La Lettre

FIDH Newsletter

CURRENT AFFAIRS
>> United States
Executioners of the West A damning report on the implementation of the death penalty in the USA
Abolition of the death Penalty
Interview with Professor Liebman
>>Tunisia
"I want to live with my parents normally"
Interview with Nadia Hammami.
>>UNDP

ACTION
>>Romania
"A contemptuous attitude towards Human Rights has now turned into indifference"
Interview with the President of Lado

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT:
European Union and Human Rights

Around the World
Responses
Publications

CURRENT AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES
Executioners of the West
A damning report on the implementation of the death penalty in the USA

>>In a climate of widespread indifference, the number of executions in the USA has grown considerably during these last few years. A report edited by law professor James S. Liebman and published on 13th June last, reveals the errors and contrad-ictions of a legal system which has become iniquitous. Today, nothing seems capable of curbing the progress of this implacable killing machine, but the volume of protest is rising.

A Flawed System

That is how the report, drawn up by a team of professors and students from the University of Columbia, describes the American legal system which allows the lives of convicted people on death row to be terminated. This is the first time that an exhaustive study has seen the light of day, a study which focuses on the 4578 death sentences handed down in the USA between 1973 and 1995. This report is essentially a piece of technical and legal work. It puts forward no arguments of a philosophical or moral order. At the risk of appearing cynical, professor Liebman opted for a more scientific approach and by producing evidence backed-up by figures and distancing himself from impassioned debate, he endeavoured to demonstrate the serious deficiencies in the implementation of the death penalty on the other side of the Atlantic. Two factors gave rise to his investigations: the excessive length of time spent on death row by convicted people and the well-founded doubts concerning their guilt in certain cases. Liebman immediately drew up a hypothesis: the convicted people remain for a long time on death row precisely because the convictions are systematically tainted by procedural irregularities. The study found that 68% of the sentences were quashed at one of the three principal stages of the legal process designed for those condemned to death. According to the report, this significant proportion highlights the major shortcomings of a system that sends human beings to their deaths in unacceptable legal conditions. Basically, statistics of this nature can be explained by two factors: the incompetence of lawyers _ often those with legal aid - and the lack of irrefutable proof of the guilt of the accused or the disproportionality of the punishment to the act committed. The level of error in the procedures applied to those condemned to death appears all the more worrying when set against the 15% of sentences overturned in lawsuits concerning people convicted of acts not liable to the death penalty.

A double punishment

This being the case, since more than two thirds of those convicted are kept on death row unjustly, we find an average wait of more than 10 years, whereas in 22 years, only 10% of those convicted have actually been executed. Over and above their death sentence, they incur a second punishment, to wit imprisonment, and this on account of the slowness and inefficiency of the system. The sentence is double, first the interminable wait, then the execution. And the average wait on death row is getting longer, precisely because the legal aid system fails to procure good lawyers or provide decent means of defence, and because the sentences are pronounced in haste. The numerous appeals then prolong the imprisonment on death row. At the end of the wait, the execution may come in a variety of cleverly perfected forms: gas chamber, lethal injection, firing squad, hanging or electric chair. Official figures demonstrate the heterogeneous nature of capital punishment in the USA: the report permits comparison between two States that practise the death penalty in greatly differing proportions. While Mississippi has one of the highest crime rates in the USA (ranking 4th), it is one of the States which practises execution the least (only 2% of those convicted are actually executed, while the others have their sentences commuted). Conversely, Virginia has an average crime rate but cheerfully practises capital punishment (25% of those convicted are executed). These significant variations lead Professor Liebman to say that, in practical terms, American justice is not fulfilling its role. It manifests disparities which run counter to the principle of equal opportunities. Depending on whether a person was born in Houston or Nevada, the rights of defence are not ensured in an identical manner. On a wider canvas, it is the federal structure of American justice which is here called into question; it appears all the more obsolete in the case of the death sentence. To this geographical disparity must be added changes which have taken place over time. More people are condemn-ed to death than was the case 20 years ago, and by the same token, more are executed. Whereas in 1980 the number on death row stood at 600, today there are nearly 3,700 people in that same situation. Whereas that same year of 1980 witnessed not a single execution in the whole of the American territory, there was a record 99 executions in 1999. The sizeable growth in both these statistics raises a problem which is for the most part insoluble: why are we witnessing a strong upsurge in executions at a time when the crime rate has not increased in the same proportion?

Barbarity

The report concludes thus: `the American system of capital punishment is seeing its credibility collapse under the weight of its own mismanagement'. For the first time, professor Liebman has shown in a solid and irrefutable way, that on the other side of the Atlantic the death penalty is administered in a totally arbitrary fashion. Where the oft-repeated moral argument fails to convince the staunchest defenders of legal ass-assination, it seems as if this report might just be capable of opening up a breach and marking a milestone in the development of their thought. What a cat to set amongst the pigeons only a few months before a presidential election! However, nobody doubts that the work of the New York University would have passed unnoticed, had not one of the principal candidates in next November's elections been none other than G.W.Bush Jr. the Governor of Texas who has signed nearly 150 death warrants in five years. The statistics have turned a legal system into an absolute barbarity in modern times. For the first time in 25 years, the heavy dailies run front page headlines on the human ravages of the American legal system. The recent deaths of Odell Barnes Jr. and Gary Graham have aroused exceptional emotions, as much within the USA as on the international plane. Is it possible to imagine that the State which claims to be the first among the democracies of the world will be able to stick to its guns and continue to flout, increasingly day by day, the Human rights which gave rise to its Constitution?

Bastien Faudot

The study was not designed with an "abolitionist" agenda in mind. It was designed to answer questions about how well the system we now have is functioning, how much tolerance for error the system demands, how much tolerance for capital punishment error Americans have, what steps are needed to bring down the rate of error to a more tolerable level, how much those steps would cost, and in the end whether that cost is thought worthwhile in order to make the system function in a way that citizens consider to be sufficiently free of error. This is the way Americans address many issues of public concern, I think, including this one: Although most Americans have no moral or ethical problem in principle with the death penalty (about 65% favor the penalty), they understand that the penalty is a system, and a government-operated one at that, and they want it to work well, but fear that it will not; they do not want it to be too costly in human and financial terms, but fear that it is; and they don't want it to empower government to oppress "innocent" people, but fear that such things do in fact occur. We hope our study provides information to citizens about how well the death penalty is accomplishing its own goals, while avoiding the problems that Americans associate with government programs. Many people have taken the study in this spirit, and have seen it as strong evidence that the death penalty system we now have is not accomplishing its own goals and is taking too many of the kinds of risks that citizens fear.

Do you think there are strong sociological reasons that would account for the existence of the US culture of violence and the idea that revenge should be institutionalized?

The study itself is entirely agnostic on questions of this sort. It takes the system as it is and measures its outcomes.
As an expression of my own personal opinion, quite apart from the study and for what little it is worth, I will say this: I tend to see the death penalty as an expression of American individualism. That tendency leads Americans to want as much freedom as possible to do as they please, and to believe that each person bears nearly complete responsibility for how they exercise their freedom. The upshot is the fear, and reality, that individuals will (evilly) abuse their freedom, which leads Americans (ironically, given their general dislike of government power) to be willing to empower government to use unusually severe sanctions to punish abuses of freedom. The result is unusually high incarceration rates and the use of the death penalty. The sense that these exercises of government power to "punish" give offenders what they "deserve" (which is based on the strong belief in personal responsibility) helps makes tolerable to Americans what otherwise would be seen as intolerably oppressive exercises of government power to punish. On the other hand, the fear both of government incompetence (using power in a wasteful, inefficient, and capriciously harmful way) and of government oppression (more intentional misuses of power) remains strong. These countervailing forces lead to a constant process of readjusting the degree of punishment that is deemed appropriate for individual abusers of freedom, and the amount of power to punish that Americans feel comfortable letting government exercise. When crime rates and attendant fear are high, one kind of adjustment occurs; when crime rates drop and evidence of government incompetence and abuse rises, things move in the other direction.

Are we allowed to expect that the death penalty will be abolished in the medium term in the US ?

One lesson learned in the last several decades in the U.S. is that it is difficult for change to occur, especially when it comes to law enforcement and criminal justice, all at once and entirely through action of the national government. Much more likely is more incremental and non-uniform change at the state level. One already sees this happening in regard to the death penalty. In a variety of American states in nearly all parts of the country, there is a process taking place of careful analysis of the risks of error and government abuse that the death penalty system currently takes, and an attempt to decide how much error is tolerable and what it would take to bring error within tolerable limits. In some states, the result is strong abolition movements (New Hampshire and Oregon); in others, there are moratorium movements (Illinois, obviously, but also Missouri and Virginia); in still others, serious death penalty studies are taking place (Indiana, Maryland, Arizona) or are proposed (Virginia). My sense is that change will come mainly at the state level and be different in kind and degree from one place to the next. The role of the federal government, then, may be to nudge states towards reforms - for example, by encouraging them to make evidence of innocence (especially DNA evidence) more readily available, and to provide better lawyers in capital cases.

>>Tunisia

"In want to live with my parents normally"
Interview with Nadia Hammami.

Nadia Hammami, 17, went on hunger strike for 14 days to stop her father, Hamma Hammami, from being prosecuted. Leader of the TWCP (Tunisian Workers' Communist Party, a forbidden party), he has been living underground since February 1988, and was condemned in his absence in July 1999 to nine years' imprisonment. Nadia's mother, Radhia Nasraoni is a lawyer, militant about human rights. In transit in France, Nadia talks to FIDH, which supported and relayed the international message sent our for her father

What made you consider a hunger strike as a means of action? Do you appreciate the dangers for your health?

