Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T13:27:45.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Thematic Procedures of the UN Commission on Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

M.T. Kamminga
Get access

Extract

It is not at all difficult to criticize the United Nations human rights programme on the grounds of inefficiency, hypocrisy, double standards and lack of imagination. But critics often tend to take a myopic view and overlook what has been achieved over a slightly longer period of time. One such development which has so far received little attention outside the small world of human rights activists and specialised diplomats is the emergence of the ‘thematic’ or issue-oriented response to human rights violations by the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , December 1987 , pp. 299 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For a general overview of the different procedures of the UN Commission on Human Rights, see Bossuyt, M.J., ‘The Development of Special Procedures of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights’, 6 HRLJ (1985) p. 179Google Scholar.

2. The quote is from UN doc. E/259 as cited in ECOSOC resolution 75(V) of 5 August 1947. On the procedure established by ECOSOC Resolution 1503 (XLVIII) of 27 May 1970, see Möller, J.Th., ‘Petitioning the United Nations’, 1 Universal Human Rights (1979) p. 57Google Scholar; Zuijdwijk, T.J.M., Petitioning the United Nations (1982)Google Scholar; Tolley, H., ‘The Concealed Crack in the Citadel: the United Nations Commission on Human Rights’ Response to Confidential Communications’, 6 HRQ (1984) p. 420Google Scholar.

3. Report of the Human Rights Committee, General Assembly, Official Records, Thirty-Third Session (1978), Supplement No. 40, para. 582. Article 5(2)(a) reads as follows: ‘The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that: (a) The same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement’.

4. UN General Assembly Resolutions 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; 2106 A (XX) of 21 December 1965; and 39/46 of 10 December 1984. On the Optional Protocol procedure, see Nowak, M., ‘The Effectiveness of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Stocktaking After the First Eleven Sessions of the UN-Human Rights Committee’, 1 HRLJ (1980) p. 136Google Scholar; Tomuschat, C., ‘Evolving Procedural Rules: the UN-Human Rights Committee’s First Two Years of Dealing with Individual Communications’, 1 HRLJ (1980) p. 249Google Scholar; de Zayas, A. et al. ., ‘Application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under the Optional Protocol by the Human Rights Committee’, 28 GYIL (1985) p. 9Google Scholar.

5. See Kramer, D. and Weissbrodt, D., ‘The 1980 UN Commission on Human Rights and the Disappeared’, 3 HRQ (1981) p. 18Google Scholar.

6. Set up under UN Commission on Human Rights Resolutions 20 (XXXVI), 10 (XXXVII), 1982/24, 1983/20, 1984/23, 1985/20, 1986/55 and 1987/27. Annual reports: UN docs. E/CN.4/1435, E/CN.4/1492, E/CN.4/1983/14, E/CN.4/1984/21 and Add. 1 and 2, E/CN.4/1985/15 and Add. 1, E/CN.4/1986/18 and Add. 1, E/CN.4/1987/15 and Add. 1. The current members of the Working Group are Ivan Tosevski (Yugoslavia, Chairman/Rapporteur), Toine van Dongen (the Netherlands), Jonas K.D. Foli (Ghana), Agha Hilary (Pakistan) and Luis Varela Quiros (Costa Rica).

7. Set up under UN Commission on Human Rights Resolutions 1982/29, 1983/36, 1984/50, 1985/37, 1986/42 and 1987/57. Annual reports: UN docs. E/CN.4/1983/16, E/CN.4/1984/29, E/CN.4/1985/17, E/CN.4/198621 and E/CN.4/1987/20. The Special Rapporteur is S. Amos Wako (Kenya).

8. Set up under UN Commission on Human Rights Resolutions 1985/33, 1986/50 and 1987/29. Annual reports: UN docs. E/CN.4/1986/15 and E/CN.4/1987/13. The Special Rapporteur is Prof. P.H. Kooijmans (the Netherlands).

9. Set up under UN Commission on Human Rights Resolutions 1986/20 and 1987/15. Annual reports: UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/35. The Special Rapporteur is Angelo Vidal d'Almeida Ribero (Portugal).

10. Dongen, T. van, ‘In laatste instantie: verdwijningen en de Verenigde Naties’ [‘Last Resort: Disappearances and the United Nations’], 40 Internationale Spectator (1986) p. 468Google Scholar. Weissbrodt, D., ‘The Three “Theme” Special Rapporteurs of the UN Commission on Human Rights’, 80 AJIL (1986) p. 685Google Scholar. Rodley, N., ‘ U.N. Action Procedures Against “Disappearances”, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, and Torture’, 8 HRQ (1986) p. 700Google Scholar.

