Aadel Collection
Report by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. S. Amos Mako, appointed pursuent to resolition 1984/35 of 24 May 1984 of the Economic and Social Council
UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC
AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL.
DJ tr.
GENERAL
F/ON. ‘i/i o 5/17
12 Fobr ary 1905
)riginal
E NGLISI-I/F RECII/
S PA1f 1SF
CCNIIISS ION ON lFJNJ iT F IGI-ITFJ
Forty—firBt session
Pgenda item 12
C UESTICIT OF T1I V ICLAT ION OF I-IUILJJi FIGHTS
IN FITY PART (P TI-D WORLD, WITH I RTICULI .R
(T}IER DERTifl)ENT GLLJrTRL F 3 AITD
1JT1) FUNDAI 1TTAL FREED(FS
REFERENCE PC) COLON IAI .PJTD
TORE. ITCE. 105
rE ionS
Ni'. S nmo ia point ccl
suant to resolution 190 ‘1 of 24 Ma 1934 of tHe
Economic and Social Council
.. : . :
GE .85—10721
E/CN .4/1985/17
page ii
CON NTS
II TTRODTJCTION . . . ... .. .. .. ...
I. ACT IVIP]ES OF TEE SP8CIAL R PPORTE1JR . . . . ...
A. Communications .. .... . ....
B. Urgent appeals to Goveninients .. ,
C. Visit to Suriname .......... . . ,.... ,.
II. PROTE CT ION OP TEE RIGHT TO L JFE: REV 18W OF LdWS
A1 I1 SITUATIONS .... . .. . .
A. Articles 6, paragraph 2, and 15 of the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights ...... ..... .....
B. Article 6, paragraph 4, of the international
Covenant on Ci.:vil and Political Rights
C. Article 6, paragraph 5, of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . . . . . ,.
B. Articles 6, paragraph 2, and 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights .. . ... . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . .....
E. Article 7 of the InternaUonal Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
P. Article 9 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
G. Article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Law
Enforcement Officials . . . ..... . . . ... . . . . . .. ..,
H. Inquiries and/or investigations of alleged
violations of the foregoing provisions .. .....
III. SITUATIONS AND CASES ...... ..... .......
A. General background .... .. . . .... .... .. . ... . ....
B. Situations . . ..... . ,. . , .. . . ... . . . , ,. . . ,.. , , ,.,
Dr. CONCLUSIONS AIID PECOEEEHTAPIONS .. ... .... ... . . . .. .
51—58 25
59—62 27
63—72 28
63—69 28
70—72 28
73—79 30
ahs
1—6
7 21
7 - 17
18 — 19
20 — 21
2
2
5
20
22—62 21
31—38 22
39 23
40 23
41-45 24
46—47 24
48—50 25
E/cN . 4/198 5/17
page iii
Annexes
I. Economic ani Social Conncil resolution 1984/35
I I . General Assembly resolution 39/110
III. Note verbale datei 25 April 1984 from the Secretary—General
to Governments
t v. Note verbale iated 21 September 1984 from the Secretary—General
to Governments
V. Visit by the Special Rappor eur to Suriname
El CN 4ll985l 17
page 1
INTRODUCTION
1. OEe right to life was internationally recognized for the first time in
1948 by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted and proclaimed by
General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948) as one of the
“inalienable rights of all members of the human family . Article 3 of the
Declaration states: ‘ t Everyone has the right to life, liberty and securjty of
person ' t . Since then protection of the right to life has gradually become a
subject of international concern and awareness of it has been growing
steadily in the international community.
2. However, it was only a few years ago that the question of summary or
arbitrary executions began to draw the attention of various international
forums as a separate subject for discussion in the field of human rights.
In the United Nations the question has been considered since 1980 and
two reports have been submitted to the Commission on Human Rights
(EICN.411983116 and Add.l and Add .llCorrd and EICN.411984129) by the
Special Rapporteur on summary or arbitrary executions who was first appointed
in 1982 pursuant to Economic and Social Council resolution 1982135.