I had been looking for a long time at what could be done to bring my father home and to stop the harassing we constantly have to put up with (phone tapping, being followed, etc). As there are no other ways of expressing yourself in Tunisia, I decided to go on hunger strike. I was really determined. I was ready to do anything so that my father would come home, even if my family and the militants were telling me I was putting my health at risk, notably because of my age. It's true that to start with I wasn't too sure what to expect, but I was determined.

Did people hear about your initiative in Tunisia?

Yes, and I was surprised. From the very first day, people visited me, phoned me from all over Tunisia, I received e-mails from abroad, showing support. Representatives from organisations like the Tunisian League on Human Rights (TLHR), the National Freedom Council of Tunisia (NFCT), the Association of Tunisian Democratic Women (ATDW),, visited me. And also the other political parties, in spite of their divergences: the Socialist Democratic Movement (SDM), the En Nahda Movement, and others. They all said they valued what I was doing, that they hoped I would get what I wanted.

What finally made you stop your hunger strike?

I had a checkup and the doctors told me I had to stop immediately. Everybody asked me to, especially the Hamma Hammami Support Committee. Tunisian organisations and personalities were calling me every day telling me to stop. And I also felt I had succeeded in rousing quite a lot of interest. How did the Tunisian authorities react? Mr Mohamed Talbi, President of the Hamma Hammami Support Committee met with the Human Rights Minister, who asked him whether I would stop my hunger strike for two days, and then maybe the President of the Republic would see me in his Carthage Palace. I was not convinced: if they wanted to settle this matter, they could do it without meeting me.

Had I accepted, it would have been reported in the media, which can't be trusted in Tunisia. They could have said, for example, that a poor little girl had come to see the President and that he was going to do everything he could to help her, that the President is interested in young people But nothing would have been said about the fact that I had been on hunger strike and why. Did your hunger strike lead to any developments in your father's situation? Yes, because when I was on strike, everybody was talking about Hamma Hammami and his friends living either underground or in prison. Now you are in France. How are you planning to keep up your action? I am looking to meet personalities, representatives of the French authorities, with FIDH's and Amnesty International's support, who could pass on details of my actions to the media. It's easier to do from here than from Tunis. What are your hopes for the future? Simply to live with my parents normally, but especially that there be a little morenot a little more because there is no democracy at all, but that we can live in a democracy in Tunisia. Because quite frankly, everybody is suffocating, we can't express ourselves, develop, move forward.

Interview carried out by Laurence Canal.

>>UNPD

The `human element' at the heart of human development
Publication of the annual report of the UNDP

>>1.2 billion people exist on less than 1 dollar a day; in 1999 34 million people were infected with the AIDS virus; around 40 countries are still without a democratic sys- tem of government; in developing countries there are more than 250 million children who are forced to work; about 100 million children are reckoned to live and work on the street; it is estimated that civil wars caused 5 million deaths in the 90's ..

As usual, the annual report of the UNDP paints a pretty dismal picture of the world today. This is how nearly 300 pages of figures, charts, comparative analyses, and commentaries are itemised explaining in detail both `the tendencies in human development and economic growth'and `the best chances of survival' in each country. This year the distinctive feature lies in the actual theme of the Report, which places Human Rights at the centre of development. So it is that people are beginning to understand that whereas an increase in wealth is, naturally, a necessary condition for the reduction of poverty, it is not sufficient in itself. This Report clearly reaffirms the indivisibility and interdependence of all rights. In his summing up Mark Malloch Brown, the Director of the UNDP states that civil and political rights on the one hand, economic, social and cultural rights on the other are `the opposite sides of the same coin, and not, as some have tried to make us believe during the cold war, two world views in opposition to each other'. It is only if political liberties are guaranteed that individuals can really take advantage of economic liberties. And to this end, the most important step towards the necessary form of economic growth is the establish-ment of institutional and legal measures based on transparency, responsibility and efficiency. For individuals to throw themselves headlong into a venture, it is absolutely essential that they feel that they have the possibility of participating and expressing themselves. The sooner they have rights, the better they are able to act in the economic sphere.

For Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, this Report will constitute a turning point for the years to come as it indicates the link between human development and Human Rights. The first will interest mainly the economists and the decision- makers, while the others will be more the province of the militants, the lawyers and philosophers. Gradually, helped by global interdependence, the ` complex political and economic interactions which combine when new players on the economic stage gain power, have chanced upon hitherto untried opportunities', and from now on allow the trends in thought and in action to converge. And the authors of the Report declare enthusiastically: "united at the heart of a wide- ranging alliance, we may all inspire each other with a renewal of energy and dynamism".

Amongst the common angles of approach to be developed, the UNDP's Report reminds us that in a period of globalisation, "it is advisable to extend the model of responsibility concentrated on the State to encompass obligations of private agencies and of foreign States.[] Now, there is nothing much in the present world order to compel States and world players to defend Human Rights on a global scale. Many of the least advanced countries do not have access to the growing opportunities offered by globalisation. At a time when global exports have more than doubled, the share of the least advanced countries has dropped from 0.6% in 1980 to 0.5% in 1990 and 0.4% in 1997"

Therefore a gulf has to be bridged between Human Rights and the human develop-ment which Mark Mallock seeks to summarise in this way: "the agencies of the UN must be strengthened in the face of the institutions of Bretton Woods. The UN and Bretton Woods are not in opposition but must be balanced". That's the distance we still have to travel.

Gregoire Lechat

>>Romania

"A contemptuous attitude towards Human Rights has now turned into indifference"
Interview with the President of Lado

>>Nicolae Stefanescu Draganesti is a lawyer and the president of the
League for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania (LADO is affiliated
to the FIDH) In an interview granted to La Lettre he assesses 10 years
of activities of the League which now faces considerable difficulties
and is threatened with closure.

What were the reasons which led you to become involved in the defence of Human Rights and to set up LADO?
In the socialist era before 1989, Romania was in a most difficult position regarding the respect of Human Rights. The exacerbation of totalitarianism and secrecy which smacked of Stalinism, together with the moral and material misery of the people prompted a group of citizens, driven by notions and a spirit of democracy, to set up an illegal organisation which began to fight against the abuses of the Communist regime. From 1st January 1990, after the events, which at that time, were looked upon as the `Romanian revolution', this group consisting mainly of lawyers, set up the Romanian League for the Defence of Human Rights (LADO), absolutely convinced that the existence of such an organisation would be a firm guarantee against terror and dictatorship ever making a come-back.

What is the Human Rights situation in Romania today? Which are the most important problems to be resolved?
At the present moment ,after more than 10 years of LADO'S uninterrupted activity, the fundamental rights of Romanians are still flouted. Of course, some progress has been recorded, legislation has been improved, but the former mind-set persists in the machinery of state, and that's not the only thing. The contemptuous attitude towards human rights has now turned into indifference, which explains why the evolution in structural change is so slow. Lay people continue to be the prime movers towards progress, even if they meet with lack of governmental interest concerning human rights.

Can you explain to us, briefly, what the League's most important activities are and its role in lay society?
Alarmed by such diverse reports as the unprecedented impoverishment of the population, the chaotic administration of the national economy, the lack of political will to put reforms into effective operation, but also the condition of life in the prisons, the violation of the right to free speech, of the freedom of conscience, of the rights of the child, of religious and linguistic minorities, LADO continues to be actively involved by its programmes (`Caravana', Know Your Rights, High School Students and Human Rights and other publications) in the education of members of local administrations, governments and citizens in general. Education in citizenship remains the main preoccupation, because, as I've already said, attitudes are marked by communistic thought patterns and behaviour.

What difficulties have you encountered in the course of your activities?
Where we have tried to engage in open dialogue with the powers that be, successive governments from 1989 to the present day, whatever their political colour, have been resistant to our suggestions and have only paid attention to us when it has been beneficial to their image. The only true and disinterested support we have received has been from the Rumanian Human Rights Commission. As for the second House of Parliament, it was an unpleasant surprise to note that human rights are not only ignored but also flouted. One MP, taking account of LADO's arguments, asserted in plenary session that `the fight for human rights is madness'. Our organisation continues to believe that this noble `madness' is worthy of ruling our ideals and actions, in order to thwart the criminal good health' with which those who direct our destiny are threatening us.

Unfortunately LADO's activities cannot be sustained merely by enthusiasm and faithfulness to our ideals. Whereas, at the outset, voluntary workers could provide for the development of our activities, now we need funds. Programmes in education in citizenship mean that we need to have large sums at our disposal for printing expenses, to travel around the country and technical grants. The financial crisis which confronts us is linked to the use of hypocritical arguments _ according to which Rumania is supposed to have become a democratic country in which NGO's, and particularly those working in the field of human rights would be useless -, leading us powerless, to contemplate a far-reaching moral collapse.

But even if LADO is an organisation recognised abroad and valued in all its areas of activity, in Rumania it continues to be perceived as an esteemed organisation, but one which ought not to be helped, just like Romanian society which will always find internal resources to enable it to rise again from its ashes.

It is pointless to add that things are just not like that, but I feel the need to ask all those who have trusted us and all our potential external partners to understand our present situation and support us, so that we may come through this critical period of financial crisis.