11. UN docs. E/CN.4/1986/21 para. 26 and E/CN.4/1987/20 para. 27.

12. Charles Rumbaugh was executed in Texas on 11 September 1985; James Terry Roach was executed in South Carolina on 10 January 1986; Jay Pinkerton was executed in Texas on 15 May 1986. All three were 17 years old when the crime was committed. Amnesty International has reported that of the thousands of executions recorded by the organization throughout the world between January 1980 and May 1986, only eight in four countries were of persons under 18 at the time of the crime: three in the United States, two in Pakistan and one each in Bangladesh, Barbados, and Rwanda, . There were also unconfirmed reports of executions of juveniles in Iran. See Amnesty International's United States of America: the Death Penalty (1987) pp. 65 and 74Google Scholar.

13. UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/21 para. 213. The Special Rapporteur suggests, incorrectly, that ‘some reservations have been formally entered to this provision’ [i.e., Article 6(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. See also Weissbrodt, loc.cit. n. 10, pp. 689–691.

14. UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/SR.47 para. 24.

15. Personal observation by the author, 56th meeting of the 43rd session of the Commission on Human Rights, 11 March 1987. Summary records not yet available at the time of writing.

16. Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1985/33. The Special Rapporteur has arrived at the same conclusion – UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/15 para. 22.

17. On this question, see generally Rodley, N., The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law (1987) pp. 242–255Google Scholar.

18. UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/15 para. 37.

19. See, e.g., UN docs. E/CN.4/1435 para. 9 (Working Group on Disappearances); E/CN.4/1985/17 para. 64 (Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions); ECN.4/1986/15 para. 62 (Special Rapporteur on Torture).

20. The exception is the Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions, but it does not appear that any special significance should be attributed to this omission.

21. UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 10 (XXXVII) of 26 February 1981.

22. Neither the USSR nor any other country from Eastern Europe has so far been named in any of the reports of the Working Group on Disappearances. However, the USSR has always followed the activities of the Working Group with suspicion, presumably because its working methods could be a precedent for other UN procedures.

23. Supra n. 21. As from 1984, this reminder was elevated to the level of operative paragraph. Cf., UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1984/23 of 6 March 1984.

24. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Resolution 1 (XXIV) of 13 August 1971.

25. UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/13 para. 5.

26. E.g., UN docs. E/CN.4/1987/15 para. 117 para. 19 (single ‘disappearances’ in the Central African Republic, Nepal and Togo), E/CN.4/1987/20 para. 35 (single death sentence without the possibility of judicial appeal in the Congo), E/CN.4/1987/13 para. 19 (single case of torture in Indonesia).

27. UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/15 para. 26.

28. Personal observation by the author, 54th meeting of the 43rd session of the Commission on Human Rights, 10 March 1987. Summary records not yet available at the time of writing. Mexico also explained its desire to discuss the Working Group's methods in 1988.

29. UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 20 (XXXVI) of 29 February 1980.

30. Idem, Resolutions 1985/33 of 13 March 1985 and 1986/20 of 10 March 1986.

31. Idem, Resolution 1982/29 of 11 March 1982.

32. Available from the UN Centre for Human Rights, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.

33. UN doc. E/CN.4/1985/15 paras. 18 and 19.

34. UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/18 paras. 10 and 11.

35. UN docs. E/CN.4/1985/15 para. 37, E/CN.4/1986/18 para. 23 and E/CN.4/1987/15 para. 12.

36. The Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions is of course handicapped by the fact that he is not allowed to go beyond non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council.

37. UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/18 para. 291.

38. UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/15 para. 95.

39. E.g., UN doc. E/CN.4/1985/15 para. 26.

40. UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/20 paras. 27–60.

41. UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/13 para. 18.

42. UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/21 para. 118.

43. UN doc. E/CN.4/1435 para. 30.

44. UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/15 para. 125.

45. Figures taken from UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/15.

46. UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/20 paras. 13 and 26.

47. UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/13 paras. 16 and 18. These figures can only be indicative. The statistics provided in the reports of the Special Rapporteur do not always add up.

49. UN doc. E/CN.4/1985/15 para. 29.

50. Visit by two members of the Working Group headed by Lord Colville (UK), 11–13 January 1982, UN doc. E/CN.4/1983/14 paras. 76–80.

51. Ibid., para. 80.

52. UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/15 paras. 64–68.

53. Visit by two members of the Working Group, 28–30 July 1982, UN doc. E/CN.4/1983/14 para. 46.

54. Visit by Jonas K.D. Foli (Ghana) and Luis Varela Quiros (Costa Rica), 12–16 November 1984, UN doc. E/CN.4/1985/15 paras. 51–54.

55. Visits by Toine van Dongen (the Netherlands) and Luis Varela Quiros (Costa Rica), 17–22 June 1985 and 3–10 October 1986, UN docs. E/CN.4/1986/18/Add. 1 and E/CN.4/1987/15/Add.l. See also the article by Van Dongen, loccit. n.10.

56. UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/18/Add.l paras. 106 and 108.

57. UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/15/Add.l para. 48.

58. Visit by S. Amos Wako (Kenya), 22–27 July 1984, UN doc. E/CN.4/1985/17 Annex V.

59. Duly referred to in para. 11 of the report.

60. Visit by S. Amos Wako (Kenya), 17–20 August 1986, UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/20 Annex II.

