Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:59:47.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Country-Oriented Human Rights Protection by the UN Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

M. Nowak
Get access

Extract

Howard Tolley, Jr. divided the development of the United Nations Human Rights Commission's activities from 1946 to 1986 into three distinctive periods:

– a Western dominated body of 18 (later 21) members engaged in standardsetting and promotional activities (1947–1966);

– an Afro-Asian dominated body of 32 members making self-determination and racial equality priority agenda items and systematically attacking Western colonialism (1967–1979); and

– a 43 member body with a more complex political voting pattern aiming at global protection of human rights (1980–1986).

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 22 , December 1991 , pp. 39 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1991

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. Tolley, H., The UN Commission on Human Rights (1987) p. 187 et seq.Google Scholar

2. See Tolley, op. cit.n. 1, p. 16 et seq.; Schwelb, E. and Alston, P., “The Principle Institutions and Other Bodies Founded under the Charter’, in Vasak, K. and Alston, P., eds., The International Dimension of Human Rights (1982) p. 231Google Scholar; Fareed, N.J., The UnitedNations Commission on Human Rights and its Work for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1977) p. 201 et seq.Google Scholar; Zuijdwijk, T.J.M., Petitioning the United Nations, A Study in Human Rights (1982) p. 2 et seq.Google Scholar; Humphrey, J.P., Human Rights & the UnitedNations: A Great Adventure (1984) p. 28Google Scholar; Farer, T.J., ‘The UnitedNations and Human Rights: More than a Whimper Less than a Roar’, 9 HRQ (1987) p. 550 at p. 574CrossRefGoogle Scholar (‘doctrine of impotence’); Nowak, M., ‘The Promotion and Protection of Human Rights by the United Nations’, 6 NQHR (1988) No. 2, p. 5 at p. 13Google Scholar; Newman, F. and Weissbrodt, D., International Human Rights (1990) p. 109.Google Scholar

3. See Tolley, op. cit. n. 1, p. 32 et seq.

4. Humphrey, op. cit. n. 2, p. 5.

5. CHR Res. 2 (XXII), 1966 and 8 (XXIII), 1967: for the history see Tolley, op. cit. n. 1, p. 53; Newman and Weissbrodt, op. cit. n. 2, p. 111; Ramcharan, B.G., The Concept and Present Status of the International Protection of Human Rights, Forty Years After the Universal Declaration (1989) p. 63 et seq.Google Scholar

6. CHR Res. 2 (XXIII), 1967.

7. CHR Dec. of 1 March 1974 (text of the telegram in E/5464 at p. 56) and CHR Res. 8 (XXXI), 1975.

8. For a general theory of protection, see Ramcharan, op. cit. n. 5, p. 345 et seq.

9. Cf., for these procedures, Weissbrodt, D., ‘The Three “Theme” Special Rapporteurs of the UN Commission on Human Rights’, 80 AJIL (1986) p. 685CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bossuyt, M.J., ‘The Development of Special Procedures of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights’, 6 HRLJ (1985) p. 179 at p. 194 et seq.Google Scholar; Kamminga, M., ‘The Thematic Procedures of the UN Commission on Human Rights’, 34 NILR (1987) p. 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nowak, loc. cit. n. 2, p. 17 et seq.; Ramcharan, op. cit. n. 5, p. 191 et seq.; Newman and Weisshrodt, op. cit. n. 2, p. 145 et seq.

10. CHR Res. 20 (XXXVI), 1980.

11. CHR Res. 29 (XXXVII), 1981: Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan (Pakistan).

12. CHR Res. 1982/29: Amos Wako (Kenya).

13. CHR Res. 1985/33: Peter Kooijmans (the Netherlands).

14. CHR Res. 1986/20: Angela Vidal d'Almeida Ribeiro (Portugal).

15. CHR Res. 1987/16: Enrique Bemales Ballesteros (Peru).

16. CHR Res. 1990/68: Vitit Muntarbhom (Thailand).

17. CHR Res. 1991/42.

18. Latest report of Wako in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/36; CHR Res. 1991/71.

19. The Special Rapporteur submitted only one report to the Commission which was transmitted in 1982 to the General Assembly. Since then, the question has been kept on the agenda and is discussed on the basis of the annual reports of the Secretary-General (the most recent one is contained in UN Doc. A/44/662): see CHR Res. 1991/73.