Interview by Livia Stoica

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT:

European Union and Human Rights

---------------------------------------

Share power but first of all safeguard rights. There again, "a low profile" would see the European Council of Nice either content to rewrite the European Convention of 1950, which would block economic, social and cultural rights when that is Europe`s strength, or compose a fine- sounding text "a la francaise" which would have no legal value. We refuse to choose between a normatrice but hemiplegic Charter and a complete but cosmetic Charter: The Europe of the 15 must secure all rights, those of yesterday and today. How can Europe remain in retreat from the United Nations Covenants of 1966, and the social Charter of Europe of the 41? If those who rule Europe believe in the indivisibility of rights, let them prove it. The same goes for their universality: to only base citizenship on the narrow sum of 15 nationalities, instead of entrenching it in the idea of residence and social contract, would not only discriminate against the tens of millions of "residents" whom Europe will need more and more, but forget universalism as a political expression of European humanism. Therefore let Article 16 of the Declaration of 1789 inspire the management of the culmination of the IGC, in order to democratise European power and the formalisation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to really secure these rights. "It is men who make history"...especially in those decisive moments when dynamics can kill or cure according to the degree of consciousness and political will of those in charge. By this yardstick, the moment of truth is sounding for the Europe of rights and citizenship.

Jean-Pierre Dubois. Vice-President of the League of Human Rights (France)

Analysis
The European Union and the fight against discrimination
The EU and asylum policies under the French Presidency
The opportunity of a Charter of Fundamental Rights
Relations between the EU and human rights NGOs : state of play
The human rights discussion forum
After Lom‚ IV: New ACP-EU Partnership Defined

Response
Dismantling the myth of `zero immigration'

>> European Institutions

>> FIDH's Permanent Delegation in Brussels

Analysis

The European Union and the fight against discrimination

The European Union and the fight against discrimination >>>Among the most remarkable advances from the point of view of human rights which have been achieved is the insertion, in the Treaty of Rome, of a new provision (article 13 TEU: see grey box below) which recommends the Council of Ministers have the powers to adopt measures to oppose discrimination.

The new recommendation for the battle against discrimination.

In 1998, Commissioner P.Flynn, in charge of Labour and of Social Affairs, announced that the Commission intended to propose, on the basis of this measure, a recommendation containing three parts: an outline- directive on equal treatment in employment and work, on a general basis, i.e. for the benefit of all categories protected against discrimination by article 13 TEU ("horizontal" directive); a directive specifically against discrimination based on race or ethnic origin in order to oppose these over employment, and particularly in areas such as access to goods and services, health, education and sport ("vertical" directive); lastly a programme of action designed to encourage exchanges of experiences concerning the fight against discrimination, and collaboration between member States and civil society. On 25 November 1999, Commissioner A. Diamantopoulou introduced these three texts to be proposed at the Council of Ministers of the European Union on the basis of Article13 of European Community treaty, and accompanying this proposition with a communication dealing with a certain number of community measures on the fight against discrimination (COM(1999)654final). On 6 June last, a modified version of the "vertical" directive was approved by the Council of Ministers 1; the "horizontal" which poses more delicate questions, is still under discussion . 2

The broadening of the field of Community intervention.

The recent broadening of the field of Community intervention is worthy of acknowledgement. Up until now, it was only in the sphere of equality of treatment between men and women that the European Community had been able to intervene. In so doing, it attempted to prevent the situation where the lack of a uniform protection against discrimination would run into distortions of competition in conflict with the objective of the establishment of a single market -- as that would happen if these discriminations were tolerated by some

member states but were forbidden by others. So, the guarantee of equal remuneration for the same work has been laid down since 1957 in the treaty of Rome and as a result, especially since the mid-seventies, the European Court of justice and legislature had intervened to develop this guarantee of equality of treatment, beyond the elementary guarantee of equality of remunerations. The adoption of TEU Article 13 rests on the same foundation. Here again, the fight against discrimination rests on the established fact that the common market assumes the same level of protection, in favour of all those who, in the absence of such protection, would risk undergoing exploitation allowing economic operators working under less constraining rules to obtain from their competitors an undue competitive advantage, or would be afraid to exercise freedom of circulation. Although it was not the only objective of Article 13 TEU and measures to put it into operation, the search for parity of conditions in which to bring about this struggle at the heart of the European Community will explain that these objectives aim mainly at the fight against discrimination in the area of employment and work. It is only in these areas that the "horizontal" directive is required to apply. And even the "vertical" directive, adopted with a view to strengthening the fight against discriminations specifically attached to race and ethnic origin, with its wider range of application, essentially targets these areas; however it also includes social protection and social advantages, education, as well as access to goods and services, including lodging. The directives further take on board the far-reaching view of what constitutes prohibited discrimination. In fact, not only is direct discrimination targeted, dealing with less favourable treatment of a person with regard for example to his/her racial class, but equally indirect discrimination, which arises from practices apparently neutral but nevertheless likely, by their very nature, to have the same effect. Moreover, into these forms of discrimination are assimilated the harassment (which creates an intimidating, hostile, offensive or perturbing environment") and, in the framework of the "vertical" directive, instructions to discriminate or incitement to discriminate. Both directives recognise la legitimacy of recourse to positive action, that is to say to the adoption of measures aiming to compensate or avert/anticipate disadvantages existing against persons protected against discrimination. Finally, the "horizontal" directive foresees a particular extension of the idea of discrimination to benefit handicapped people, who must benefit " from reasonable provisions (...) according to their needs to allow such persons to have access to work, to carry out employment or to progress towards it, except when this incorporates unjustified difficulty. In actual fact, the concepts appropriate to the struggle against discrimination suffered by handicapped people 3- "reasonable provisions", unjustified difficulty- allow one to underline what is perhaps the major flaw in these directives, despite the considerable promises which they receive. This flaw concerns the sharing of tasks between public powers and the economic private agent - between the State and the employer - in eliminating discrimination.

Who will foot the bill?

A combative policy against discriminations which costs nothing is insufficient: it is simply sanitizing the market of irrational discriminatory actions which are in progress, but without combatting the discriminating effects of the market itself, the market mechanism which rewards certain qualities or resources which are unevenly spread among the different classes of the population. But the fight against discrimination which demands costs from those who are invited to contribute towards it presupposes questions about the charges of those costs. Who, among public bodies or private economic agents, is going to share the burden of integrating certain groups traditionally excluded? For example, can an employer impose recruitment conditions which end up excluding a disproportionate number of persons of a certain ethnic origin, and reproach the State for not giving these people enough training? On the other hand, can he, and to what extent can he, use the argument of the financial resources entailed, to refuse to train in his establishment people whom he considers insufficiently "employable",who are of an ethnic composition very different from the category considered sufficiently competent?

A policy to serve the market?

It`s in the light of the demands of the market that the Community combative policy against discrimination today sees such spectacular developments: a market which would be sheltered from the distortions of competition, it is said, but also a competitive market, in which an employer would not recruit the most competent for reasons arising from economically irrational prejudice. It would not be the least of the paradoxes of the developments to which the reader`s attention is drawn here, if under community law, equality became the most serious ideological component of the market which claims to use it for its own ends.

Olivier De Schutter Professor at the Faculty of Law in the Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium)

NOTES
1 Compare the modified draft directive of the Council relative to the implementation of of the principle of equality of treatment between persons without distinctions of race or ethnic oroigin(COM(2000)328 final). 2 Cof the draft directive of the Council leading to the setting up of a general framework in favour of equality of treatment for employment and labour (COM(1999)%^%final), introduced by the Commission on 6 January 2000 (J.O.C.E.,27.6.2000, number C177 E/42). 3 It would, moreover, be hoped that a utilisation of these concepts spread especially to those practising a certain religion ( the respect of certain religious prescriptions/ practices may require of the employers certain "reasonable provisions", for example, in the timetable and calendar of the company, or in the menus in the canteens). 4 For developments, O. De Schutter, "The fight against discrimination in work. The implementation of of Article13 of the European Community treaty and its consequences on the labour market". European social Observatory and Federal Ministry of Employment and Labour (Belgium), May 2000.

Analysis

The EU and asylum policies under the French Presidency

The Finnish Presidency gave strong political impetus to asylum policies within the EU, above all at the Tampere summit in October 1999 which exclusively dealt with `justice and home affairs'. The conclusions adopted at that European Council Meeting were a sign of hope that there might be a common European asylum policy `based on the full and comprehensive implementation of the Geneva Convention' and on the guarantee that on those grounds `nobody can be sent back to a place where he might suffer persecution again'. The goal of working towards an `open and safe European Union, fully committed to the fulfilment of the obligations laid down in the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees and other relevant Human Rights instruments and capable of responding to humanitarian needs on the basis of solidarity' is contained in the very preamble of this Convention.

One step forward, three steps back...

