La Lettre

FIDH Newsletter

Homosexuality and the Muslim world

A taboo exposed?

>>> Three men decapitated in Saudi Arabia, 23 young Egyptians condemned to
sentences of up to five years: the world appears to be discovering a new
form of persecution - the repression of homosexuality and/or "deviant sexual
behaviour" in the Muslim world.

---

And yet, men and women have been accused of "sodomy", "same-sex marriage",
"debauchery" or "undermining religion" and sentenced to prison or even death
without international public opinion expressing any concern. The media
interest and emotion recently aroused by some of these cases are salutary,
although they have sometimes been instigated by regimes wishing to
demonstrate their moralistic credentials to their populations or hoping to
use such trials for more political purposes. Moreover, such discrimination
against homosexuals is not unique to Muslim countries.

• The "Queen Boat" case

On 11 May 2001 in Cairo at around 2 o'clock in the morning, 52 persons were
arrested on a barge on the Nile - the "Queen Boat" - known among, other
things, to be a gay meeting place. Worried about their fate, FIDH referred
what is now called the "Queen boat case" to the UN working group on 31
August.

These persons were detained for six months before being tried at a special
court - the High Court for the Security of the State, whose judgements are
unappealable. This court was established under state-of-emergency
legislation.

"52 people suspected of homosexuality arrested by the police... locked in cages and exposed to the condemnation of the media (...)"

During the proceedings, an FIDH observer noted serious violations of the
right to a fair trial. The conditions in which these people were
incarcerated - locked in cages and exposed to the condemnation of the
media - were contrary to the most basic human rights, particularly article 5
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says: "no one shall be
subject to torture, punishment or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment".
There are several reports that the detained Egyptians were tortured (Cairo
Times). In the end, 23 persons were given prison sentences of up to five
years for "immoral behaviour" and "insulting religion", with no right of
appeal. FIDH referred the matter to the UN working group for a second
time on 27 November.

It should be emphasised here that the arguments put forward by the defence
were highly revealing. Instead of denouncing discrimination against
homosexuals, the defence attempted to prove that the accused were
heterosexual. Nevertheless, counsel for the defence did emphasise that the
case should be heard by an ordinary criminal court, not a special court.

Moreover, FIDH was particularly shocked by the sentencing of a minor aged
17 - Mahmoud Abdel Fattah - to three years prison for the same offences.
FIDH appealed for his immediate and unconditional release.

• "A sin in the eyes of God, a crime for society"

Although the "Queen Boat case" attracted international media attention, we
should not lose sight of the fact that most Muslim countries have developed
a legislative arsenal to use against homosexuals (with the possible
exception of Jordan, where there is apparently no mention of crimes or
offences of this type).

In Lebanon, the criminal courts continue to try homosexuals under article
534 for the criminal code of 1943 which provides for prison sentences of up
to one year for "any physical contact and union that is contrary to nature".

In Iraq, legislation is even stricter. Homosexuality is taboo in the country
and prison sentences may be given. In Bahrain, sentences of up to ten years
are handed down, sometimes combined with corporal punishment.*

However, in some countries, punishment simply consists of death.
"Homosexuality in Iran is punished under Islamic law. It is a sin in the
eyes of God and a crime for society", said the Iranian ambassador to The
Hague in 1987. According to these interpretations of the sharia, punishments
applicable to persons guilty of such practices vary:
- for an adult man: death
- for a minor: 74 lashes
- for a woman: 100 lashes
(death after three repeat offences).*

However, it is in Saudi Arabia that the most recent executions have been
observed. On 1 January 2002, three persons were decapitated for having
homosexual relations. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where the most serious
violations of the most basic rights are common currency, is not subject to
international pressure. While everyone agrees on the barbarity of the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia is part of the coalition against
terrorism and so escapes any criticism.

• From religious repression to political weapon

With such penalties being imposed, it is easy to see how the accusation of
homosexuality can be used as a political weapon by such authoritarian
regimes.

For example, in Iran the Sunni leader of the South, Ali Mozafarian, was
executed in April 1992 for "espionage, adultery and sodomy". His video-taped
confession was broadcast on television and in the streets of Kazerun and
Lar. In 1994, dissident writer Ali Akbar Saidi Sirjanni was similarly
accused of "espionage and homosexuality". A member of a sect of dervishes
was also sentenced to death in 1995 for an "obscene act of sodomy".