20. First report in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/51; CHR Res. 1991/53.

21. Latest report in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/20; CHR Res. 1991/41.

22. Latest report of Kooijmans in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/17; CHR Res. 1991/38.

23. Latest report of Vidal d'Almeida Ribeiro in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/56; CHR Res. 1991/48.

24. Latest report of Bemales BaUesteros in UN Doc. E/CN.4/ 1991/14; CHR Res. 1991/7.

25. Latest reports in UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/44 and E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/42.

26. According to the latest report of the Working Group (UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/20) the total numbers of cases transmitted to these governments are as follows: Iraq 3, 504, Argentina 3, 459, Guatemala 3, 086, El Salvador 2, 535, Peru 2, 340, Colombia 800. In 1990, most cases of disappearances were reported to have occurred in Peru (231), Colombia (82) and Guatemala (74).

27. See also Ramcharan, op. cit. n. 5, p. 192.

28. Ibid. p. 191.

29. On the question of human rights fact finding, see Ramcharan, B.G., ed., International Law and Fact-Finding in the Field of Human Rights (1982)Google Scholar; Ramcharan, op. cit. n. 5, p. 180 et seq.

30. CHR Res. 1989/62.

31. Zuijdwijk, op. cit. n. 2, p. 39 et seq.; Tolley, op. cit. n. 1, p. 77 (Table 4.2) with further references.

32. For a critical view on this ‘gross exaggeration’ of the emphasis on confidentiality see Bossuyt, loc. cit. a 9, p. 183.

33. See, inter alia, Ermacora, F., ‘Procedure to Deal with Human Rights Violations: a Hopeful Start in the United Nations?’, 7 HRJ (1974) p. 670Google Scholar; Tardu, M., Human Rights: The International Petition System, vol. II, part 1 (1980)Google Scholar; Zuijdwijk, op. cit. n. 2; Tolley, H., ‘The Concealed Crack in the Citadel: The United Nations Commission on Human Rights' Response to Confidential Communications’, 6 HRQ (1984) p. 420CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bossuyt, loc. cit. n. 9, p. 181 et seq.; Tolley, op. cit. n. 1, p. 124 et seq.; Nowak, op. cit. n. 2, p. 14 et seq.; Ramcharan, op. cit. n. 5, p. 136 et seq.; Newman and Weisshrodt, op. cit. n. 2, p. 113 et seq.; Bartolomei, M.L., Gross and Massive Violations of Human Rights in Argentina: 1976-1983, An Analysis of the Procedure under ECOSOC Resolution 1503 (1991).Google Scholar

34. Only the 1986 session was cancelled as a result of the then UN financial crisis.

35. This Working Group is not provided for in Res. 1503, but has been set up annually since 1974 by the Commission with the approval of ECOSOC. Since 1990 the Working Group on Situations has been established on a permanent basis: CHR Res. 1990/55 and ECOSOC Res. 1990/41.

36. A.C. Zoller, ‘Reform, Independence and Expertise, Analysis of the 42nd Session of the United Nations Sub-Commission, HR Monitor (1990) nos. 10-11, p.3 at p. 11; a shorter version of this article appeared in 9 NQHR (1991) p. 96 at p. 104.Google Scholar

37. Since the Sub-Commission in Dec. 1990/112 again revised its earlier decision 1989/102 to the effect that the Working Group on Communications is empowered to consider all communications that had been transmitted to the governments concerned not later than 12 weeks prior to the meeting of the Working Group, communications should reach the UN Centre for Human Rights not later than Match in order to be examined in the same year by the Sub-Commission. The 1989 decision which had allowed governments five months in which to reply was subject to strong criticism: see Newman and Weissbrodt, op. cit. n. 2, p. 120.

