1 In general, member countries of the United Nations are divided into the following five geographic areas: (1) Africa, (2) Asia, (3) Eastern Europe, (4) Latin America, and (5) Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. On the Sub-Commission there are seven African experts, five Asian experts, three Eastern European experts, five Latin American experts and six experts from Western Europe and other countries. On each of the Sub-Commission’s working groups, there is one expert from each of the geographic areas. UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/Misc.2.

2 See, e.g., Gardeniers, , Hannum, & Kruger, , The U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities: Recent Developments, 4 Hum. Rts. Q. 353, 357 n.20 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 A country nominating an expert to serve on the Sub-Commission was not required to nominate an alternate. See UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/Misc.2.

4 The alternate from Argentina replaced the expert nominated by his country for the entire session, served as rapporteur for the Sub-Commission, participated actively in the session and was assigned to prepare two reports. Other alternates who participated frequently were those from the United States and the Soviet Union.

5 Under one agenda item at this year’s session, the alternate for the Soviet Union took the floor after the expert from the Soviet Union had already intervened under the same item. A number of experts protested, but no formal resolution of the issue was reached.

6 ESC Res. 1503 (XLVIII), 48 UN ESCOR Supp. (No. 1A) at 8, UN Doc. E/4832/Add.1 (1970). For a description of the 1503 procedures, see Guide To International Human Rights Practice 60–67 (H. Hannum ed. 1984) [hereinafter cited as Guide].

7 ESC Res. 1235 (XLII), 42 UN ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 17, UN Doc. E/4393 (1967). For a discussion of the procedures for intervening under Resolution 1235, see Guide, supra note 6, at 186–99.

8 The Secretary-General is authorized to provide members of the Commission with communications or petitions alleging human rights violations pursuant to ESC Res. 728F (XXVIII), UN Doc. E/3290 (1959). The 1503 procedure was established as a means of coordinating the consideration of petitions filed with the United Nations.

9 See UN Doc. E/CN.4/1984/77, at 151.

10 The Soviet expert contended that when he arrived at the Sub-Commission 3 years ago there was a policy—articulated by the experts from the United States and the United Kingdom—that experts would not name specific countries as human rights violators. See UN Press Release HR/1583, Aug. 25, 1984, at 4. However, a review of the Sub-Commission’s summary records failed to disclose any such policy or discussion.

11 Only NGOs with consultative status with the United Nations pursuant to ESC Res. 1296 (XLIV), 44 UN ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 21, UN Doc. E/4548 (1968), are permitted to participate actively—i.e., through oral and written interventions—in the Sub-Commission’s sessions. Over the years, the practice of permitting NGOs to raise instances of human rights violations in specific countries has developed. See, e.g., Gardeniers, Hannum & Kruger, supra note 2, at 358.

12 The experts from the United Kingdom, Greece and Cuba all posed pointed questions to the Indonesian observers regarding Indonesia’s recognition of various UN resolutions concerning self-determination for East Timor.

13 The experts from the Soviet Union and China objected to the “cross-examination” procedure as unprecedented.

14 Prior to the debate under the agenda item concerning Resolution 1235, the Sub- Commission agreed that the intervention of each expert would be limited to 15 minutes. Despite two reminders from the chair, the Soviet expert continued his presentation.

15 Leonard Peltier’s April 1977 conviction for killing two FBI agents on an Indian reservation in 1975 is currently under review before a U.S. district court in South Dakota.

16 For example, the situation of the Korean and Barakumin minorities in Japan. See UN Press Release HR/1570, Aug. 14, 1984, at 3.

17 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/8 and Adds. 1–2.

18 See UN Press Release HR/1569, Aug. 13, 1984, at 3. See also Draft Decision, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/L.5, asking the special rapporteur to strive for geographic completeness.

19 The International League for Human Rights made the oral intervention. See Japan’s Psychiatric System, Asahi Shimbun Evening News [English newspaper], Aug. 20, 1984; and Psychiatry and the Breach of the International Covenant on Human Rights, Manichi Shinbun, Aug. 19, 1984 (trans, supplied by International League for Human Rights).