3. On 14 March 1984, at its fortieth session, the Commission on Human Rights
adopted without a vote resolution 1984150, containing a draft resolution
concerning summary or arbitrary executions for adoption by the Economic and
Social Councils OEe draft resolution was adopted by the Economic and Social
Council on 24 May 1984 as resolution l984l 5 entitled 1 Sunimary or arbitrary
executionst (see annex I)
4. OEe General Assembly at its thirty—ninth session adopted resolution 391110
entitled ‘ Summary or arbitrary executionst? (annex II).
5. In the previous two reports (EICN.411983116 and Addd and Add.llCorr l
and EICN.411984129), international standards relevant to the subject were
outlined and national laws and regulations were examined in regard to
safeguards for protectionof the right to life. In the first report
(EICN.4,/1983116 and Add .l and Add .llCorr l) reference was also made to
specific information on various situations in which summary or arbitrary
executions allegedly took place. In the second report (ElCN 4ll984l29),
situations in which summary or arbitrary executions were reported to have
taken place were analysed in general terms on the basis of the type of
situations and the factors which could trigger summary or arbitrary
executions In the second report, the activities of the Special Rapporteur
during the past year were mentioned, particularly concerning cases in which a
summary or arbitrary execution was alleged to be imminent or threatened.
6. OEe present report is submitted pursuant to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1984135 and is intended to update the information contained in
previous reports and to inform the Commission of the Activities of the
Special Rapporteur during the past year, including examination of situations
in which summary or arbitrary executions allegedly took place, and which
have been brought to his attention since his last report. In accordance with
the resolution renewing his mandate, the Special Rapporteur also paid special
attention to cases in which summary or arbitrary execution was allegedly
imminent or threatened.
E/CL4/l985/l7
page 2
I. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
A. Communications
7. Since the Economic and Social Council decided in resolution 1984/35 to
continue the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for another year, he has engaged
himself in activities that fall within the sphere of his mandate, as described
below
8 The Special Rapporteur visited the Centre for Human Rights at the
United Nations Office at Geneva from 18 to 19 July and on 29 August for
consultations He visited Geneva again from 9 to 18 January 1985 to finalize the
report 0
9 On 25 April 1984, a note verbale was sent to Governments with a copy of
General Assembly resolution 38/96 of 16 December, entitled tvSl mary or arbitrary
executions' (annex lilY, On 21 September 1984, a note verbale was sent to
Governments seeking information concerning the question of summary or arbitrary
executions (annex IVY
10. On 31 October 1984 letters were sent to 19 Governments concerning
allegations of summary or arbitrary executions in their countries., On
25 January 1985 letters were sent to two more Governments,
ll In the course of his present mandate, the Special Rapporteur received
communications from the following Governments:
Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belize, Cape Verde, China, Colombia,
Cyprus, Denmark, El Salvador, Gambia, Guatemala, Honduras, India,
Indonesia, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Kenya 9 Kiribati, Liberia, Netherlands,
Pakistan.) Panama Peru, Portugal, Philippines Qatar, Somalia, Spain,
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland, Thailand
l2. The Special Rapporteur also received communications from the following
non—governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and
Social Council:
Amnesty International, Baha i International Community, Commission of
the Churches on International Affairs, International Commission of
Jurists, Pax Romana.
13. In his last report (E/CN 4/l984/29, paragraph 31), the Special Rapporteur
refrained from mentioning the names of States in which summary or arbitrary
executions were alleged to have taken place either because the representatives
of those countries had requested more time to investigate, or because the
Special Rapporteur was of the opinion that the time given to investigate was too
short. The Special Rapporteur is pleased to report that a number of those
Governments have communicated their replies to the allegations and that a
dialogue is continuing between him and some of the countries concerneII
l4 However, the Special Rapporteur is disappointed to note that, despite the
reminders sent on 24 October 19849 some Governments have not replied to his
request for information concerning the allegations of summary or arbitrary
executions, The text. of the letter of 24 October 1984 reads as follows:
E/CN.4/1985/17
page 3
Vt 1 have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1984/35 of 24 May 1984 by which my mandate as Special Rapporteur
of the Commission on Human Rights on Summary or Arbitrary Executions w s
renewed.