38. See also Bossuyt, loc. cit. n. 9, p. 184.

39. See also Zuijdwijk, op. cit. n. 2, p. 26 et seq.; Ramcharan, op. cit. n. 5, p. 140. Other authors, however, hold the view that ‘the Commission may decide to reject the communications, keep them under review’, etc.: Bossuyt, loc. cit. n. 9, p. 182; Newman and Weissbrodt, op. cit. n. 2, p. 119 et seq.; Bartolomei, op. cit. n. 33, p. 77 et seq.

40. For the text of these and later authorizing resolutions, see Tolley, op. cit. n. 1, p. 22S et seq. Ramcharan, op. cit. n. 5., p. 67 refers in this context only to later authorizing resolutions such as ECOSOC Res. 1102 (XL) and 1164 (LXI) or GA Res. 2144 (XXI) of 1966 and 1967 respectively.

41. This is the main difference between a thorough study under para. 6(a) of Res. 1503 and a public thorough study under para. 3 of Res. 1235. The confidentiality of a thorough study in the 1503 procedure follows from para. 8 of Res. 1503 (‘all actions’: see Tardu, op. cit. n. 33, p. 113 et seq.; Bartolomei, op. cit. n. 33, p. 78 fn. 175). The reference to Res. 1235 in para. 6(a) of Res. 1503 caused much confusion for both scholars and the Commission's practice. A systematic interpretation leads, however, to the conclusion that the 1503 study, including the report and recommendations (e.g., by a special rapporteur), must remain confidential until the Commission decides to make recommendations to ECOSOC. Even then it is up to the Commission to decide whether it only publishes its recommendations or the study and report as well. As will be shown below, the Commission's practice tends to use the decision to carry out a thorough study as a means of ‘going public’. Legally speaking, this is not a decision under para. 6(a) of Res. 1503 but a decision under para. 8 of Res. 1503 (recommendation to ECOSOC to go public) in combination with para. 3 of Res. 1235. See also the confidential decision with respect to Uganda infra (at n. 44).

42. See also Ramcharan, op. cit. n. 5, p. 67 fn. 6 and p. 154 et seq.

43. See Nowak, M., UNO-Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte und Fakultativprotokoll, CCPR-Kommentar (1989) p. 741Google Scholar et seq; Van Dijk, P. and Van Hoof, G.J.H., Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd edn. (1990) p. 61 et seq.Google Scholar

44. The confidential documents were later made public. Far an analysis see Ramcharan, op. cit. n. 5, p. 149 et seq.

45. Newman and Weissbrodt, op. cit. n. 2, p. 120; Bartolomei, op. cit. n. 33, p. 77, fn. 172.

46. UN Doc. 5/1979/36, para. 218 at p. 54; see also Bossuyt, loc. cit. n. 9, p. 188.

47. CHR draft Dec. 7 (XXXV) and CHR Res. 15 (XXXV) of 13 March 1979.

48. For the advisory services procedure see infra, section 7.

49. CHR Res. 15 (XXXV) and 1988/17.

50. CHR Res. 1987/13: see infra, sections 7 and 8.

51. ECOSOC Dec. 1985/156 approving a 1984 decision of the Commission: see the analysis of this confidential material in a doctoral dissertation at the University of Lund: Bartolomei, op. cit. n. 33.

52. CHR Dec. 1985/107.

53. ECOSOC Dec. 1986/147 of 23 May 1986.

54. CHR Dec. 1984/109 and draft Dec. 1984/15.

55. CHR Res. 1990/61.

56. Bossuyt, loc. cit. n. 9, p. 183.

57. CHR Res. 8 (XXIII): For the history of this well-known resolution, see Ramcharan, op. cit. n. 5, p. 63 et seq.; Tolley, op. cit. a 1, p. 55 et seq.