Although Forum Refugees (cf. left-hand margin), which took part in the parallel summit of NGOs as a member of the ECRE (European Council on Refugees and Exiles), was delighted that such an approach could be adopted by the fifteen member states of the European Union, it called for cautiousness as to the consequences of the summit. Today, we are unfortunately no longer so certain that such conclusions would be adopted, even if France is claiming that she is sharing responsibility for them with Germany and Britain. The germs of a setback were perhaps already contained in the text that has been adopted and in the bitter negotiations around the draft process, which is reflected, above all, in the differences between the draft conclusions and the final version of the text as well as explicit references to either more tenuous concepts, such as the joint development and partnership with those countries where strong fluxes of migration originate, or more restrictive ones, such as agreements and clauses on re-admission or the control over the flow of migrants and the fight against illegal immigration. It would be audacious to believe that the Community spirit - since the first year of the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam (which stipulates a joint approach of the EU member states towards these problems over a transitional period of 5 years) - should have conquered the strong belief in national policies and indefinitely ruled out the hitherto so dominant concept of an inter-governmental approach. It would even be more unrealistic to imagine a joint approach of EU member states towards asylum policies that would automatically lead to more tolerant asylum laws putting greater emphasis on protection rather than control. On the contrary, the future contents of the legislation, made up of regulations, directives and decisions, which comes under the first pillar of the Treaty, is set to be rather restrictive, which causes us to be even more vigilant. With the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Vienna Programme of Action, the Tampere conclusions and the tableau de bord adopted in March, EU asylum policies are part of a well-defined legal framework and the European Commission is keen to show eagerness in taking this policy further, although it has to share its power of initiative with the governments of its member states during the five-year transition period. In this context, the fact that the agenda for the French Presidency for the second half of 2000, which is determined by the various texts, is already quite heavy (and is in actual fact reduced to a period of 4 months rather than 6, due to the summer holiday and Christmas seasons), as well as the plethora of partners involved in France and the need for a very large number of firm decisions to be taken between different French government departments in the area of asylum policy and related issues does not help to speed up the process of negotiations either. Discussions between member states on a number of issues already on the table of negotiations have seemed difficult from the start, and all these issues are thrown on the table of negotiations in a situation where it would have rather made sense, first of all, to reach agreement on the basic concepts and principles, such as a common definition of refugee according to the Geneva Convention and measures related to additional forms of protection, even before considering putting in place procedures for the allocation of financial and human resources or responsibilities.

Which country should be responsible for dealing with an application for asylum?

Problem no. 1 is how to determine the country which should be responsible for dealing with an application for asylum in the EU. The review of the Dublin Convention (which has been in force since 1997) and the adoption of its corollary, the Eurodac regulation (for setting up a central digital database of fingerprints) are underway. Even so, although we do not want to systematically question the principles of the Convention, we do nevertheless wonder whether this procedure can function in reality and we are concerned about the different ways in which it is applied in different member states or even different regions within one member state. We sometimes observe rather doubtful police practices, such as police handcuffs, police escorting, etc.) and, even worse, decisions which even go so far as to send asylum-seekers back to their countries of origin, in complete violation of the principle of non-repulsion. These points, which are but a few, will imperatively have to be resolved, and clear decisions will have to be made, before this procedure is truly enforced through an EU directive.

The EU fund for Refugees

France will also have to take the lead in the negotiations on a future EU fund for refugees and, if possible, ensure that these negotiations are successful. This is a programme to be implemented over a period of several years, with member states taking their own responsibility for it in the long run by including old budget lines for admission, integration and return of refugees and a reserve for emergency measures in the case of massive influxes of displaced persons (cf. temporary protection). The negotiations are still far from being successful. On the initiative of Forum R‚fugi‚s, French organisations, which largely share the concern expressed by the HCR and ECRE, have adopted a joint position on this programme, emphasising once again the importance of the contributions of NGOs in France and in Europe in implementing measures for creating that fund. It is crucial that, within the scope of action to be given to those states who are to take responsibility for this fund, there should be a possibility for specialised NGOs to be asked for their opinion and advice on the priorities and programmes the government is intending to implement, with the help of additional resources from the EU budget.

Temporary protection

Another problem is the issue of temporary protection in the case of sudden and massive influxes of displaced persons based on the principle of solidarity between member states (or the principle of a `shared burden'). This problem, which has been on the agenda of major EU projects, takes on special significance after the recent admission of refugees from Kosovo. On 24th May, the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive introducing joint minimum standards for temporary protection. France has made its position quite clear in a note to the Council, reaffirming the necessity, among others, for applications to be accepted on the terms of the Geneva Convention in any case, and demanding the principles of twin commitment (by individuals and governments) and solidarity which should exclusively apply to the funding. The negotiations might once again be very difficult, given the extremely varied positions of member states, which are reflected in the different admission procedures put in place in the EU at the time of the Kosovo crisis, which lead some governments today to proceed to forced extraditions to Kosovo.

The issue of admission criteria for asylum-seekers

As for the question of the admission criteria that should be applied to asylum-seekers, France had, first of all, announced, that she would take the initiative of a relevant draft directive (covering accommodation, social rights, freedom of movement, etc.). It appears that, given the timetable, the French government is now more inclined to play for time and wait for the Commission to submit a draft directive on common standards on asylum procedures in autumn. Any discussion about admission criteria will mainly depend on how long it will take to process an application for asylum, and speeding the process up appears to be seen as a priority for all. No doubt, we agree that this is absolutely necessary, although we do believe that speeding up the procedure will not be detrimental to fairness in the processing applications for asylum and that it will not push other problems on the sidelines. The current situation in France (the current quotas are saturated) at a time when the number of asylum-seekers is starting to rise again (with 30,000 in 1999 compared to 22,000 in 1998) is demanding us to give greater attention to these issues. Some interpret these figures rather as a necessity to control the flux of migrants and this is unfortunately encouraged by the recent tragedy in Dover. The only area where the French government seems to be determined to use its full power of initiative is a draft directive on the responsibility of carriers and a draft proposal on the fight against illegal networks. Proof of this determination is the fact that out of the three seminars to be held under the French Presidency, the second one, which will also be open to other countries outside the EU, but not to NGOs, will be focusing on the fight against illegal networks.It is obvious, as the French Interior Minister, Jean-Pierre ChevŠnement, pointed out in Tampere, that `as far as asylum procedures are converned, it is vital to do everything to guarantee absolute respect for the Geneva Convention whilst continuing the fight against fraud and abuse'. Measures taken to control access to the territory must, however, not prevent access to asylum application procedures for persons seeking protection. The external borders of the EU are virtually hermetically closed, but there is, unfortunately, very often no other way of reaching EU territory for asylum-seekers. We must not forget that Article 31 (1) of the Geneva Convention recognizes that some asylum-seekers have no other option but to use illegal entry methods and stipulates that governments should not impose criminal punishments on them. Since we are re-affirming the necessity to adhere to the Geneva Convention, why not fully implement it?

Véronique Planès-Boissac
Forum Réfugiés

Response

Dismantling the myth of `zero immigration'
The response of the FIDH to the Dover tragedy

Shocked by tragic death of 58 illegal immigrants in Dover in the night of 18th June, the 15 EU Foreign Ministers, at a meeting in Santa Maria de Feira, solemnly committed themselves to speeding up their co-operation for `tracking down and dismantling networks of criminals involved in these forms of trafficking and adopting very harsh sanctions against those who are involved in this hidious form of crime'.

The FIDH and its affiliates in EU countries welcomed this prompt response to a tragedy of this scale, while it reminded the audience of the sad truth that human tragedies of this type unfortunately happen every day. Today, we would like to take this opportunity to express our concern about the procedures in place for handling the flux of migrants in Europe. Although it is indeed necessary to develop a joint asylum and immigration policy, in accordance with the conclusions of the Tampere summit, it is rather deplorable that the philosophy which underpins these policies should be exclusively geared towards security and repulsion. There are no (or very few) possible avenues of legal immigration to Europe, which has a double consequence: firstly, it results in people trying to get in through the asylum-seekers' procedure, although this is not the procedure they are supposed to make use of, and secondly, the rise of trafficking in persons towards EU member states. The fight against this form of clandestine trafficking is a priority in view of the need for the respect for the fundamental rights of victims of this form of trafficking. However, it must be accompanied by the opening of legal immigration channels. EU immigration policy cannot be based on the complete closure of frontiers, nor can it be based on the myth of `zero immigration'. As far as asylum is concerned, the European Council reaffirmed in Tampere the importance of `utmost respect for the right to apply for asylum'. On no account must this right be jeopardized through security measures, or, in other words, the closing of borders. The FIDH and its EU member organisations would like to stress that asylum policy and immigration policy are two distinctly different things which must be dealt with in different ways and which cannot be subject to the same legislation. The use of the right to asylum by those who escape from human rights violations and the obligation for member states to accept these people can on no account be subject to the same procedure as the one for the control of the flux of migrants. The problems of asylum and immigration call for a comprehensive solution. Member states do not address the problems which cause migration in an appropriate manner, such as human rights violations, whether it is the violation of civil, political, economic, social or cultural rights in the countries of origin. In this respect, it is deplorable that the solutions put forward by the high profile Working Group on asylum law and migration are all too often aimed at preventing immigration to EU countries, rather than at truly improving the social and economic situation and the respect for human rights in the countries of origin of migrants. We only need to quote, for instance, the EU policy which consists of introducing re-admission clauses for illegal immigrants in the agreements it concludes with third countries. These clauses generally not only cover residents of third countries covered, but also those who have transited through that country. Hence, there is no guarantee whatsoever as to whether there is a satisfactory admission procedure for asylum-seekers which also upholds the principles laid down in the international instruments governing this issue in the country by which the person is `re-admitted'. Hence, those considered might be sent back to their countries of origin from which they presumably escaped from persecution. The FIDH and its member organisations in EU countries urge member states to give the greatest possible attention to the possibility of putting in place legal immigration channels in order to discourage potential migrants from using illegal channels and in order to make sure that the fight against illegal immigration, notably through re-admission clauses or agreements, cannot justify breaches of the 1951 Geneva Convention of which all EU member states are signatories.

We do hope that you will heed our warnings and recommendations.

