatoire pour la protection des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme, ont ainsi recensé 98 cas d’assassinats ou de tentatives d’assassinats et près de 334 cas de détentions arbitraires.

Qu’ils soient avocats, dirigeants syndicaux, chefs de communautés indigènes, défenseurs de l’environnement, ou simplement engagés dans la lutte contre l’impunité ou en faveur de la paix dans leur pays, ces hommes et ces femmes sont le plus souvent considérés comme des « ennemis de l’Etat », à faire taire. Quels que soient les auteurs des violations à leur encontre (étatiques, privés ou paramilitaires), ceux-ci bénéficient le plus souvent de la plus grande impunité.

La répression visant les défenseurs et/ou leur famille est multiforme : ils sont l’objet d’assassinats ou de tentatives d’assassinats (Fédération de Russie, Colombie, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexique, Irak, Philippines, Thaïlande), de menaces de mort (Colombie, Guatemala, Ouzbékistan, Burundi, République démocratique du Congo (RDC)), de torture et de mauvais traitements (Colombie, Chine, Népal, Ouzbékistan, Tunisie, Zimbabwe), d’arrestations et de détentions arbitraires (Bélarus, Djibouti, Ethiopie, Iran, Chine, Cuba, Ouzbékistan, Israël, Syrie, Turkménistan), de poursuites judiciaires (Algérie, Russie, Ouzbékistan, Soudan), ou encore de campagnes de diffamation (Fédération de Russie, RDC, Colombie, Pérou).

Cette répression passe aussi par la multiplication de lois restrictives visant, de la part des Etats, à neutraliser la société civile et à sanctionner les membres d’organisations non gouvernementales (ONG) pour leur seul engagement en faveur des droits de l’Homme et de la démocratie (Fédération de Russie, Soudan). Au Pérou par exemple, la Loi 25/2006-PE, qui modifie la Loi 27692 portant création de l’Agence péruvienne de coopération internationale (APCI), organisme décentralisé sous la tutelle du ministère des Affaires étrangères, a été adoptée le 8 décembre 2006. Cette loi pose de nouveaux obstacles à la recherche de fonds des ONG et prévoit des sanctions contre les ONG qui mènent des activités considérées comme “portant atteinte à l’ordre public ou à la propriété privée ou publique. »

La FIDH et l'OMCT sont tout particulièrement préoccupée par le sort des défenseurs des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels.

Les dirigeants paysans et indigènes sont ainsi victimes d’une rare violence comme aux Philippines, ou nombre d’entre eux ont été assassinés en 2006. La situation reste en outre particulièrement préoccupante pour les défenseurs des sans terre au Brésil ou les dirigeants de la communauté Mapuche au Chili. Dans ce contexte, les militants engagés dans le droit à un environnement préservé font l’objet de représailles, à l’instar de deux membres du Mouvement environnemental d’Olancho, assassinés le 20 décembre 2006 au Honduras.Les dirigeants syndicaux continuent également de se heurter à une forte répression dans plusieurs pays d’Amérique latine, notamment en Colombie, en Corée du Sud, au Zimbabwe ou encore en Iran.De même, en Asie notamment, les avocats et défenseurs de milliers de familles victimes d’expulsions forcées et souvent très violentes, dans le cadre de projets de réurbanisation ou d’implantation industrielle, ont été harcelés, poursuivis, arbitrairement détenus. Tel a notamment été le cas au Bangladesh, au Cambodge, en Chine, en Thaïlande, ou encore au Vietnam.Enfin, celles et ceux qui défendent les minorités ethniques restent particulièrement ciblés. En Fédération de Russie, les défenseurs des droits des minorités et les militants anti-fascistes ont, plus que jamais, fait l’objet de violences, dans un contexte de recrudescence de la xénophobie. En Turquie, les défenseurs des minorités kurde ou arménienne restent également la cible de représailles, comme est venu en attester l’assassinat de M. Hrant Dink, rédacteur en chef du journal turco-arménien Agos, le 19 janvier 2007.