58. See also in particular Ramcharan, op. cit. n. 5, p. 67.

59. See Bossuyt, loc. cit. n. 9, p. 184; Newman and Weissbrodt, op. cit. n. 2, p. 124, fn. 10.

60. CHR Res. 2 (XXIII) of 6 March 1967: see supra, section 4.1.

61. CHR Res. 6 (XXV) of 4 March 1969.

62. CHR Res. 8 (XXXI) of 27 February 1975.

63. Sub-Comm. Res. 8 (XXVII) of 21 August 1974.

64. CHR Res. 11 (XXXV) of 6 March 1979.

65. CHR Res. 1989/61.

66. CHR Res. 1990/78.

67. CHR Res. 15 (XXXV) of 13 March 1979.

68. CHR Res. 33 (XXXVI) of 11 March 1980. For this advisory services procedure see infra, section 7.

69. UN Doc. WCN.4/1413, p. 31 (para. 211).

70. Sub-Comm. Res. 23 (XXXIII).

71. GA Res. 35/185 of 15 December 1980.

72. UN Doc. 3/1981/25, p. 101 (para. 268).

73. CHR Res. 34 (XXXVH).

74. CHR Res. 1982/33 of 11 March 1982 and UN Doc. S/CN.4/1500.

75. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1983/22.

76. CHR Res. 1983/33.

77. See Bossuyt, loc. cit. n. 9, p. 190.

78. GA Res. 35/192 of 15 December 1980.

79. CHR Res. 32 (XXXVII).

80. Sub-Comm. Res. 10 (XXXIV) of 9 September 1981.

81. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1502.

82. CHR Res. 1982/28 of 11 March 1982.

83. Most recently, Sub-Comm. Res. 1990/14 of 30 August 1990; GA Res. 45/172 of 18 December 1990 and CHR Res. 1991/75 of 6 March 1991.

84. UN Doc.E/CN.4/1991/34, p. 24.

85. CHR Dec. 12 (XXXV) of 14 March 1979.

86. CHR Res. 32 (XXXVI).

87. Bossuyt, loc. cit. n. 9, p. 191.

88. CHR Res. 33 (XXXVII) of 11 March 1981.

89. CHR Res. 1982/31.

90. Sub-Comm. Res. 1982/17.

91. See Tolley, op. cit n. 1, p. 117.

92. UN Doc. A/38/485 and E/CN.4/1984/30.

93. CHR Res. 1984/53.

94. CHR Res. 1985/36.

95. CHR Res. 1986/62.

96. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1987/24.

97. Draft CHR Res. E/CN.4/1987/L.33 submitted by Australia, Austria, Canada, Ireland and Norway: see UN Doc. E/1987/18, p. 221 et seq.

98. Draft CHR Res. E/CN.4/1987/L.36 submitted by 11 Latin American delegations: ibid. p. 223 etseq.

99. CHR Res. 1987/53.

100. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1988/42.

101. CHR Res. 1988/50 of 8 March 1988.

102. Sub-Comm. Res. 1988/14 of 1 September 1988.

103. Sub-Comm. Res. 1989/6 of 31 August 1989.

104. CHR Res. 1990/80.

105. Sub-Comm. Res. 1990/11 of 30 August 1990.

106. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/5, p. 39 (para. 139).

107. Ibid. p. 44; see also the chapters on the new Government and the National dialogue in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/5/Add. 1, p. 4 et seq.

108. CHR Res. 1991/51.

109. See UN Doc. E/1982/12, p. 62 et seq.

110. CHR Res. 1982/26 of 10 March 1982.

111. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1983/18.