Paris, 21st June 2000

Open letter to EU Foreign and Interior Ministers and to Antonio Vitorino, EU Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs

Analysis

The opportunity of a Charter of Fundamental Rights

We do not wish to make any comments on the contents of the draft Charter, which is still likely to see a number of changes, but we will examine the opportunity of adopting such a Charter by pointing out the current shortcomings of the system for the protection of fundamental rights in the European Union. Such shortcomings still persist, despite the praetorian structure of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as far as the protection of fundamental rights is concerned and although it is gradually becoming more constitutionalized over time as amendments are added to the Treaties.

The first weak point is related to the deficits in the protection of fundamental rights by the courts (which mainly results from the fact that the right of access to European courts is limited to individuals), as well as the limits imposed on the jurisdiction of the EC in some areas of activity of the European Union. Appeals procedures which are only open to individuals in as far as acts are concerned by which they are affected personally and directly, is inadequate for guaranteeing them effective court protection against violations of their fundamental rights which may result from the laws made by the institutions. Article 7 of the draft Charter, which stipulates the right to effective appeals procedure at court for any individual whose rights and freedoms have been violated, might encourage the EU courts to relax their currently strict conditions for the opening of an appeals procedure to individuals. However, it also says in this article that `it is not aimed at altering the appeals procedure laid down in the Treaties', which means that the weaknesses in the protection of fundamental rights by the courts, which is variable according to the limits imposed on the jurisdiction of the ECR depending on the relevant area of activity of the EU, might persist. The second weakness is related to the fact that the EU is not a member of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which means that the European Court of Human Rights does not have the right to directly address potential human rights violations which might be caused by the EU institutions themselves. Only member states can see their responsibility questioned indirectly. Such a situation is clearly problematic, not only for the EU institutions themselves which do not have the right to defend their acts before the European Corut of Human Rights, but also for the member states who can be accused of breach of the ECHR, although all they wanted was to make sure that they complied with the obligations resulting of their membership of the EU. If the EU were a member of the ECHR, this would allow to establish a control mechanism to ensure the respect for fundamental rights by an institution that is not part of the EU. This would also help to avoid the ambituity that might arise from questioning the responsibility of member states for a breach of the ECHR as a result of acts of the Community or the Union. Finally, if the EU had signed up to the ECHR, individuals would have the possibility to challenge general offences of the Community deemed to be an infringement of their rights and EU membership of the ECHR would bring the number of cases of unresolvable conflict between the two European courts down, and with it the danger of a `double standard' for the protection of fundamental rights by the EU. These different aspects demonstrate how EU membership of the ECHR would be an answer to the genuine need for the effective and coherent protection of human rights in Europe.

Giving preference to a complementary approach

The forthcoming adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by no means questions such an observation. It is fortunate that the draft Charter, in its current version, contains an Article 49 aimed at preventing any regression in the level of protection of fundamental rights, as it results, above all, from the European Convention of Human Rights, which should remain the minimum standard to be respected by the EU institutions. However, such a provision does not in any waysolve the problems linked to the absence of control of the respect for fundamental rights by an external body to the European Union. As was pointed out by the Council of Europe observers during the draft process the Charter, the options for drafting a Charter and membership of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) must be considered as complementary in order to ensure coherence and topreserve uniqueness of standards for the protection of fundamental rights in Europe. Whatever the contents and the status of the Charter, it will not be sufficient on its own to compensate (for) the weaknesses we have pinpointed. This is why the adoption of the Charter should be accompanied by an improvement of access to courts by individuals who are victims of violation of their fundamental rights and the submission of the European Union to an external control mechanism which would result from EU membership of the European Convention of Human Rights. These issues should be dealt with at the current Inter-Governmental Conference, but unfortunately do not really seem to be on the agenda now that Portugal has handed over the Presidency to France. If one wants the future Charter of Fundamental Rights to enhance the visibility of fundamental freedoms recognised in the European Union and play a role in strengthening the legitimacy of the Union, by stressing the values on which it is based, it must have a legally binding character. Otherwise, even a symbolic value of the charter could be questionable, as citizens cannot not make reference to this new text to defend their rights in court which are recognised by them.

Emmanuelle Bribosia Research Assistant at
the Institute of European Studies of the Free University of Brussels

Analysis

Relations between the EU and human rights NGOs:state of play.

For nearly a year relations between the European institutions and NGOs have been taking a new turn.

Two events in particular suggest that it is the European institutions' wish to draw closer to NGOs and pay more attention to their suggestions and demands - the fact that last year the Commission launched an initiative to develop a discussion document on its relations with NGOs in general (cf. article in issue nø 26, 28 October 1999)
- the first human rights discussion forum was organised last December under the impetus of the Finnish presidency of the EU in accordance with the conclusions reached at the European Council of Cologne (December 1998) (cf. Letter nø 30 17 January 2000). This forum brought representatives from the Member States, the Commission and the Parliament, key figures from the academic world and representatives from the various NGOs together to draw up a list of recommendations for the European institutions.

The Discussion paper

The Commission adopted its paper detailing its relations with the NGOs in April 2000.

NGOs were invited to send their comments before the end of April. The Commission summarised the non-governmentals' responses and included as many as it could in its discussion paper.

The human rights discussion forum

The human rights discussion forum appears now TO BE WORKING ON A REGULAR BASISthe first forum took place in Brussels under the Finnish presidency (December 1999). The interest generated by this meeting has been unquestionable. Those participating found it useful as it enabled them to share thoughts on some of the current themes occurring in the European calendar as well as on issues they considered to be priorities. Last May the Portuguese presidency in its turn organised a meeting on the role of human rights and democratic principles in EU and non-member country relations. Without being a forum meeting in its own right, this event was seen more as a follow-up meeting halfway between the Finnish forum and the next one due to take place under the French Presidency in December 2000 in Paris. While these regular meetings are to be applauded, the way in which the sometimes very pragmatic recommendations adopted at the close of the forums have been subsequently implemented should be closely watched. The NGOs regularly take advantage of the forums' conclusions in order to give them as much weight as possible and to make references to them on EU policies in the area of human rights which cannot be ignored. The FIDH is convinced of the usefulness of this exercise and intends to follow the preparation and organisation of future forums closely. The next meeting has been arranged for December

Isabelle Brachet

Analysis

Dialogue on human rights between the EU and non-member countries

Since the Maastricht Treaty, "the development and the strengthening of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms" appear among the EU's common foreign security policy (CFSP) objectives1. In an attempt to implement this ambitious objective, the EU clearly favours a 'positive' approach that uses dialogue. The EU has therefore instituted a "political dialogue" involving human rights and democracy issues with no less than 48 countries and regions. The Union constantly refers to a "critical dialogue" which it continues to maintain with China, Iran or Sudan.

An "Alibi" Dialogue?

In its first annual report on human rights the European Union talks about its dialogue with China in the following way: "This dialogue is an important means of discussing subjects which are a cause for concern in an open and frank manner. The European troika and representatives of the Chinese government meet twice a year to talk, amongst other things, about the EU's concerns over the evolution of human rights in China." It goes on to acknowledge the limits of this approach: "the harsh repression of dissidents in December 1998, which the Union repeatedly condemned and which it discussed with the Chinese authorities, has shown that progress made at international level does not mean a genuine improvement in the country's human rights situation as a whole". It concludes, "the EU intends to centre its human rights dialogue with China on concrete improvements to the situation" However the form, the objectives, the methods and the results of these "dialogues" as well as how they are evaluated remain vague. The Member States are very reluctant to give an account before the elected assemblies of the process involved. The NGOs insist however on the necessary transparency of such processes and the European Parliament has asked the Council and the Commission to submit to it the reports from every session of these dialogues2. Let's hope that this is the first step towards greater transparency Where the non-member country is linked with the European Union via a recent agreement of co-operation, of association or of free trade, the "political dialogue" is partially formalized. It takes shape during the periodic meetings of the association or co-operation councils required by the agreements. Furthermore, those issues that specifically relate to human rights and democracy should increasingly start to dominate these meetings now that the agreements between the EU and non-member countries contain a "human rights clause".

"Human rights" clauses - the test.

In fact, it was during the nineties, under the impetus of NGOs and the European Parliament that the practice developed whereby explicit clauses relating to respect for human rights and democratic principles were included in agreements that bound the Community and its member states to non-member countries. Thus, some fifty countries have assented by way of agreements with the EU to make "the respect for democratic principles and human rights" an "essential element" in their relationship. By committing themselves through an agreement of this type, the countries in question and the Community expressly agree to be subject to each other in their respect for democratic principles and human rights. They also accept that a serious violation of these principles might lead to the other contracting party taking "appropriate measures" against them which could end in a suspension of the agreement. If the countries that took part in the Lom‚ Convention are included then about 120 countries are tied to the EU by a clause of this type. Such an impressive string of countries - from Estonia to Argentina by way of Vietnam, Morocco and Burundi - affords the EU access to some very real legal leverage in the area of human rights. In accordance with a Council decision this inclusion has been obligatory since 1995. It was as a result of Australia's astonishing refusal to accept even the principal of such an arrangement that a draft agreement between it and the Community was to founder in 1998!

