Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T23:31:47.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Three “Theme” Special Rapporteurs of the UN Commission on Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

David Weissbrodt
David Weissbrodt*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In March 1982, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights initiated the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions. The Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions has done far more than merely study that grave human rights problem; he has received complaints about impending and past executions, issued appeals to governments about threatened executions and the need to investigate past killings, and reported publicly on much of his activity. The Commission on Human Rights not only has renewed the Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions in its subsequent annual sessions, but has followed this precedent by appointing in 1985 a similar Special Rapporteur on Torture and in 1986 a Special Rapporteur on Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

Type
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 80 , Issue 3 , July 1986 , pp. 685 - 699
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1986

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 Comm’n on Human Rights [hereinafter cited as CHR] Res. 20 (XXXVI), UN Doc. E/CN.4/1408, at 180 (1980).

2 See Berman, & Clark, , State Terrorism: Disappearances , 13 Rutgers L.J. 531, 557–59 (1982)Google Scholar; Reports of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, UN Docs. E/CN.4/1435 (1981); E/CN.4/1492 (1981); E/CN.4/1983/14; E/CN.4/1984/21 and Add.1; E/CN.4/1985/15; E/CN.4/1986/18.

3 CHR Res. 20, supra note 1, at 180–81.

4 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1435 and Add.1 (1981).

5 CHR Res. 10 (XXXVII), UN Doc. E/CN.4/1475, at 209–10 (1981).

6 Id.

7 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1435, Ann. IX (1981); see also id., Anns. XI and XII.

8 CHR Res. 1982/24, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1982/20, at 139–40; CHR Res. 1983/20, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1983/60,at 148–49.

9 CHR Res. 1984/24, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1984/77, at 57–58.

10 CHR Res. 1985/20, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/66, at 53–54.

11 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/18.

12 Id. at 1.

13 Id. at 5.

14 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/18/Add.1.

l5 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/18, at 108.

16 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/L.76, adopted with one amendment and without a vote on Mar. 13, 1986.

17 CHR Res. 1982/29, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1982/30, at 2–3, 147.

18 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/24; see UN Doc. A/40/843 (1986). The Commission also for many years has appointed special rapporteurs to engage in various studies without expecting that they would take action on human rights violations. See, e.g., Rannat, Study of Equality in the Administration of Justice, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/296/Rev. 1 (1972); Inglés, Study of Discrimination in Respect of the Right of Everyone to Leave Any Country, Including His Own, and to Return to His Country, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/220/Rev.1 (1963).

19 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/2; see UN Doc. A/40/647 (1985).

20 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/22; see UN Doc. A/40/818 (1985).

21 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/23; see UN Doc. A/40/865 (1986).

22 UN Doc. A/40/874 (1985). The special representative of the Commission presented an interim report to the General Assembly, but resigned before he had completed his report to the Commission.

23 See, e.g., CHR Res. 1985/35, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/66, at 74 (mandate of special rapporteur on El Salvador).

24 CHR Res. 1982/29, supra note 17, at 147.

25 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1983/16.

26 UN Docs. E/CN.4/1984/29 and E/CN.4/1985/17.

27 CHR Res. 1984/50, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1984/77, at 8–9, 85.

28 CHR Res. 1985/37, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/66, at 3–5, 79 (adding “in particular when a summary or arbitrary execution is imminent or threatened”).

29 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/21.

30 Id. at 4–5.

31 Id. at 100.

32 Statement by Representative of Norway to Commission on Human Rights, Mar. 6, 1986, at 10 (in the author’s files).

33 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/L.68, adopted without a vote on Mar. 11, 1986.

34 Art. 6(5), GA Res. 2200, 21 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966) (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976).

35 Organization of American States, Handbook of Existing Rules pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System 29, Art. 4(5), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.60, doc. 28, rev.1 (1983).

36 Art. 68, Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, TIAS No. 3365, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force Oct. 21, 1950).

37 In proposing a general reservation to the death penalty limitations of Article 6 of the Civil and Political Covenant, the Department of State declared that its purpose was “certainly not the preservation of any right to execute children or pregnant women, something never done in the United States.” International Human Rights Treaties: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 1, 55 (1979) (response by Department of State).

38 See Letter from Eric Prokosch, Coordinator of Amnesty International Program for the Abolition of the Death Penalty, to Mary E. McClymont, Feb. 19, 1986: “In addition, Amnesty International received a number of reports of executions of prisoners under 18 years old in Iran, but the organization was unable to give an exact total.”

39 GA Res. 36/22, 36 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 168, UN Doc. A/36/51 (1982). The resolution specifically refers to “the provisions on capital punishment in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly its articles 6, 14 and 15.” Furthermore, in General Assembly Resolution 35/172, entitled “Arbitrary or summary executions,” member states are urged to “respect as a minimum standard the content of the provisions of articles 6, 14, and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” GA Res. 35/172, 35 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 48) at 195, UN Doc. A/35/48 (1981).