In Malaysia, where majority of the population is Muslim, the accusation of
"sodomy" was used to neutralise one of the main opponents of the regime,
Anwar Ibrahim.

Finally, while such an accusation has never been used by the regime in Cairo
to harm an opponent, the concept of "insulting religion" has recently been
used against Nawal El Saadawi, a human rights militant accused of apostasy
(see report by the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders,
September 2001). It is strange that the State Security Court, whose purpose is
to combat any attack on the regime, including religious fundamentalism, is
now serving it in this way. This is proof that the "Queen Boat Case" represents
wholesale political manipulation, intended to divert the Egyptians from an
economic crisis that the authorities are unable to shake off, rather than a real
attempt to preserve "public morals". It is nevertheless clear that by encroaching
upon the territory of the Muslim clerics, the authorities are killing two birds
with one stone. By acting in the in the terrain of intolerance, the powers
that be hope to steal a march on the Islamists. The anti-Americanism
propagated by some of the media and nourished by the Israel/Palestine
conflict also has a role in this process: "in the human rights market,
America is shamelessly trying to impose its concepts on local associations
by encouraging them to defend the rights of homosexual perverts, so that
they will fall into the abyss of general debauchery," to quote from Al
Ahali.

• No focus

But should we focus on Islam? Other religions also condemn homosexuality,
such as Catholicism and Buddhism. In Israel, where the debate is raging
between ultra-orthodox elements and the gay and lesbian movement, Rabbi
Shlomo Benizri of the ultra-orthodox party Shass said in late 1999 that
homosexuals were "mentally ill" and that that society should "finance the
organisation of special closed sections for them in psychiatric hospitals".
He added: "They suffer from a genetic disorder and the ministry of health
can help them." Shlomo Benizri was then Israel's minister of health and is
now minister of employment and social affairs.

On the other hand, voices are being raised in the Muslim world calling for a
debate about this hitherto taboo subject and numerous gay Muslim sites are
being created (1). Furthermore, while in northern countries discrimination
against homosexuals is tending to be criminalised and their rights are
tending to be extended (PACS in France, gay marriage in certain countries,
etc), homophobia continues to exist in these countries, at least verbally, if not
legally.

The persecution of homosexuals is to be found, now and historically, in all
totalitarian regimes. It is a sign of severe intolerance. Between 1933 and
1945, the Nazi regime arrested around 100,000 men for homosexuality; 10,000
of these were sent to concentration camps (cf the documentary Paragraph 175
by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman). Representatives of UN members
attending the Durban conference against racism rejected the notion of
"discrimination" for sexual minorities.

Some human rights defenders, and some personalities like Robert Badinter
(Member of the French Senate), are rightly calling for homosexuals facing
imprisonment or even death to be granted the right to asylum. Such decisions
are already being handed down in France and homosexuals from countries like
Algeria, Romania and Sudan have been able to obtain the status of refugees.

Homosexuals are expiatory victims of autocratic regimes, victims of flagrant
violations of the right to a fair trial, to a private life, or simply the right to life,
homosexuals and fundamentally victims of discrimination due to their sexual
orientation. This is reason enough to demand that in they should benefit
from assistance or asylum if they face the threat of persecution.

Gaël Brilhot
Elin Wrzoncki

(1) http://www.kelma.org
http://glas.org/
* Source: International Lesbian and Gay Association

People rally in response to the crisis

>>> The population of the Republic of Argentina are, at the moment, victims of massive human rights' violations, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, following a long process, which originated in the last military dictatorship. This slow process has left millions of Argentinians with nothing to do and has caused a growing violation of their rights to education, health and housing.

Today in Buenos Aires, 500,000 people live in makeshift and/or flimsy housing, while the local authorities build too few homes, thousands of which are destined for property speculation.

As part of prolonged and serious human rights' violations, anyone who complains is arrested and taken to court, Emilio Ali is still detained for having asked for something to eat (cf La lettre de FIDH n°51, October 2001, editor's note). Raul Castel, already convicted in the past, finds himself again in custody. In August, about fifty members of the Teresa Rodriguez Movement were taken prisoner for having asked for a working schedule. Similarly, there are detainees for the events, of 19 to 29 December, mostly people of low income arrested beside super-markets. As well as the repression of those who claim their rights, there is regular repression of the poor by the police. Between 10 and 11 December, the police and the security forces murdered more than 1000 people.