20 Japan has consistently responded swiftly to complaints about domestic human rights violations when raised by Western NGOs. For example, in 1980 the International Human Rights Law Group submitted a 1503 communication concerning the Korean minority in Japan. Following the intervention, the Law Group was assured that steps would be taken to remedy the situation legislatively.

21 ESC Res. 1982/34, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1982/33, at 3.

22 See note 11 supra.

23 See, e.g., reports of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations from the past 2 years. UN Docs. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1982/33, and E/CN.4/Sub.2/1983/22.

24 Of particular note was the address to the working group by Clyde Holding, Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Other government representatives who participated actively in the sessions were the Canadian, Norwegian, Peruvian and Brazilian observers.

25 See Res. 1984/35, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2/Add.1, at 8.

26 Id. at 10.

27 Id.

28 The establishment of the fund must still be approved by the Commission on Human Rights and ECOSOC. The Commission authorized the Sub-Commission to consider its feasibility. See Commission on Human Rights Res. 1984/32, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1984/77, at 68. However, it remains to be seen whether the Sub-Commission’s proposal, which represented a compromise between the position of indigenous groups seeking greater control of the fund and that of government representatives objecting to any acknowledgment of indigenous groups as entities recognized by the United Nations, will be adopted in its present form at the Commission’s next session.

29 Res. 11 (XXVII) (1974), authorized by ESC Dec. 17 (LVI) (1974).

30 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/23, at 2.

31 See UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.1/Add.10, at 3.

32 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/23, at 17. For example, the expert proposed that Mauritania ratify international human rights instruments, establish an antislavery body to which victims might apply, involve former slaves to a greater extent, make greater use of the media to inform victims of their alternatives, inform the public of penalties for slave owning, and provide loans to former slaves.

33 Commission on Human Rights Dec. 1984/104, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1984/77, at 104. The development of such a list was included as one of the major recommendations in the study on states of emergency prepared for the Sub-Commission by the then expert from France, Nicole Questiaux.

34 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/WG.1/CRP.2.

35 Res. 1984/27, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2/Add.1, at 5–6.

36 Res. 1979/IB (XXXII), UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1979/L.716.

37 See generally Weissbrodt, , A New United Nations Mechanism for Encouraging the Ratification of Human Rights Treaties, 76 AJIL 418 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/26, at 2.

39 Res. 1984/36, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2/Add.2, at 11.

40 Id. at 12.

41 UN Docs. E/CN.4/Sub.2/476 and Adds.1–6, E/CN.4/Sub.2 and Adds.1–7, E/CN.4/ Sub. 2/1983/21 and Adds. 1–8.

42 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1983/2/Add.8.

43 Id.

44 Res. 1984/35, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2/Add.2, at 7.

45 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/15.

46 Id. at 15.

47 Res. 1984/11, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2, at 12.

48 Res. 1984/7, id. at 7. The expert from Belgium, Marc Bossuyt, was invited to undertake this study. The subject aroused a great deal of controversy when it was discussed, as a number of countries objected to the notion of considering a protocol outlawing capital punishment when so many countries continued to permit it. See UN Press Release HR/ 1574, Aug. 15, 1984, at 4.

49 The fate of the recommendation included in the Questiaux report, note 33 supra, highlights this phenomenon. The purpose of Sub-Commission studies has been questioned by India before the Commission on Human Rights. UN Press Release HR/1503, Feb. 20, 1984, at 7–8.

50 Res. 1984/22, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2, at 22–23. The resolution as initially proposed focused on the growing practice of amputation in the Sudan. After a charged debate, the resolution was revoked and reference to the Sudan was dropped. However, the adopted resolution has broader implications than the previous country-specific resolution could have had.

51 Id. at 26.

52 Res. 1984/6, id. at 7.

53 Res. 1984/29, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2/Add.1, at 7–8.

54 Res. 1984/26, id. at 3–4.

55 Res. 1984/4, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2, at 4–5.

56 Res. 1984/14, id. at 17–18.

57 Res. 1984/9, id. at 10.

58 Res. 1984/4, id. at 10; Res. 1984/34, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2/Add.2, at 4–6.

59 Res. 1984/32, id. at 1.

60 Res. 1984/27, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2/Add.1, at 5–6.

61 See, e.g., the following resolutions of the Commission: Res. 1984/4, UN Doc. E/CN.4/ 1984/77, at 25–27; Res. 1984/5, id. at 27–28; Res. 1984/10, id. at 35–36; Res. 1984/53, id. at 90–92; Res. 1984/54, id. at 92–93; Res. 1984/55, id. at 94; and Res. 1984/63, id. at 100–01.