40 CHR Res. 1985/37, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/66, at 79.

41 GA Res. 40/143 (Dec. 13, 1985).

42 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/21, at 99.

43 See UN Press Release HR/1848, Mar. 4, 1986, at 6; UN Press Release HR/1848/Corr.1, Mar. 10, 1986.

44 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/L.68; see note 33 supra.

45 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/L.68.

46 CHR Res. 1985/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/66, at 71.

47 Report by the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/15.

48 E.g., Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, GA Res. 39/46, 39 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, UN Doc. A/39/51 (1986).

49 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/15, at 16.

50 Id. at 17

51 The delegates of the Soviet Union at the Commission indicated their displeasure, but failed to explain why they believed that this brief mention of their country was somehow beyond the special rapporteur’s mandate. Indeed, the sensitivity of the Soviet authorities to this appeal by the rapporteur bodes well for his effectiveness.

52 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/15, at 30.

53 Id. at 35.

54 Australia, Statement to the UN Commission on Human Rights on Agenda Item 10, Mar. 12, 1986, at 4 (in the author’s files).

55 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/L.83, adopted without a vote on Mar. 13, 1986.

56 The Commission on Human Rights decided on Mar. 10, 1986 to adopt (with a few amendments) the resolution contained in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/L.45/Rev.1, which proposed the appointment of the special rapporteur. See CHR Res. 1986/20, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/65, at 66.

57 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/L.45/Rev.1.

58 See Clark, , The United Nations and Religious Freedom , 11 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 197 (1978)Google Scholar; Liskofsky, S., United Nations Draft Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Religious Intolerance (1981)Google Scholar.

59 GA Res. 36/55, 36 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 171–72, UN Doc. A/36/51 (1982).

60 A. Krishnaswami, Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/200/Rev.1 (1960); see also Clark, R., Background Paper for United Nations Seminar on the Encouragement of Understanding, Tolerance and Respect in Matters Relating to Religion or Belief, Geneva, Switzerland, 3–14 December 1984 Google Scholar, UN Doc. HR/GENEVA/1984/BP.3.

61 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/L.45/Rev.1. The Declaration forbids discrimination on grounds of religion or beliefs; protects the right of parents to organize their family life in accordance with their religious beliefs; assures rights to worship, assemble for worship, establish religious institutions, observe religious holidays, teach religion, designate appropriate religious leaders, etc.

62 CHR Res. 1983/40, 1983 UN ESCOR Supp. (No. 3) at 173, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1983/60.

63 Sub-Comm’n on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Res. 1983/31, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1983/43, at 98.

64 Oral intervention by Representative of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches to the Commission on Human Rights, February 1986 (in the author’s files).

65 Statement by Alternative United States Representative to Commission on Human Rights, Feb. 24, 1986 (in the author’s files).

66 Progress report by Elizabeth Odio Benito, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/28.

67 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1986/L.44. Since the UN Sub-Commission’s 1986 session was postponed to 1987, the Odio Benito report will presumably be submitted then.

68 The opponents of the U.S. initiative might have been more successful if they had convinced one or more Third World governments, such as Syria or Algeria, to introduce a series of crippling amendments to the U.S. resolution. For example, one amendment might have delayed the effectiveness of the special rapporteur until the completion of Mrs. Odio Benito’s work. Crippling amendments could have delayed a substantive vote or undermined the basic resolution. If the opponents had tired the delegates with procedural obstructions, the Commission might have been sufficiently discouraged to accept the motion not to take a vote on the special rapporteur.

69 Algeria and Nicaragua voted in favor of the GDR procedural resolution, but abstained on the substantive vote.

70 Cf., e.g., Meron, , Norm Making and Supervision in International Human Rights: Reflections on Institutional Order , 76 AJIL 754, 771, 774–75 (1982)Google Scholar.

71 See, e.g., Kramer, & Weissbrodt, , The 1980 U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the Disappeared , 1 Hum. Rts. Q. 18 (1981)Google Scholar; Shestack, , The Case of the Disappeared , Hum. Rts., No. 4, Winter 1980, at 24, 52 Google Scholar.

72 See Clark, R., A United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1972)Google Scholar.

73 The Committee against Torture has analogous authority under Article 20 of the Convention against Torture for those governments which do not make a declaration under Article 28 to reject such authority. Convention against Torture, supra note 48, Arts. 20 and 28. The Committee on Human Rights and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination have treaty-based authority to take interim measures to avoid irreparable damage. Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, supra note 34, Art. 5. Rules of Procedure of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Rule 94, UN Doc. CERD/C/35/Rev.3, at 28 (1986). The Human Rights Committee has taken interim measures under the Optional Protocol. See, e.g., Human Rights Committee, Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, at 5–6 (1985). The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the UN Secretary-General have regularly undertaken urgent appeals on human rights matters. See Organization of American States, Handbook, supra note 35, at 130; Ramcharan, , The Good Offices of the United Nations Secretary-General in the Field of Human Rights , 76 AJIL 130, 136-39 (1982)Google Scholar.