The responsibility of the international financial institutions for the crisis situation in Argentina is undeniable. The illegal debt, which grew during the whole of the military dictatorship, was made possible by the action of those international institutions, which developed successive adjustment plans (privatisation of
transport and other public services, reduction of state control in all aspects of economic life, flexibility of labour). These measures were intended to guarantee repayment of the debt, but secured enormous profits for the large multinational companies.
The military and the political parties in power, who implemented those plans, also bear responsibility. Similarly, the role, played by Argentinian businessmen, who have benefited and are benefiting from those plans, from the support of the military dictatorship and the current system of repression should be made clear.
Those currently in power worked with Menem (Carlos Menem, ex-president of Argentina) when the country's economic and political dependence upon the United States increased. At first, President Duhalde was his vice president, when he was in charge of shaping the government programme in the main province of Argentina. Among the office holders under Duhalde, the Minister of Defence is involved in allowing state terrorists to go unpunished, the President of the Central Bank has been an IMF (International Monetary Fund) official for 20 years and the Minister for Foreign
Affairs signed a decree on "the liquidation of subversion" in 1975. The "officialist" party (the party in power) and the rest of the Alliance have claimed to be applying a new adjustment agreement. This is obvious, if we are to believe all those draft budgets under consideration up to the present moment.

This policy, however, has today run up against the buffers of massive social mobilisation. About fifty district assemblies have come into existence in Buenos Aires, as well as an inter-district assembly. The core theme of the majority of their claims is the struggle for human rights:

• "no to repayment of the debt" (a necessary condition for the achievement of economic and social rights)
• "trial and punishment of the murderers of 20 December"
• "no to the Supreme Court" (which approves all the human rights' violations perpetrated by successive governments)
• "nationalisation of the bank and private companies..."
• "they're all the same" (complete changeover of the political class)

The severe repression, which began at dawn on 20 December against the uprisings (which came later), left 30 dead and several hundreds injured. The repression continues today with less severity. We, on behalf of the human rights' organisations, demand that there be an investigation into those acts. In addition, on 29 December three young men were murdered by a policeman in the port district of Floresta, which was the reason for new demonstrations and police repression. Since then, the neighbours are demanding justice.

The measures claimed by LADH (Ligue Argentine des droits de l'Homme) are as follows:

• halt the foreign debt recovery
• investigate and punish those responsible
• abandon the neo-liberal policy immediately
• dismantle the repressive system inherited from the military dictatorships (Argentine federal and "provincial" police, rural police force and SIDE - State Information Service, i.e. security services)
• bring to justice and punish those responsible for state terrorism and those responsible for crimes committed during the subsequent constitutional régimes
• release political detainees, who are as follows:

  1. members of la Tablada
  2. members of the ORP(People's Revolutionary Organisation)
  3. Carlos Bertola
  4. Diego Quintero
  5. all other people detained for having asked for food, for blocking roads or, in other ways, for having demanded respect for their rights.

Gerardo Etchevery
Argentinian League for Human Rights

Nigeria First execution under the Sharia legal system

FIDH strongly condemns the execution on 3 January 2002 of Sani Yukubu, condemned by the Sharia court of Katsina for the murder of a woman and her two children. According to information from various sources, Sani Yukubu did not receive a fair trial and was not given the opportunity to lodge an appeal against the decision of the court. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Nigeria, "everyone shall be entitled to a public and fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
FIDH is very concerned by this first execution under the Sharia legal system, since its expansion into a dozen Northern Nigerian states. FIDH reiterates its total opposition to the death penalty and fears that other death sentences will be pronounced in future in Nigeria. FIDH fears also that executions under the Sharia legal system are the cause of new tensions between Muslims and Christians in the north of Nigeria.
FIDH is particularly concerned by the case of Safiya Hussainin Tungar-Tudu, a woman of thirty, condemned to death by the Gwadabawa Sharia High Court on 10 October for having committed adultery. The case is currently before the Sokoto Court of Appeal, which must decide on Monday whether or not she will be stoned. Another woman, Hafstau Abubakar is the subject of a trial for adultery and risks being put to death.
FIDH asks the Nigerian authorities to make sure that legislation forbids the imposition of such sentences and to take all necessary measures to ensure respect for fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by international instruments for the protection of human rights, as well as respect for the inherent right to life for every human being.