An uncertain impact

Whilst the importance of these "human rights clauses" should be emphasized, their actual impact remains difficult to evaluate. To date only the "Human rights clause" of the Lom‚ Convention has been officially invoked by the EU in connection with Togo, Niger, the Comoros, Guin‚e Bissau and the Ivory Coast.. Following serious irregularities recorded in June 1998 during the presidential election in Togo the European Union used the "Human rights clause" of the Lom‚ Convention to demand what concrete measures were envisaged by the government of Togo to remedy the situation. As the established "dialogue" proved fruitless, the Council of the European Union decided to suspend all co-operation with Togo in December 1998. The coup d'Etat that took place in Niger in April 1999 was to provide the second example of the implementation of the "human rights clause" of the Lom‚ Convention. The EU initiated consultations with Niger. In view of the steps announced by the latter, it ruled out the idea of suspending the "application of the Lom‚ Convention" but told the government of Niger that it would be paying close attention to the commitments it had made. Following the military coup d'Etat in the Comoros on 30 April 1999, it was decided that the consultations which had taken place under the Lom‚ Convention (art. 366 bis) had been fruitful. The Council therefore ended the consultation in February 2000 but reserved the right to regularly examine whether the Comoros continued to honour their commitment to restore democracy. Following the deposition of president Vieira in Guin‚e Bissau in May 1999, the Council initiated consultations with this country in accordance with article 366 bis. In December of the same year it declared it was satisfied with the outcome of these consultations. Finally, following the December 1999 coup d'Etat in the Ivory Coast, the same procedure was followed, but here also the consultations satisfied the EU which in February 2000, decided not to suspend co-operation under the Lom‚ Convention, but to monitor the situation closely to see that the Ivory Coast respected its commitments. On the other hand, not one of the human rights clauses from the bilateral agreements has ever been officially implemented. Glancing through the list of the fifty or so countries involved, it's difficult to say that it's because there would be nothing to find fault with as regards "the respect of democratic principles and human rights" For all that must we conclude that they are merely superficial? The actors within the Community believe that just their presence alone suffices as a deterrent and that they are an incentive to progress in the area of human rights. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the European institutions often appear to be satisfied with phrases that remain largely theoretical, as if the mere existence of these clauses were an end in itself. If the sanctions are only to be ised as a very last resort, the human rights clauses must be given some genuine content if they are to have any meaning.

Poor Implementation

The way in which the human rights clauses are implemented to date remains poor - should their potential effects be feared? An initial tool for measuring progress or lamenting a decline could take the form of an annual report on the human rights situation in every one of the countries linked with the EU through a human rights clause. The NGOs could participate in writing it and a real dialogue could be established between the parties. These reports could easily take into account work carried out by specialist international organs:- the supervisory organs of UN instruments, the work of special rapporteurs Human rights dialogue should take place in a privileged setting, i.e. when the foreign affairs ministers of participating countries meet together under the terms of the agreements. The agenda for these meetings should systematically reserve a place for human rights. It is no longer a question of being satisfied with a system whereby every party "repeats its commitment to human rights" without having discussed the least individual case or specific problems (e.g. reform of a piece of legislation which conflicts with international standards etc..) It has also been proposed that a minimum percentage of the funds destined for co-operation between the EU and non-member countries linked to the EU by a human rights clause be reserved for work in human rights areas agreed upon by all of the parties to the agreement. A failure to agree over which projects would result in the non-member countries losing the benefit of this percentage 3. Finally, experience shows that a "dialogue" on human rights monopolized by those in power and casually discussed over coffee behind closed doors risks being turned into an exercise in self-satisfaction. Civil society and particularly those organisations working to defend human rights should therefore be allowed to take part in a dialogue that affects them more than anybody.

It is often the NGOs who are working in defence of human rights in the affected countries who use the human rights clauses, demanding that the EU institutions give them substance In the resolution it sanctioned on 15 June in Tunisia the European Parliament seemed to have adopted some of these : - "concerned at the human rights situation in Tunisia", it recalled that this country is linked to the EU by an agreement of association which contains the human rights clause. It then took advantage of this fact by asking the association council to "supply as soon as possible a joint evaluation on respect for human rights in Tunisia so as to be able to address this problem on a common basis, and invites the Commission to present to the Parliament a report on how the human rights situation has developed in Tunisia." It also charged the parliamentary delegation for relations with Maghreb with the task of dealing with the human rights question by involving representatives from civil society"4. Maybe it's not so futile to hope that gradually, under the impetus of the NGOs, the "Human rights clauses" will eventually live up to their original expectations.

Caroline Stainier

Notes:
Present art. 11 para 1 of the EU Treaty European Parliament resolution on human rights in the world, 16 March 2000, para. 30. The EU and the Central Role of Human Rights and Democratic Principles in the Relations with Third Countries, EU Human Rights Conference, Venice, 25-28 May 2000, p. 37. See also the European Parliament resolution on human rights in the world, 16 March 2000, para. 32: `... insists that human rights be a permanent item on the agendas of the association councils and envisages the creation of joint working groups for rights issues."

Analysis

After Lom‚ IV: New ACP-EU Partnership Defined

On the 25th anniversary of the Lom‚ Convention, 23 June 2000, a new agreement was signed in the Benin capital Cotonou, establishing a 20-year partnership between the 77 countries of the ACP (the71 ACP signatories of the Lom‚ Convention plus the six new island states of the Pacific) and the EU. The "Cotonou Agreement", the fruit of eighteen months of negotiations, defines a new model for ACP-EU co-operation, incorporating developments brought by trade liberalisation and globalisation.

The prime objective of the new agreement is the eradication of poverty, by encouraging the progressive and harmonious integration of the ACP countries into the world economy. Founded on respect for human rights, democracy and good governance, the agreement was enriched by a political dialogue between the partner countries, essential to community support. In terms of lasting developments, the essential elements of the partnership are: encouragement of gender equality, long-term management of the environment and natural resources, promotion of the private sector and of active participation of the local people as well as economic and social leaders. This new definition of a genuine partnership is the fruit of intense negotiations, but also of criticism and a lengthy period of lobbying by several NGOs.

Commentary by Gordon Deuchars, Senior Policy Officer at the Liaison Committee for Development NGOs with the EU. (Extracts from an article published in the Liaison Committee newsletter, Liaison Info, Jan-Feb 2000, no. 5)

The negotiations which led to this agreement began with the publication in 1996 of the Commission's Green Paper proposing new directions for the EU's relationship with the ACP. NGOs and others were strongly critical of the content of the Green Paper, particularly for putting more emphasis on market liberalisation than on poverty eradication and equity. On the other hand the discussion process the EC organised following the Green Paper was a step forward in consulting civil society on major development policy proposals, though the range of organisations concerned was hardly comprehensive. After that came successive stages of the discussion and adoption of the EU and ACP negotiating mandates and then the official negotiations starting in late 1998. European NGOs and ACP civil society have been active throughout, with the Liaison Committee's own involvement gathering pace at the time of the Conference on "Beyond Lom‚ IV" in April 1997. One important by-product of the post-Lom‚ debate has been increased networking among ACP civil society organisations, with the emergence of the ACP Civil Society Forum. The results of the negotiations provoke mixed reactions. What we can see so far of the probable results of the negotiations is quite mixed. Some steps forward have been taken in areas where we can see that civil society views have had some influence (such as focussing more on action against poverty, and providing an increased role for "non-state actors" including civil society). However there is a general concern about how these good intentions will be implemented, and NGOs are still concerned that important areas like trade will in practice contradict the development objectives that the agreement is supposed to be based on. Looking at some main areas:

Poverty, gender equity and social development
It looks as if the aims and principles of the new agreement will be based to a large extent on the objective of reducing and eventually eradicating poverty and will endorse the international development targets resulting from Copenhagen, Beijing and the other UN summits and conferences in the 1990s. The real question is how far the Commission and the ACP States will change their practices when they get down to drawing up and implementing national indicative programmes. There will be a clause obliging both sides to follow up the principles agreed, but it remains to be seen how far poverty eradication and gender equity are really mainstreamed in the complex programming, financial and technical provisions. A lot of monitoring and follow-up lobbying will be needed.

The role of civil society
It looks as if there will be recognition of an increased role for civil society and other "non-state actors" (including the private sector). Civil society can be informed and involved in consultation on co-operation policies and strategies. In principle this is a considerable step forward. Financial resources can also be provided to support local development processes and civil society can also take part in implementing projects and programmes. Capacity building for civil society can also be covered, including strengthening capacity for dialogue with the authorities. These are worthwhile results. Here too however, implementation will be a massive challenge and it looks as if there may be loopholes enabling governments to avoid serious dialogue if they are determined to do so. It is also significant that both EU and ACP are giving a lot of emphasis to the role of the private sector as a motor for development. Like civil society, the ACP private sector has become increasingly organised around this debate. Both civil society and the private sector need information in order to participate: it is agreed that there should be increased information and transparency for the populations of the ACP countries. Again, this will need to be followed up.

Trade
The negotiations will start no later than 2002 and the new arrangements will enter into force no later than 2008 and initiate free trade zones from 2020. The less developed ACP countries, who will not be in a position to negotiate partnership agreements, will continue to benefit from the preferential terms accorded to all less developed countries around the globe from 2004 onwards (as part of the wider preferences system). However, many of the concerns NGOs and others have felt all along remain: what will be the impact of these new trade arrangements on poverty eradication, gender equity and sustainable development? Will this be taken into account in the "comprehensive review" planned for 2006?
Two major questions remain:
- how can the commitment to focus on poverty and gender, and involve civil society, be put into practice? Answering this challenge will involve dealing with the large body of financial and technical implementation provisions, and building up dialogue between governments and civil society at country level.
- how can the trade agreement be made into a supportive framework for sustainable development, rather than something which potentially undermines it? This will be a major challenge which will require both detailed thought and expertise and political will.