Par ailleurs, l’intégrité physique et psychologique des défenseurs reste particulièrement mise à mal dans les pays ou zones de conflits ou de crise, tels que l’Afghanistan, la Colombie, l’Irak, la RDC, les Philippines ou encore le Sri Lanka. En Syrie, plusieurs défenseurs des droits de l’Homme, notamment MM. Michel Kilo et Anouar Bunni, restent détenus pour avoir signé une pétition appelant à une normalisation des relations entre le Liban et la Syrie. Cette pétition, d’une importance toute particulière, était une initiative conjointe d’intellectuels et de défenseurs des droits de l’Homme syriens et libanais, la première de la sorte.

De même, celles et ceux qui luttent contre l’impunité sont exposés à de fortes représailles (Guatemala, RDC, Iran, Ouzbékistan). Par exemple, en Argentine, de nombreux actes d’intimidation et menaces ont été exercés contre des familles de victimes, des témoins et des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme impliqués dans la lutte contre l’impunité des crimes commis pendant la dictature militaire. Ainsi, en septembre 2006, plusieurs défenseurs des droits de l’Homme, dont M. Leandro Despouy, vérificateur aux comptes de la République d’Argentine et rapporteur spécial des Nations unies sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats, ont reçu des menaces après avoir dénoncé la disparition de M. Jorge Julio López, ancien détenu-disparu et témoin clé dans le procès contre l’ancien

36


directeur général du Département d’enquêtes de Buenos Aires, M. Miguel Osvaldo Etchecolatz, poursuivi pour crimes contre l’humanité. De même, en République centrafricaine les femmes qui luttent contre l’impunité, notamment des crimes sexuels en temps de conflit, ont été l’objet de graves menaces, telles les membres de l’OCODEFAD (Organisation pour la compassion et le développement des familles en détresse).

Dans certains cas enfin, la répression systématique de la part des autorités rend impossible toute activité indépendante et organisée de défense des droits de l’Homme, comme au Turkménistan, en Birmanie, en Corée du Nord, au Vietnam, au Laos, en Erythrée, dans certains pays du Golfe ou encore en Libye.

La FIDH et l'OMCT appellent donc le Conseil des droits de l'Homme à :

- demander aux Etats de coopérer totalement avec la Représentante Spéciale du Secrétaire Général sur les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme à la suite de ses lettres d'allégation, et en l'invitant selon ses propres termes de référence,

− demander aux Etats à mettre en oeuvre les recommandations émises par la Représentante Spéciale du Secrétaire Général sur les Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme à leur égard.

37


3. WOMEN’S RIGHTS

The fundamental right to equality is affirmed in numerous international human rights instruments. In 1995, at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, states adopted the Beijing Declaration, reaffirming their commitment to “the equal rights and inherent human dignity of women and men” and recognizing that persisting discrimination against women is an obstacle to democratization, development and the eradication of poverty. Under the Beijing Platform for Action, states undertake to take concrete measures to “ensure equality and non-discrimination under the law and in practice”. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) of 1979, now ratified by almost all states, requires states to take all necessary measures to ensure women’s right to equality with men is respected.

Yet, despite these commitments, discrimination against women remains widespread in many societies. Although some progress has been made, the level of implementation of CEDAW in national legislation remains partial and numerous discriminatory laws, policies and practices persist.

Equality under the Law: reforming discriminatory legislationUnder CEDAW, states parties have a clear obligation to reform or abolish laws that discriminate against women. The Beijing Platform for Action also explicitly calls upon states to “revoke any remaining laws that discriminate on the basis of sex”. In 2000, a special session of the UN General Assembly, convened to consider progress made under the Beijing Platform for Action, established a target date of 2005 for the elimination discriminatory laws. However, two years later, many states have still failed to do so.

Existing discriminatory legislation relates principally to nationality and citizenship; marriage, divorce, custody of children, inheritance and property rights; labour legislation; and sexual violence and crime. Some examples, amongst many others, of discriminatory legislation maintained by states in violation of their obligations under CEDAW, include the following:

Marriage, divorce, custody of children, inheritance and property rights: In several countries, including Algeria and Mali legislation enshrines the principle that women are required to obey their husbands. In Chile, the Civil Code provides that the husband heads the marital partnership and administers all joint property and property belonging to the wife. In many countries, including Burkina Faso, Benin, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Japan, Mali, Niger, Romania, Tunisia and Vietnam, the legal age for marriage is lower for women than for men. In Gambia, the Constitution explicitly exempts from the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of gender,

legislation governing personal status, in particular concerning adoption, marriage, divorce, burial and inheritance.