112. See UN Doc. E/1983/13, p. 63 et seq.

113. CHR Res. 1983/30 of 8 March 1983.

114. See the report in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1984/26 and Bossuyt, loc. cit. n. 9, p. 192.

115. CHR Dec. 1984/110; see UN Doc. E/1984/14, p. 153 et seq.

116. See Zuijdwijk, op. cit. a 2, p. 40.

117. Sub-Comm. Res. 21 (XXXIII).

118. Sub-Comm. Res. 10 (XXXIII) of 10 September 1980.

119. Sub-Comm. Res. 8 (XXXIV) of 9 September 1981.

120. See UN Doc. E/1982/12, p. 61.

121. CHR Res. 1982/27.

122. Sub-Comm. Res. 1982/25.

123. CHR Res. 1983/34 of 8 March 1983.

124. See UN Doc. E/1983/13, p. 66 et seq.

125. Sub-Comm. Res. 1983/14 of 5 September 1983.

126. CHR Res. 1984/54.

127. CHR Res. 1988/69 of 10 March 1988.

128. See UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/35, p. 90 et seq.

129. Ibid. p. 96 (para. 492).

130. CHR Res. 1991/82 of 7 March 1991.

131. GA Res. ES-6/2 of 14 January 1980.

132. See UN Doc. E/1980/13, p. 38 et seq.

133. CHR Res. 3 (XXXVI).

134. CHR Res. 1990/5 and 1991/4.

135. See Bossuyt, loc. cit. n. 9, p. 193.

136. Sub-Comm. Res. 11 (XXXIV) of 9 September 1981, 1982/21, 1983/20, 1984/6 and 1985/35.

137. Sub-Comm. draft Res. XII/1983.

138. CHR Res. 1984/55 and draft Res. XIV/1984: for the debate see UN Doc. E/1984/14, p. 160 et seq.

139. See Bossuyt, loc. cit. n. 9, p. 193.

140. ECOSOC Res. 1984/37.

141. UN Doc. A/40/893, A/41/778, A/42/667, A/43/742, A/44/669, A/45/664; E/CN.4/1985/21, 1986/2, 1987/22, 1988/25, 1989/24, 1990/25 and 1991/31.

142. CHR Res. 1987/58 of 11 March 1987.

143. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/31, p. 18 et seq.

144. CHR Res. 1991/78 of 6 March 1991.

145. CHR Res. 1989/75.

146. See UN Doc. E/1989/20, p. 247 et seq.

147. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1990/28.

148. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1990/28/Add. 1.

149. CHR Res. 1990/50 of 6 March 1990.

150. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/30, p. 27 (para. 142).

151. CHR Res. 1991/69.

152. For a critical assessment of the US policy in the Commission, see Zoller, A.C., ‘North-South Tension and Human Rights, An Analysis of the 46th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights’, HR Monitor (1990) no. 8, p. 3 at p. 6.Google Scholar

153. See UN Doc. 3/1988/12, p. 230 et seq.

154. CHR Dec. 1988/106.

155. CHR Dec. 1989/102.

156. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1989/46 and Corr. 1.

157. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1989/L. 90: see for the discussion UN-Doc. E/1989/20, p. 231 et seq.

158. CHR Dec. 1989/113.

159. CHR Res. 1990/48 of 6 March 1990.

160. See UN Doc. E/1990/22, p. 237 et seq.

161. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/28.

162. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/L. 50.

163. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/L. 88.

164. CHR Res. 1991/68 of 6 March 1991.

165. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1989/L. 82: see UN Doc. E/1989/20, p. 243 et seq.

166. CHR Dec. 1989/111 of 8 March 1989.

167. CHR Dec. 1990/114 of 7 March 1990.

168. Sub.Comm. Dec. 1987/103 and 1989/106.

169. Sub.Comm. Res. 1990/13 of 30 August 1990.

170. CHR Res. 1991/74.

171. CHR Res. 1991/67 of 6 March 1991.

172. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1987/L. 31: for the discussion see UN Doc. E/1987/18, p. 215 et seq.

173. CHR Dec. 1987/106 of 11 March 1987. The Indian motion has to be seen in connection with a similar motion with respect to an American draft resolution on Cuba (UN Doc. E/CN.4/ 1987/L. 29) which had been adopted on the same day by a vote of 19:18:6.