>> The Council of Europe

The Council is made up of ministerial representatives of each of the member state governments. Its membership varies according to the subjects under discussion (foreign affairs, transport, finance, etc). The Council is the principal legislative body of the European Union: it co-ordinates the economic policies of the member states, settles the community budget with the Parliament and concludes international agreements with third party countries or international organisations (negotiated by the Commission). The Council is assisted by a Secretary-General, based in Brussels, who prepares its reports. The Secretary-General reports to the Secretary-General of the Council, currently Javier Solana, who also represents the EU at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The role of President of the Council is held in rotation by each member state for a period of six months. After France, Sweden and then Belgium are to take this role.

>>The European Commission

The Commission is made up of twenty commissioners _ including one president _ designated by the governments of the fifteen member states, who are to act entirely independently of their national government and only in the interests of the Union. Their principal prerogatives are: - the Commission has the right to take the initiative in legislative matters. However, the legal process of the Union is jointly undertaken by the three EU institutions. - "Treaty Guardian": the Commission checks that member states, individuals and companies respect community law (e.g. competition law). - Executive body of the European Union: the Commission manages the EU's budget and actions community policies. It also assumes an important role as negotiator of trade agreements with third party countries or groups of countries, at the request of Council.

>> The European Parliament

The Parliament is made up of 626 MEPs, elected by direct universal suffrage by the citizens of the EU.

Through a succession of treaties, the powers of the Parliament have been progressively extended. In general terms, it controls community activities: The Commission and the Council are accountable to it for most of their activities. This control is exercised by monitoring reports, addressing verbal and written questions to the Commission or the Council, etc. The Parliament's legislative powers are lesser or greater according to the subject area,. Sometimes, the Parliament vetoes acts on the basis of agreement with the Council (joint decision procedure). Sometimes, its opinion is required (e.g. so that an international agreement can be concluded). At other times it is merely consulted. The European Parliament shares budgetary authority with the Council. It is only with the Parliament's agreement that the annual community budget can be settled. In this way, the Parliament can express its political priorities. The MEPs are grouped into political parties, currently eight. Their reports are prepared by seventeen subject-specific commissions and twenty inter-parliamentary regional delegations, which are responsible for relations with third party governments.

FIDH's European Union office shares the same premises as the Belgian Francophone League of Human Rights, in the very centre of Brussels, and just a few steps away from the area where the various European institutions are concentrated. For a year and a half, there have been two permanent staff. This office in Brussels plays the role of "facilitator", or intermediary between FIDH's 105 member organisations, FIDH's headquarters in Paris, and the main European Union institutions. Depending on the appealsput to it, it gives guidelines to the representatives of the member organisations who come to Brussels to meet MEPs, members of the European Commission or of the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe. This may be to present a report about the human rights situation in their country of origin, to draw attention to a particularly problematic situation or even to ensure the continuation of projects financed by the European Union. Particular effort is made to maintain contact with the European Parliament. FIDH provides regular information to MPs on current situations, on the strength of which urgent resolutions are adopted each month. For example, intensive lobbying by the Brussels office contributed in large part to the adoption of an urgent resolution on Tunisia in June 2000 _ a resolution for which many human rights activists had been hoping for more than four years. FIDH's Permanent Delegation sends out information with equal regularity on the situation regarding human rights and democratic freedoms where they relate to negociations and the follow-up of certain agreements concluded between the European Union and Third Countries. These agreements are, as a matter of course, accompanied by provisions relating to respect for the State of Law, democratic principles and human rights. By informing the civil servants in charge of these files, and also by insisting to those responsible for the EU's foreign policy that there should be real dialogue on these issues, FIDH aims to ensure that these provisions have real scope. There is almost daily contact between FIDH and other NGOs represented in Brussels _ whether it has related to European policy on asylum, reforms in the management of lines of finance concerning human rights, more general reforms in the structures of institutions or in plans for the European Union Charter for Fundamental Rights, there has been joint reflection. Specific actions are also regularly organised together, such as letters, appeals and joint declarations, thematic conferences or press conferences. Together with the European offices of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the Brussels office organises each month, on European Parliament premises, meetings of the Human Rights Contact Group. Providing a space for civil servants from the European institutions, European MPs and NGO representatives to meet, this forum, devoted each month to a topic with current relevance in Europe, is a chance for institutions and NGOs to exchange information informally and to coordinate the activities of those NGOs with representation in Brussels. Today, FIDH is rated one of the top authorities among those represented in Europe _ shown by the ever more numerous appeals it receives in Brussels. This result is unarguably the fruit of efforts maintained by all those who have worked at the delegation since its creation in 1992.

Marie de Coune

Kyrgyzstan: Repression _ Elections

In an open letter addressed to the President of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan on the 19th of June, the FIDH expressed its concern at the repression conducted against the opposition pro-democracy movements in the country. In particular, the FIDH denounced the violations of civil and political rights reported over the recent parliamentary elections in February and March 2000. Numerous cases of fraud have been confirmed, including corruption of the electorate, threats to opponents and presidents of electoral commissions, arbitrary disqualification of opposition candidates and numerous acts of violence against demonstrators protesting against the election results. More generally, NGOs and independent media are frequently harassed. The FIDH's concerns are further heightened by the impending presidential elections, due in four months. It appears that the authorities are currently seeking to neutralise the opposition leaders: a military tribunal, behind closed doors, is currently hearing the case against Felix Kulov, the main opponent of the regime. Another opposition leader, Daniyar Usenov, has already been disqualified in a court case last May, and other opponents could well face the same fate. Furthermore, the President of the electoral commission has lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Justice against foreign-funded NGOs intending to observe the presidential elections. Further news: the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva assessed Krygyzstan on 11 and 12 July 2000. On the 10th, the FIDH, jointly with the International League for Human Rights, invited the Commission members to a briefing in which two Kyrgyz NGOs, the Kyrgyz Committee for Human Rights (KCHR) and the Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, presented their alternative report and drew the experts' attention to the following points: the absence of independence in the judiciary system (corruption, system of nomination of judges), the harassment of independent NGOs and particularly the KCHR, the situation of women (domestic violence, pimping) and prison conditions, including torture. The Commission for Human Rights will give its conclusions at the end of July 2000.

Chechnya:
The Council of Europe must be consistent

At the June session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the FIDH, Reporters sans FrontiŠres and the Chechen Committee presented a joint paper dated 26 June reminding the Assembly that none of the demands imposed on Russia the previous April had been fulfilled. On the contrary, the country continues to violate the European Convention on Human Rights, the prospect of political dialogue with the Chechen authorities and the implementation of a cease fire becomes more distant every day, and no concrete action can be credited to the Russian authorities in charge of protection of human rights. In a parallel development, the regime's hardening stance is starkly evident in its strategy of muzzling the independent press and a growing concentration of power. The members of the Assembly were largely supportive of the concerns of the three organisations, as witnessed by their adoption of Resolution 1221 (2000) which confirms the validity of their prior recommendations, urging the Committee of Ministers to begin proceedings to suspend Russia and to refer the matter to the European Court of Human Rights. The reaction of the representatives contrasts with the refusal of the members of the Committee of Ministers to adopt a strong stance with the Russian authorities. Indeed, once again the character of the Committee is shown in the words of its current president, M Lamberto Dini: his comment on his return from the Russian mission on 27 June was, "the central problem in Chechnya is lack of security". His position is nothing more than an encouragement to Vladimir Putin to pursue the path he embarked on nine months ago, and to do so with total impunity. When are we to see a significant change of direction in the Committee of Ministers?

Israel: Campaign against new bill

In a letter dated 20 June 2000, the FIDH has asked the President of the European Union to try to convince the President of the Knesset not to adopt a bill regarding the imprisonment of soldiers who are not prisoners of war. In fact, it seems that the only aim of the Israeli authorities in this matter is to legalise the detention of two Lebanese prisoners, despite a recent ruling by the Supreme Court that the detention of prisoners who are not a danger to national security is illegal. This bill violates the right to a fair trial and contradicts humanitarian law in that it does not retain the distinction between civilians and soldiers. It has been adopted at its first reading on 18 June, with the second reading due shortly.

Council of Europe : Two new member States

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which met in plenary session on 28 June 2000, has approved the candidacy of Armenia and Azerbaijan, which must now be approved by the Committee of Ministers. During the process of Armenia's candidacy, the FIDH produced a summary document on the human rights situation there to the representatives and the press, emphasising:
 the absence of prior dialogue in the formulation of legislation, notably that regulating the legal profession; economic and social constraints which directly affect the implementation of legislative change and limit its scope (corruption, etc) and finally the continuance of behaviour inherited from the recent past
 the particularly high level of complaints registered in recent years directly linked to economic and social rights; persistent maltreatment and abuse of detainees; the maintenance of special military courts and the sentiment of impunity in the police and the army even when in this area the authorities demonstrate the political will to break this circle of violence _ in 1999, 8 policeman were brought to trial and 130 were dismissed.
 The question of prison supervision, currently the responsibility of the Minister for Internal Affairs and the continuance of capital punishment _ 31 people condemned to death are currently living in 10 cells under a special detention regime
 Insufficient basis to allow the independence of judges, whether in legislation or system of nomination and promotion of judges, where they are directly dependent on those in power.
 Serious loopholes in the law leaving lawyers vulnerable to those in power and without the means to counter them.
 Finally, obstacles to free access to official information and the punishment of certain crimes. The FIDH supports the recommendation of the Assembly and the undertakings stipulated therein and underlines the importance of Armenia fully accepting the principle of individual petitions to the European Court (art. 34 of the CEDH). The FIDH, in conclusion, feels that the authorities have demonstrated a real will to draw Armenia into the path of democratic reform. The membership of Armenia in the Council of Europe could contribute to reinforce the essential process of strengthening and stabilising the system of justice in the country.