Sexual violence and crime: In Iran, the Criminal Code provides that two women witnesses are the equivalent of one male witness and that in cases of adultery ‘the testimonies of women alone cannot prove guilt of innocence’ but can constitute ‘false accusation’ punishable by flogging. In Pakistan, the Zina Ordinance provides that to prove the crime of rape, the testimonies of four male witnesses are required. In Syria, the Criminal Code authorizes “honour killings”, providing that men who kill their wives or sisters after catching them committing adultery are exempt from penalty.

It is clear that reforming discriminatory laws is only one aspect of eliminating discrimination, which ultimately requires changing often deep-rooted attitudes and prejudices. In addition, laws must be effectively implemented, women must be informed of their rights and have access to remedies for violations. Equality under the law is, however, a necessary condition for ending discrimination. Discriminatory laws perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices, whilst legislative reform is a means of changing attitudes. Furthermore, the failure to reform explicitly discriminatory legislation is one of the strongest signals of a state’s lack of political commitment to effectively implement its obligations under CEDAW.

FIDH calls upon all states to abolish or reform all discriminatory legislative provisions, in order to guarantee women equality under the law.

FIDH calls upon all states parties to CEDAW to adopt necessary legislation to fully implement the Convention in domestic law.

Withdrawal of reservations to the CEDAW ConventionAlmost a third of all states parties to CEDAW have entered reservations to the Convention representing a significant obstacle to effective implementation of the right to equality. Currently 57 of the 185 states parties maintain reservations to the Convention. Reservations weaken states’ commitments under the Convention and some are so broad that they almost empty ratification of any value. Many of these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and are therefore impermissible under international law.

Several of the most recent parties (including Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) have entered reservations. The principal provisions concerned by these reservations are articles 2 (general obligation to eliminate discrimination), 9 (nationality), 15 (equality before the law) and 16 (marriage and family relations).

38


FIDH calls upon all states that have entered reservations to CEDAW to remove them in their entirety.

Ratification of the Optional Protocol to CEDAWThe Optional Protocol to CEDAW (OP-CEDAW), adopted in 1999, sets up an essential mechanism to ensure the effective implementation of CEDAW.

Under the OP-CEDAW, individuals and groups of individuals are entitled to submit communications to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women alleging violations of CEDAW by a state party, thereby granting victims of violations access to justice where they are unable to obtain remedies at the national level.

The OP-CEDAW also allows the Committee to undertake inquiries on the basis of information received into grave or systematic violations of the Convention, reinforcing the Committee’s capacity to monitor implementation of the Convention and to make appropriate recommendations to states on necessary reforms.

84 states parties to CEDAW have ratified the Optional Protocol. However, over half of all states parties have yet to ratify this instrument. The failure to ratify indicates a lack of commitment by state parties to ensure that the rights enshrined in the Convention are effectively enjoyed by women.

FIDH urges all states which have not yet done so, to ratify the Optional Protocol to CEDAW, without further delay.

Appointment of a Special Rapporteur on Laws that Discriminate against Women FIDH considers that an additional monitoring mechanism is urgently needed in order to ensure that remaining discriminatory laws are reformed or abolished and thereby to achieve the full and effective implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action and CEDAW.

Since 2005 and Beijing + 10, FIDH has campaigned alongside other international NGOs for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on Laws That Discriminate Against Women. FIDH considers that the establishment of such a mechanism, with a specific mandate to focus on discriminatory legislation, would be complementary to existing mechanisms and would support and strengthen the work of the CEDAW Committee and the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women. The mechanism would contribute to reinforcing dialogue with states on this issue, accelerate legislative reform and ensure that the issue of discrimination against women receives systematic

attention.

− FIDH calls upon the Human Rights Council to appoint a Special Rapporteur on Laws That Discriminate Against Women.

39

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL · UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 4th Session 12-30 March...

Documents

Transcript of UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL · UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 4th Session 12-30 March...