174. Sub-Comm. Res. 1989/5 of 31 August 1989.

175. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1990/52.

176. See Zoller, loc. cit n. 152, p. 9 et seq.

177. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1990/L. 47: for the discussion see E/1990/ 22, p. 239 et seq.

178. CHR Dec. 1990/106 of 6 March 1990.

179. CHR Res. 4 (XXXI).

180. CHR Res. 4 (XXXII) and 17 (XXXIV).

181. CHR Res. 1987/50.

182. Sub-Comm. Res. 1987/19.

183. Latest postponement in CHR Dec. 1991/106.

184. CHR Res. 14 (XXXV).

185. Sub-Comm. Res. C (XXXII).

186. CHR Dec. 1989/112 of 8 March 1989.

187. Sub-Comm. Res. 1983/16.

188. CHR Dec. 1984/111.

189. Sub-Comm. Res. 1984/32.

190. CHR Res. 1987/61.

191. Sub-Comm. Res. 1982/20, 1983/26, 1984/24, 1987/13, 1989/7 and 1990/15.

192. CHR Res. 1983/8.

193. See supra, section 5.10.

194. See most recently CHR Res. 1991/5 of 15 February 1991.

195. See latest CHR Res. 1990/9 of 19 February 1990. In 1991 the consideration of this question was for the first time in ten years postponed to the following session (CHR Dec. 1991/104).

196. CHR Res. 1983/8: see supra, section 6.1.

197. CHR Res. 1984/25 of 12 March 1984.

198. CHR Res. 1990/10 of 20 February 1990.

199. See UN Doc. E/1990/22, p. 207 et seq.

200. GA Res. 926(X) of 14 December 1955: see Tolley, op. cit. a 1, p. 32 et seq.

201. See CHR Res. 1987/38 and ECOSOC Dec. 1987/147.

202. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/55, p. 33.

203. See the latest report of the Secretary-General in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/55.

204. See Zoller, A.C., ‘The Question of Advisory Services’, in HR Monitor (1989) no. 7, p. 8.Google Scholar

205. See supra, section 5.7.

206. See supra, sections 4 and 5.4.

207. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995.

208. ECOSOC Res. 1982/36.

209. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/54, p. 3 (para. 13).

210. CHR Res. 1991/80 of 6 March 1991.

211. CHR Res. 1987/13 of 2 March 1987: see supra, section 4.

212. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1988/38; CHR Res. 1988/51 of 8 March 1988.

213. Sub-Comm. Res. 1988/12 of 1 September 1988.

214. CHR Res. 1989/73 of 8 March 1989.

215. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1990/44 and Add. 1.

216. CHR Res. 1990/56 of 7 March 1990.

217. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1991/33 and Add. 1.

218. CHR Res. 1991/77 of 6 March 1991.

219. CHR Res. 30 (XXXVII) of 11 March 1981.

220. CHR Res. 15 (XXXVII) of 9 March 1981.

221. CHR Res. 1990/61 of 7 March 1990.

222. CHR Res. 1983/33 of 8 March 1983: see supra, section 5.5.

223. See Ramcharan, op. cit.n. 5, p. 351.

224. Ermacora, F., ‘Human Rights and Domestic Jurisdiction (Article 2, § 7, of the Charter)’, 2 RdC (1968) p. 375 at p. 442 et seq.Google Scholar; see also the contribution of F. Ermacora to Art. 2(7) of the Charter in Simma, B., ed., Charta der Vereinten Nationen - Kommentar (1991) p. 100 et seq.Google Scholar

225. ICJ Rep. (1970) p. 3 at p. 32.

226. See Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 4th edn. (1990) pp. 291 and 554.Google Scholar

227. See the different legal opinions described by Ermacora in Simma, op. cit. n. 224, p. 110 et seq.

228. See C. Medina, Quiroga, The Battle of Human Rights: Gross, Systematic Violations and the Inter-American System (1988).Google Scholar