Cambodia:
tribunal to judge Khmer Rouge leaders

Discussions between the UN Secretary-General's representative, Hans Corell, and the Cambodian government regarding the establishment of a court to judge Khmer Rouge leaders began on 6 July. The framework they eventually agreed on is to establish a Cambodian court with the participation of international judges and prosecutors. Mr Corell has submitted a proposed memorandum of agreement to the Cambodian authorities which is to be signed by both parties after the Parliament has adopted a law allowing it to be carried out. The ball is therefore in the Cambodian authorities' camp. See the FIDH report "Human Rights Violations in Cambodia: Justice and the Struggle against Impunity", no 284, Dec 1999, 25FF.

Martin Ennals Prize awarded to human rights campaigners

The Martin Ennals Prize has been awarded this year to Immacul‚e Bihaheka, Director of the PAIF (Promotion and Support for Women's Initiatives), which is based in Goma in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The prize was awarded by Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
More details from: Fondation Martin Ennals Tel: +41 22 755 5252 Email: huridocs@comlink.org web site: www.digitalsmile.com/mae

International Criminal Court:
Two year anniversary

Two years after the adoption in Rome of the statute establishing the International Criminal Court, the permanent supreme international legal body which is to judge cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, the Court is not yet ready to begin its work. As a result of its location in the Hague, the Rome statute has to be ratified by the 60 countries of the UN. So far no more than 14 have done so. Amongst these is Senegal, the first to ratify, Belgium, Canada and France. This last, which submitted its ratification to the UN on 9 June, nonetheless saw fit to attach a declaration attempting to exclude war crimes from the Court's remit for a period of seven years, if the crimes were committed by French citizens or on French territory.

Reading

CPI/The Statute _ introduction and analysis (in French)

The introduction to and analysis of the "Statute of Rome", which has just been written by William Bourdon and Emmanuelle Duverger, offers all you can ask of a reference work, because it is timed to fill a gaping hole _ it is the first of its kind _ when the fight against the impunity of the most heinous villains is exciting growing public interest. It is as clear a presentation of the way the institution works as can be achieved with such a complex statute; and the authors provide skilful subtitles to enable the reader to understand its gaps and shortcomings _ the shady areas of the statute. Many obstacles and reservations, from national sovereignty to reasons of State, littered the course of negotiations. At the end of the day, the Court, fruit of a compromise that was as fragile as the battles were crude, seems restricted, and the hope slim that one day it will funtion effectively. An effective fight against impunity also presupposes that complementarity between the Court and national criminal jurisdictions, specified in the first article of the statute, be strengthened, and that the commitments taken by the States are upheld. These two areas are inseparable to consolidate this international justice system and this work offers us the key.
Published by Collection Point, unabridged _ 46FF (270 pages)

Focus

Iran/Defenders in danger In a letter addressed to Hubert V‚drine in his capacity as President of the Council of General Affairs of the EU, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (FIDH/OMCT) alerted the EU presidency about the multiple attacks directed at Iranian human rights defenders. It particularly drew his attention to the following situations: _ The secret arrest and detention since 22 April 2000 of Akbar Gandji (cf. IRNappeal 001/004/OBS 030), writer and investigative journalist. No charge has yet been officially brought against him. _ The charge of "anti-Islamic activities" and "activities which threaten national security" against Mehrangir Kar, lawyer, and against Chala Lahidji, director of a publishing company (cf. appeal IRN 002/005/OBS 032). Placed under arrest on 29 April 2000, they were released on 21 June, but the charges against them were maintained. _ The arrest on 27 June 2000 of Mrs Chrin Ebadi, lawyer and winner of the Human Rights Watch award 1997, and of Mr Mahsen Rohami, lawyer (cf. appeal IRN 003/006/OBS 062). Charged with "defamation of the authorities", their trial has been going on behind closed doors since 15 July 2000. This repression comes when, in the last few months, independent newspapers have been closed down, and when, in the same way, several journalists moving in reformist circles have been arrested or charged. On 17 July, Emadeddine Baqi, journalist for the daily paper Neshat, was condemned to five and a half years in prison for "insulting Islam" and "the dissemination of false information". The night before, Mohsen Kadivar (cf. The Observatory's Annual Report), reformist theologian close to President Khatami, was freed after having served a sentence of 18 months in prison for "propagation of false information" and "public order offences".

Release

Tunisia/testimony FIDH has published, jointly with the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network and the Committee for the Respect of Freedoms and Human Rights in Tunisia, the testimony of Kh‚ma‹s Ksila, Vice-president of the Tunisian League of Human Rights, on the reality of prisons in Tunisia. With the title "We do not have the right to be silent", this report provides a damning insight into prison conditions in Tunisia. Kh‚ma‹s Ksila's observations are first hand, because he spent more than four years in Tunisian jails for simply having expressed his views. His testimony is poignant and helps to lift the silence that has grown around the fundamental rights situation in Tunisia.
Testimony on the reality of Tunisian prisons - June 2000, 25FF

Release

Chad-Cameroon/Report On 21 July 2000, FIDH published a investigative report on the project to extract and export Chadian petrol via Cameroon, entitled "For whom does this petrol flow?" In this report, FIDH insists in particular on the need to instigate a mechanism for rigorous and independent surveillance which will monitor the execution of the project in all its different stages.
Report no. 295/July 2000 _ 25FF

Focus

Yugoslavia Imprisonment/Freedom of Expression
7 July 2000 _ YUG 004/0007/OBS 069

Arrest on 8 June 2000 of journalist Miroslav Filipovic, correspondent for the independent daily newspaper Danas and the AFP. Arrested on 8 June 2000 and placed in preventative detention on 10 June, he was released two days later by the military prosecutor who decided not to pursue the case. However, on 22 May, this same prosecutor announced the start of proceedings and decided to place Mr Filipovic in preventative custody for 30 days. On 13 June, he was charged with "spying and the dissemination of false information", for which he could face 15 years in prison. He was charged with the publication of articles reporting in particular the testimonies of Serbian officers describing crimes committed by the Yugoslav army in Kosovo.

Harrassment of NGOs
16 July 2000 _ YUG 002/0006/OBS 053

Several Serbian NGOs for the defence of human rights have received "visits" by the police, accompanied by members of the finance police. These checked the financial records of the associations and interrogated the members about their activities. Among the associations "visited" were: "Women in Black", the "Centre for Antiwar Action" (member of FIDH), the "Forum for Ethical Relations", the "Helsinki Committee of Lawyers for Human Rights in Serbia".

Interrogation/Harrassment
5 July 2000 _ YUG 003/0007/OBS 066

On 24 June 2000, Mr Igor Olujic, lawyer and member of the "Humanitarian Law Center" was temporarily arrested by the police and interrogated on the activities of his association and its financement.

Urgent Appeals

Egypt
Arrests and arbitrary detentions
3 July 2000 _ EGY 002/0007/OBS 065

Arrest, on 30 June 2000, of Dr Saad El Din Ibrahim, Professor of Political Sociology at the American University of Cairo, and Director of the Ibn-Khaldoun Centre. He is accused, among other things, of having raised funds without the authorisation of the authorities and of having accepted funds from abroad with the aim of runnings activities which would be harmful to national interests. He was placed under supervised custody for 15 days while an investigation was carried out. Other members of staff from the centre were also arrested, including Nadia Abdel Nour, Financial Director, and documents were confiscated. As well as being an urgent appeal, this situation is also the subject of a letter addressed to Hubert V‚drine, in his capacity as President of the Council for General Affairs of the European Union, in which FIDH has asked the EU to take firm action, considering that the incriminated finances in this case are community finances along the budgetary lines of MEDA-démocratie.

Malaysia
Trial/Harrassment of NGOs
30 June 2000 _ MYS 001/0006/OBS 064

Trial marked by numerous irregularities of Mrs IrŠne Fernandez, Director of "Teneganita" the Malaysian organisation for the defence of human rights. She is accused of having published "false information" following the publication in August 1995 of a report describing the violations of human rights perpetrated against migrant workers in government detention camps. Her trial started in June 2000 and has been subjected to numerous adjournments and suspended hearings. It has become the longest judicial enquiry in the history of Malaysia.

The Philippines
Extrajudicial Executions
23 June 2000 _ PHL 001/0006/OBS 060

Assassination by four police officers, on 8 June 2000, of Ustadz Hadji Esmael Omar and Akmad Samin, members of the NGO "Task Force Mindanao". They were suspected of belonging to the rebel group "Moro Islamic Liberation Front" which is currently in conflict with the government.

Release

Democratic Republic of the Congo
27 June 2000 _ RDC 004/0006/OBS 048.01
Release, on 26 June 2000, of Messrs Georges Kazimbika and Félicien Malanda Nsumbu, respectively Finance Director and Executive Secretary of the National Collective of Development NGOs in Kinshasa. The first was arrested on 29 May 2000 and the second on 2 June 2000.

27 June 2000 _ RDC 001/0004/OBS 031.01 Release, on 15 June 2000, of Mr Kule Thatha, Coordinator of the Yira Foundation for Human Rights. He had been taken on 25 March 2000 by agents of the Congolese Information Agency (ACR/Beni). It must be stressed that Mr Thatha remains under obligation toreport each week at the security office of ACR/Butembo.

21 June 2000 _ RDC 005/0006/OBS 052.01 Release of Valentin Baelongandi, member of the Lotus group. He had been arrested on 1 June 2000 by the security services of the Congolese Assembly for Democracy/Goma.