Statement issued 11 January 2002

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT:

THE 58TH COMMISSION AND THE NEW INTERNATIONAL DEAL

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

 

What better excuse could Vladimir Putin have found than "the war against terrorism" to justify the catalogue of acts committed against Chechnyan civilians since September 11? In China, Tunisia, Colombia and a number of other countries the anti-terrorist "crusade" has been a perfect excuse or opportunity to reinforce the tools of political oppression. Human rights activists have been arrested, individual freedom rights have been flouted, and the terrorist State has triumphed. The war against terrorism is necessary, but fought blindly it may sweep away the very universal rights it should be based on. Will the UN Human Rights Commission, which will be held in Geneva from 18 March, ratify this statement of fact or sanction the serious deviations which have been witnessed since 11 September? FIDH, which strongly condemned the attacks on the World Trade Center, compiled a list of serious crimes against freedom committed in the wake of the disaster, and wants the Commission to condemn them before the existing international Human Rights organisations. The post-11 September context will therefore dominate the Commission's 58th session, even though the US was not re-elected in 2001 for the first time in the Commission's history.

 

>>> The UN Human Rights Commission will hold its 58th session from 18 March to 26 April 2002

In the light of current international events, the session will probably focus on the need to combat terrorism, but also - and this will be where FIDH will concentrate - on the arbitrary repression this engenders. The temptation will be great for member states to show that they are unanimous in their unlimited support for the struggle against terrorism, and consequently to close their eyes to the resultant draconian restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms. Such restrictions are justified in the US, Jordan, Zimbabwe and elsewhere by the imperative of eradicating any attempt at independence or muzzling autonomist movements on the basis of lumping everyone together (forget about state terrorism, human rights Defenders and democrats compared to terrorists, etc) and vague concepts (widely expressed charges and deliberately vague definitions of terrorism, etc). They also allow therepression of civilian populations in Chechnya, the Chinese province of Xin Jiang, Tibet and Palestine to be pushed to the background.

FIDH will condemn any slippage under the cover of combating terrorism. Denouncing any terrorist acts against civilian populations will be an opportunity to remind the players involved that the response to such acts should be framed by the demands of justice and not inspired by motives of vengeance. We will join other independent human rights organisations and the appeal from 17 rapporteurs and special representatives of the Secretary- General denouncing attacks on freedom..

This year, the United States will not be present at the votes, as its mandate to the Commission was not renewed last May. Their presence might be missed on two counts. Firstly, it was the US that initiated the resolution on China, and one month before the opening of the 58th session, there is no sign that any other state will initiate it. Secondly, in its most remarkable act last year, the US enabled a resolution to be proposed condemning Russia for violations in Chechnya, breaking the consensus over a text drawn up by the EU and Russia. On the other hand, no one would mourn their systematically obstructive attitude to any resolution denouncing violations flowing from the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, the adverse effects of globalisation from the point of view of enjoying economic, social and cultural rights, and the establishing of standards or international instruments to combat human rights violations, such as the International Criminal Court, of course, but also the additional protocol to the Convention against Torture, or the planned Convention on forced disappearances. Nor would we miss the positions they have taken, or recently reaffirmed, in open support of the Chinese, Russian and Israeli authorities in their "fight" against terrorism. But, far from deserting Geneva, they will make their presence felt in the corridors, pushing some of their well-known positions, or supporting their new key "allies".

In geographical terms, FIDH's priorities will be: the adoption or renewal of resolutions on China and Chechnya (see p.12); the adoption of a strong resolution on Colombia (see p.13), condemning the authorities' passive approach to persistent impunity; the sending of a force to protect civilian populations in the occupied Palestinian territories, in accordance with international humanitarian law; the renewal of the mandates of rapporteurs for Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

We will also target other situations, continuing the action conducted over the past year: the attitude of the Iranian authorities to protecting human rights, to ensure the renewal of the mandate of the Secretary General's Special Representative; the problematic deterioration of the human rights situation in the Central African Republic and the Republic of the Congo; restrictions on opposition and torture in Kirghizistan, Vietnam, Libya and Georgia.

We also intend to denounce the degradation of economic and social rights in Argentina and Algeria, as well as for the indigenous populations of Mexico, and the harmful effects of corruption of the authorities in Georgia.

In terms of our priority themes, FIDH hopes once again to draw the Commission's attention to the situation of

human rights defenders, who continue to be the targets for discrediting campaigns by many States, by the judicial system. FIDH will draw attention to Guatemala and Belarus, based on the conclusions of recent missions by the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, and will denounce the harassment (particularly judicial) of human rights defenders in Tunisia and nearly 80 other countries. The work carried out by the Secretary General's Special Representative, Hina Jilani, should be strongly recognised and supported; she has excelled herself in denouncing alarming situations and has worked incessantly, at a first-class level.