I should like to refer also to my letter of 1 November 1983 and
attachment, copies of which are attached hereto The letter and attachment
concerned allegations of inadequate safeguards for protection of the right
to life and requested information thereon from Your Excellency t s Government.
Although I received replies from a number of Governments concerning
allegations communicated to them by my letter of 1 November 1985, I felt
that other Governments might require more time in order to look into the
allegations addressed to them and had so stated in my report to the
Commission on Human Rights at its fortieth session (E/CN.4/1984/29,
paragraph 31, attached). To date, no reply appears to have been received
to my letter of 1 November 1983 and attachment addressed to Your Excellency t s
Government.
I am now in the process of preparing my report to the forty-first session
of the Commission on Human Rights. My report will refer to the information
forwarded to Your Excellency s Government by my letter of 1 November 1983.
In order to make my report as complete as possible, I should be grateful to
receive any information that Your Excellencyvs Government may wish to
furnish on the allegations mentioned in the above- mentioned letter.it
l5 The Special Rapporteur had not received replies from three Governments,
namely, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Libya and Malawi by the date on which the
report was completeII The allegations communicated to those Governments by the
Special Rapporteurvs letter of 1 November 1983 are reproduced below.
(a) Islamic Reoublic of Iran
uAccording to this information, in February 1983, 22 Bahatis were
sentenced to death in Shiraz, of whom 16 were executed on 16 and 18 June l983
The names of those executed on 16 June 1983 were given as follows:
Bahram Afnan, aged 48;
Bahram Yalda'i, aged 23;
Jamshid Siyavushi, aged 39;
‘Inayatu'llah Ishraqi, aged 60;
Kurush Haqbin, aged 27;
‘Abdu'l—I-iusayn Azadi, aged 60.
The names of those executed on 18 June 1983 were given as follows:
Nusrat Yalda'i, aged 54;
‘Izzat Janami Ishraqi, aged 50;
Ruya Ishraqi, in her early 20s;
Tahirih Siyavushi, aged 32;
Muna Mahmudnizhad aged 18;
Zarrin Muqini, in her early 2 0 s;
Shirin Darvand, in her early 20s;
Akhtar Thabit, aged 19;
Simm Sabiri, in her early 20s;
Mahshid Nirumand, aged 18.
E/CN.4/1985/17
page 4
According to the information, Suhayl Hushmand, aged 24, arrested and
imprisoned in Shiraz in late 1982, was hanged on 28 June 1982.
It was further alleged that a total of 142 Baha'is had been executed
since the beginning of the Islamic Revolution in February 1979.”
(b) Libya
“According to this information, on 7 April 1983, six persons were
executed. The identity of two of the six was given as Mohammed Mahadhab
Haffaf and Ali Al Ghariani, and the other four were Palestinian secondary
school teachers. Mohammed Muhadhab Haffaf and Ali Al Ghariani were alleged
to have been publicly executed in Tripoli and t.he four Palestinians were
alleged to have been publicly executed in Ajdabia.
It was further alleged that three persons were facing imminent
executions after having been sentenced to death in July 1983 by the
Permanent Revolutionary Court. The names of the three were given as
Farid Ashraf, Muhammad Hillal and Mustapha Al Nawari .
Cc) Malawi
“According to this information, in March 1983, an opposition leader,
whose name was given as Atati Mpakati, was killed in Zimbabwe by two
Malawians who, charged with the killing, reportedly said that they were
acting on official orders.