62 The resolutions pertaining to Paraguay, Sri Lanka and Uruguay were initiated by the Sub-Commission. At its previous session, the Sub-Commission initiated fewer resolutions. Whether this marks a trend and how the Commission will react remain to be seen.

63 Res. 1983/16, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1983/43, at 83–84.

64 Commission on Human Rights Dec. 1984/111, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1984/77, at 106. The Sri Lankan submission can be found in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1984/10.

65 Res. 1984/32, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2/Add.2, at 1.

66 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/L.13.

67 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/L.12.

68 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/L.42.

69 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/L.28.

70 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/L.31

71 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/L.29.

72 However, it should be noted that, this year, a number of resolutions that initially had only two sponsors were circulated and ultimately adopted. See, e.g., Res. 1984/1–36, UN Docs. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2 and Adds. 1–2. Thus, the basis for declaring resolutions political at this year’s session was not their lack of sponsors.

73 The representative from Amnesty International read a Sudanese newspaper article describing an amputation that took place within the last year in the Sudan.

74 The trend began in 1976. See note 11 supra.

75 For example, a woman from Turkey described the torture she suffered in a Turkish prison. An Ahamadiuya Muslim described the persecution of his sect by the Pakistani Government.

76 For example, the Sri Lankan observer unequivocally denied several NGO statements. The Guatemalan observer dismissed every NGO statement as totally without foundation.

77 UN Doc. E/1652, at 8 (1975).

78 The criteria for circulating a written statement as explained by representatives of the Centre are consistent, for example, with those described in the article, prepared in 1982, on direct intervention at the United Nations. See Kamminga, & Rodley, , Direct Intervention at the U.N.: NGO Participation in the Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission, in Guide, supra note 6, at 186 Google Scholar.

79 In particular, the guidelines provide: (1) the statements must be in reference to a human rights item on the agenda; (2) the submitting organization must have special competence in the subject matter of the statement; and (3) a statement containing allegations of human rights violations in a particular country may not be circulated as a UN document except in exceptional instances. A copy of the guidelines, as circulated by the Centre, is on file with the International Human Rights Law Group.

80 Other observers of the Sub-Commission have asked similar or identical questions following previous sessions. See, e.g., Hantke, , The 1982 Session of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 77 AJIL 651, 662 (1983)Google Scholar; Gardeniers, Hannum & Kruger, supra note 2, at 367, 369–70; Hannum, , Human Rights and the United Nations: Progress at the 1980 Session of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 3 Hum. Rts. Q. 1, 1, 9–14, 16–17 (1981)Google Scholar.

81 In 1975, Sakharov won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work as a human rights advocate.

82 Guest, U.N. Human Rights Panel Spurns Sakharov Case, Int’l Herald Trib., Sept. 3, 1984, at 5, col. 1.

83 See Res. 1984/28, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2/Add.2, at 7.

84 On the productivity of the second year of the term, see Gardeniers, Hannum 8c Kruger, supra note 2.

85 It is expected that studies on the following subjects will be completed in time for consideration by the Sub-Commission at its next session: Amnesty Laws and their Role in the Safeguard and Promotion of Human Rights (see Res. 1984/11, UN Doc. E/CN.4/ Sub.2/1984/CRP.2, at 12–13); Status of the Individual and Contemporary International Law (see Res. 1984/2, id. at 2–3); The Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (see Res. 1984/3, id. at 3–4); Independence and Impartiality of the Judiciary, Jurors and Assessors and the Independence of Lawyers (see Res. 1984/11, id. at 12–13); Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Res. 1984/1, id. at 2); The Right to Adequate Food (see Res. 1984/15, id. at 18).

86 The draft declaration is designed to deal with the problems of disappearances and the mistreatment of prisoners.

87 Res. 1984/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.2/Add.2, at 2–4.

88 See UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/CRP.1/Add.9, at 2.