We will also focus on the question of forced disappearances, to ensure that an inter-session working group is set up, with unlimited composition, to work out plans for a strong, prescriptive and binding instrument to protect victims of forced disappearances. Similarly, in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, we will call for the recognition of individual's right to appeal and for the establishment of an inter-session working group, with unlimited composition, to work out a draft optional protocol to the international pact on economic, social and cultural rights. In addition, the Commission should ratify the work done by the working group on the additional protocol to the convention against torture and adopt a draft protocol establishing a strong and effective international torture-prevention mechanism.

Finally, FIDH intends to ask the States to show their willingness to collaborate effectively with UN bodies by means of a declaration of permanent invitation to the UN's human rights protection mechanisms. Such a declaration would attest to their commitment to respecting human rights and would facilitate procedures and enhance their efficacy.

Antoine Madelin

Item 9

Written Statement submitted by the International Federation for Human Rights FIDH

THE COMMISSION IS DISHONOURING ITS NAME

>>> Among FIDH's more pressing items for action by the next Commission, the move to condemn the human rights situation in both China and Chechnya has met with a lukewarm response from members of the Human Rights Commission. The fact that the EU, which is the main player to instigate resolutions on particular countries, has already shown a certain squeamishness on the subject will make it even harder to address.

• CHINA - A RESOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A CHAMPION.

In China the difficult situation of religious and ethnic minorities; the arbitrary use and abuse of detention; systematic torture, and similar inhuman and degrading practices; the disproportionate abuse of capital punishment, and the Tibetan question are all causes for concern which have been highlighted by many independent Human Rights organisations such as our affiliated group, Human Rights in China.

Each year, however, the Human Rights Commission chooses not to investigate China, proceeding instead to a vote of non-action (meaning that there will be no resolutions or discussions on that country). This is made possible by the support of the less democratic members of the Commission (Algeria, Libya, Pakistan and so on) and the abstention of democracies still in their infancy who bow under the pressure of Chinese diplomacy. The non-action vote blocks a resolution that would traditionally have been instigated by the US, and this would typically have sparked a great deal of anti-American sentiment and the feeling that the Americans were just out to discredit their "mightiest commercial rival".

This year, however, things will be different. The US is no longer a member of the Commission, so it is up to another state to get the ball rolling on the China question. The EU seems to be the only group that can do this without fearing any really damaging economic or political consequences, yet historically it has not been strongly committed to such courses of action. It has certainly not demonstrated its intention to condemn the situation in China to the next Commission, preferring instead to engage in bilateral political discussions (the next stage is a meeting in Madrid on 3 and 4 March between the Chinese authorities and the Spanish president of the EU).

If the prospect of a resolution on China seems unlikely another strategy may be developed based on criticism of the High Commissariat's technical co-operation programmes with China (see note). They have come up with a seminar on "re-education through work", a method of detention which has been strongly criticised by the UN's anti-torture Committee, as well as its working party on arbitrary detention. It is estimated that since 1945 some 3.5 million people (including minors) have been through "re-education through work" in China, for considerable periods of time. Following this latest seminar Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, managed to get the Chinese government to agree to review the practice. Nothing has yet been done about it, and it continues to happen. In spite of this the High Commissariat has continued in its joint programmes with China, and in 2001 it signed a new agreement (Memorandum Of Understanding) based on a new series of seminars dealing with other topics. It is blindly pursuing a policy of dialogue, while no progress is made in the Human Rights situation. By citing these joint technical ventures several States - in particular those who fund them - could ask for a progress report on the programmes in order to measure their effectiveness, monitoring developments or criticising a lack of action or even backtracking. This sort of report would be the first opportunity to highlight the Human Rights situation in China, in an organisation which, when dealing with China, is nor worthy of its name.

• CHECHNYA - EUROPEAN TIMIDITY

Reports of serious flouting of international law affecting Chechnyan civilians, like those in 'Chronicles of Violence' (Memorial - FIDH, August 2001) are rife. This situation has been condemned by the main independent Human Rights organisations, yet there is every chance that it will escape the attention of the Commission.

Last year's negotiations do not bode well. Right up to the eleventh hour the EU had been trying to agree on a resolution with the Russians, and they ended up with a document that was particularly soft on Vladimir Putin's government. When the agreement was adopted the US vetoed it and prevented the Commission from accepting it by consensus. Subsequently a stronger resolution was presented, denouncing the authorities' responsibility. It passed with a slim majority.