It was further alleged that, on 18 May 1983, three cabinet ministers
and a legislator, whose names were given as Dick Matenje, Aaron Gadama,
John Sangala and David Chiwanga, were shot dead by security forces or law
enforcement officers or with their complicity.”
16. The attention of the Special Rapporteur has been drawn particularly to
those allegations of executions, either actual or imminent, or deaths, which
may possibly have taken place or may take place in the absence of the safeguards
designed to protect the right to life embodied in international instruments,
such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1/
(articles 4, 6, 7, 14 and 15), the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners, 2/ the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being
Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment 3/ and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. 4/
1/ General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI).
2/ First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the
(United Nations publication,
Sales No. 1956,IV .4), annex l.A., as amended by Economic and Social Council
resolution 2076 (LXII),
3/ General Assembly resolution 3452 (XXX).
4/ General Assembly resolution 34/169,
E/CN.4/1985/17
page 5
17. Those allegations which the Special Rapporteur has taken into consideration
concern:
(a) Actual or imminent executions
(i) Without a trial
(ii) With a trial but without
(a) A fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and
impartial tribunal established by law, and/or
(b) Prompt notification of the charge against the accused,
(c) Right to legal defence and counselling,
(d) Right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or confess
guilt,
(e) Right to appeal to a higher tribunal according to law,
(f) Right not to be tried or punished again for an offence for
which the accused has already been finally convicted or acquitted,
(g) Right not to be held guilty of any criminal offence on account
of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence,
under national or international law, at the time when it was committed,
and not to be imposed a heavier penalty than the one that was
applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed.
(b) Deaths which took place:
(i) As a result of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during
detention,
(ii) As a result of abuse of lethal force by police, military or any other
governmental nr ‘ uasi—governmental forces.
(iii) As a result of assault by paramilitary groups under official control.
B. Urgent appeals to Governments
18. The Special Rapporteur, in the course of his mandate, received appeals from
various sources making allegations of imminent or threatened summary executions
which might appear prima facie relevant to his mandate. In this context the
Special Rapporteur addressed an urgent message by telex to the Governments
concerned, namely, Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Guatemala, the
Islamic Republic of Iran, Kuwait, Liberia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan
and the United Arab Emirates The Special Rapporteur expresses his appreciation
to the Governments of Bangladesh and Somalia for their replies to his urgent
messages.
E/CN.4/ 1985/ 17
page 6
l9 The messages of the Special Rapporteur to the Governments concerned are
reproduced below:
(a) On 29 May, 27 June, 28 August and 11 September 1984 the following
telexes were sent to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan:
29 May 1984
I have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council Resolution 1984/35
by which the Council renewed my mandate as Special Rapporteur of the
Commission on Human Rights on the question of summary or arbitrary executions.
My attention has been drawn to the allegation of possible execution of a
person, whose name was given as Dr Mohammad Younis Akbari. According to the
1 •1 c. I r r f hi r .o TJ f -r F.h rw 9 M 1 Q A hir th 1
/ r J
Revolutionary Court in Kabul and no appeal was allowed against the sentence
Without in any way wishing to interfere with matters which may pertain to
the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of Your Excellency t s Government, may I
emphasize that the right to life Is a most fundamental and crucial human
right and appeal to you on a purely humanitarian basis to ensure that no
executions take place 2 especially if such executions result from a summary
trial or any other procedure in which the rights of the individuals are not
fully protected, in particular may I refer to articles 3 and 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6 and 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Afghanistan
is a party It would be appreciated if I were to receive from Your
Excellency!s Government any information concerning the safeguards applied
in the above mentioned case
27 June 1984
I have the honour to refer to my cable 03703 of 29 May 1984 concerning the
allegation of possible execution of a person whose name was gi Ten as
Mohammad Younis Akbari My attention has been further drawn to similar
allegations of possible execution of three persons who were recently
sentenced to death by special revolutionary courts, The names of the three
were given as Sanat Gol sentenced to death in Pol e Khornri district
Baghlan province, in April; Abdol Qayum sentenced to death in Sheberghan on
3 May and Mohammad Omar sentenced to death in Maymana, Farias province
According to the information received, the verdict of special revolutionary
courts must be ratified by the Presidium of the Afghan Revolutionary
Council before being carried out, but no judicial appeal is possible.