61. Ibid., para. 7.

62. UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/13 para. 22.

63. Supra nn. 6, 7, 8 and 9.

64. For a similar assessment, see Rodley, loccit. n. 10, p. 723.

65. Report on the 36th session of the Commission on Human Rights, Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 1980, Supplement No. 3, p. 75Google Scholar.

66. Report on the 38th session of the Commission on Human Rights, Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 1982, Supplement No. 2, p. 57Google Scholar.

67. Report on the 41st session of the Commission on Human Rights, Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 1985, Supplement No. 2, pp. 152–153Google Scholar.

68. Report on the 42nd session of the Commission on Human Rights, Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 1986, Supplement No. 2, p. 273Google Scholar.

69. UN doc. E/CN.4/1983/SR. 47 para. 43.

70. UN doc. E/CN.4/1983/SR. 41 para. 52.

71. UN doc. E/CN.4/1983/SR. 46 para. 108.

72. UN doc. E/CN.4/1983/SR. 46 para. 25.

73. UN doc. E/CN.4/1983/SR. 41 para. 8.

74. UN doc. E/CN.4/1983/SR. 44 para. 76.

75. UN doc. E/CN.4/1983/SR. 42 para. 88.

76. UN doc. E/CN.4/1984/SR. 45 para. 71.

77. UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/SR. 54 para. 13.

78. UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/15 para. 67.

79. UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/SR. 54 para. 14.

80. UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1986/55 of 13 March 1986.

81. The figures presented in the Working Group's report to the 1987 session of the Commission on Human Rights add up to 12, 515 transmissions and 2, 412 responses. The former figure does not tally with the total of ‘almost 14,000’ transmissions provided by the Working Group itself (UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/15 para. 125).

82. The figures presented in the first two reports of the Special Rapporteur on Torture add up to 27 urgent appeals and 12 responses (UN docs. E/CN.4/1986/15 paras. 62–63 and E/CN.4/1987/13 paras. 18–20).

83. Statement by Ivan Tosevski to the 42nd session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (1986). UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/SR. 52/Add. 1 para. 50.

84. Figures taken from UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/15.

85. UN doc. E/CN.4/1985/15 para. 84. The figure includes clarifications provided by non-governmental sources.

86. UN doc. E/CN.4/1985/15 para. 27; E/CN.4/1986/18 para. 16.

87. UN doc. E/CN.4/1986/21 para. 17.

88. The 1986–1988 (two year) budget of the Working Group provides for six staff members and a budget of US $981, 600. The 1986–1987 (one year) budget of the Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions provides for one staff member for six months and a budget of US $69,200. The 1986–1987 (one year) budget of the Special Rapporteur on Torture provides for one staff member for six months and a budget of US $42,600. Report on the 42nd session of the Commission on Human Rights, Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 1986, Supplement No. 2, pp. 314, 317 and 321.

89. UN doc. E/CN.4/1987/13 para. 16.

90. See the International Labour Office's publication, Freedom of Association: Digest of Decisions and Principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO, 3rd. edn. (1985) pp. 1–18.

91. ECOSOC Decision 16 (LVI) of 17 May 1974; Sub-Commission Resolution 11 (XXVII) of 21 August 1974.

92. Supra n. 2.

93. UN General Assembly Resolution 32/130 of 16 December 1977 is usually cited in support of this view. For an academic exposition of this theory, see Kartashkin, V., ‘The Socialist Countries and Human Rights’, in Vasak, K., ed., The International Dimensions of Human Rights (1982) p. 631 at pp. 636–644Google Scholar.

94. Rodley, loccit. n. 10, p. 700.

95. Weissbrodt, loccit. n. 10, pp. 697–699. He opposes harmonization of the procedures.

96. Van Dongen, loccit. n. 10, p. 477.

97. Iran has not responded to the communications from any of the thematic procedures. Chile has expressed the view that all communications addressed to it should be processed through the Commission's Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Chile. But it has nevertheless supplied relevant information to the thematic procedures. See UN docs. E/CN.4/1987/15 para. 98; E/CN.4/1987/20 para. 84; E/CN.4/1987/13 para. 20.

98. Van Dongen, loccit. n. 10, pp. 470–471.

99. Only the resolutions on the Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance do not contain such a ‘co-operation’ clause.

100. 26 June 1987.

101. A draft-convention on enforced disappearances has been proposed by the Latin American Federation of Associations of Relatives of Disappeared Detainees (FEDEFAM). See UN doc. E/CN.4/1985/15 Annex III. The Commission on Human Rights has not taken up this proposal. A ‘binding instrument’ on religious intolerance has been suggested as a possibility in operative paragraph 11 of Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1987/15 of 5 March 1987.

102. E.g., Th.M. Franck, ‘Of Gnats and Camels: Is There a Double Standard at the United Nations?’, 78 AJIL (1984) p. 811 at p. 819. See also the response to this article by T.C. van Boven in 79 AJIL (1985) p. 714 (letter to the editor).