This year, without the US, the EU will have no-one to act as a counterbalance in negotiations. There are real fears that a resolution will be passed which is soft on the Russians in a bid not to ruffle their feathers - as demonstrated by the welcome received by Vladimir Putin during his recent visits to Western Europe, where he pledged to flight "terrorism".

The Commission's 2001 resolution was a dead letter. The independent and impartial enquiry into the massive, systematic violations of human rights and humanitarian law never got off the ground, although the Russians promised to implement it in the "consensual" agreement that was brokered in the first place. No international groups have been able to go to Chechnya to investigate the situation. The EU seems to approach the Commission with the same intentions to hold "constructive dialogue", but all too often this does not cover human rights satisfactorily in spite of the common foreign policy guidelines that were adopted last July, which emphasise the importance of matching policy with the human rights situation…

Antoine Madelin

>>> This year FIDH will submit to the Commission a written report on Colombia, which condemns, amongst other things, the continued murders and disappearances for political reasons. Although the events of 11 September did not directly affect the political situation in Colombia, the United States has done all it can to cause the collapse of the already fragile peace process. Luis Guillermo Perez, Assistant General Secretary of FIDH and member of the Collectivo de Abogados (see opposite) here gives us his impressions of the process and its implications internationally.

• What do you think of the announcement made by the Colombian President Mr Pastrana on 9 January 2002 to the effect that he was suspending the peace process, and then his decision to maintain negotiations and the area of the cease-fire until April?

The announcement of the suspension of the negotiations is chiefly the result of pressures from the United States government, hostile to the process of dialogue for two reasons. On the one hand, arms sales by the United States to Colombia amount to 1600 million dollars, by no means a negligible sum. On the other hand, the peace process might affect the coming into force of NAFTA (The North America Free Trade Agreement) in 2005. In fact, if the peace process succeeded, opposition could be mounted against the free trade agreement.
Besides, a final breakdown in discussion would also serve the interests of the extreme right in Colombia and strengthen the candidature of Alvaro Uribe Vélez, the candidate who is closest to the paramilitaries.

We are very happy with the continuation of the peace process and, in particular, with the support for the peace process of the UN Secretary- General's representative, Mr James Lemoine, and also with the role played by the French Ambassador, as part of the group of friendly countries.

The enemies of peace are still very powerful in Colombia, but this crisis has revealed that the majority of Colombians, neighbouring countries and the international community are in favour of it. Finally, the state and the guerrillas have realised the importance of some international support or even mediation within the peace process.

• In the light of the general election in March 2002, what are the prospects for the peace process?

In Colombia, the run-up to elections has always been an opportunity for the violence to intensify. The announcement of a conditional ceasefire and an end to hostilities ought to allow Colombians to have democratic discussions and to participate freely. Nevertheless, we are extremely concerned by the way in which the paramilitaries are strengthening their position throughout Colombia. Paramilitary groups, which control most of the country, are exercising strong pressure on the juntas de Acción Comunal (local authorities), who force the population to vote for this candidate or the other in the elections to the Congress of the Republic (the Senate and the House of Representatives). The violence is not overt in this process of terror and the elections seem peaceful to international observers, who are only around for a few days. Under these conditions, there is danger of the Congress, already considered corrupt and to be only interested in attracting votes, moving towards representing mainly paramilitary interests. We have asked that candidates close to the paramilitaries should not stand for election and that the civil servants implicated be brought to justice. The President, however, has gone no further than to ask the political parties not to nominate these people.

• How do you see the role of the international community within the peace process?

The experiences in Central America, where the international community has supported the peace processes, politically and economically, are full of lessons. It is imperative that the international community give stronger support to the civil population in Colombia and that the mechanisms of adequate participation are set up. Furthermore, humanitarian agreements must be entered into, linked with effective monitoring procedures. It is also necessary for the recommendations from the UN institutions in Colombia to be implemented. A number of ways of applying pressure, e.g. commercial, can be employed. The fact that we are dealing with a democratically elected government can not be used as a pretext for not implementing these recommendations.

Finally, a general agreement on respect for human rights and international humanitarian law must be entered into. The process of building peace in Colombia demands the active participation of all sections of society, especially the most deprived. The peace process must be a process of permanent change in society and of regeneration of the social and institutional fabric in Colombia.

Interview by Rosa Sánchez