Without in any way wishing to interfere with matters which may pertain to
the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of Your Excellency s Government, I am
urged to emphasize that the right to life is a most fundamental and crucial
human right and appeal to you on a purely humanitarian basis to ensure that
no executions will take place, especially if such executions result from a
summary trial or any other procedure in which the rights of the individuals
are not fully protected In this connection may I refer to articles 3 and
10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6 and 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Afghanistan is
a party, and in particular to paragraph 5 of article 14 of the Covenant,
which states that ‘everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to
his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according
to law It would be appreciated if I were to receive from Your Excellency?s
Government any information concerning the safeguards applied in the above-
mentioned cases as well as the case referred to in my cable 03703 of
29 May l984 '
E/CN .4/1985/17
page 7
28 August 1984
“I have the honour to refer to my cables of 29 May and 27 June 1984
concerning the allegations of possible executions of persons whose names
were given as Mohammad Younis Akbari, and Sanat Gol, Abdol Quayum and
Mohammad Omar. My attention has been further drawn to similar allegations
of the possible execution of 15 persons, one of whose names was given as
Abdul Kodous Kal. According to the information received, they were
sentenced to death by a special revolutionary court for murder and anti—
government activities and the death sentences would be carried out after
confirmation by the Presidium of the Council of Revolution. No judicial
appeal from special revolutionary courts is said to be possible. Without
in any way wishing to interfere with matters which may pertain to the
domestic sovereign jurisdiction of Your Excellency's Government, I am urged
to emphasize that the right to life is a most fundamental and crucial human
right and appeal to you on a purely humanitarian basis to ensure that. no
executions will take place, especially if such executions result from a
summary trial or any other procedure in which the rights of the individuals
are not fully protected. In this connection may I refer to articles 3 and
10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6 and 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Afghanistan is
a party, and in particular, to paragraph 5 of article 14 of the Covenant
which states that ‘everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to
his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to
lawe. Nay I also refer to the communication of Your Excellency's
Government to the United Nations Sub—Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities dated 29 May 1984
(E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/12/Add.2), in which it is stated in particular that ‘the
state organs are trying to reduce the number of executions and abolish
capital punishment in Afghanistan . It would be appreciated if I were to
receive from Your Excellency's Government any information concerning the
safeguards applied in the above—mentioned cases as well as the cases
referred to in my cables of 29 May and 27 June l984 '
11 September 1984
“I have the honour to refer to my cables of 29 May, 27 June and
28 August 1984 concerning the allegations of possible executions of
persons whose names were given as Mohammad Younis Akbari, and Sanat Gol,
Abdol Quayum and Mohammad Omar and 15 persons including Abdul Kodous Kal.
My attention has been further drawn to similar allegations of the
possible execution of two persons whose names were given as Faiz Mohammad
and Abdollah, son of Amrollah. According to the information received,
Faiz Mohammad was sentenced to death by a special revolutionary court
for murder,robbery and anti—government activities and Abdollah, son of
Amrollah, for evading military service. The death sentences would be
E/CN 4/l985/l7
page 8
carried out after confirmation by the Presidium of the Council of
Revolution. No judicial appeal from special revolutionary courts is said
to be possible. Without in any way wishing to interfere with matters
which may pertain to the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of Your
Excellency s Government, I am urged to emphasize that the right to life
is a most fundamental and crucial human right and appeal to you on a
purely humanitarian basis to ensure that no executions will take place,
especially if such executions result from a summary trial or any other
procedure in which the rights of the individuals are not fully protected.
In this connection may I refer to articles 3 and 10 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6 and 14 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Afghanistan is a party,
and in particular to paragraph 5 of article 14 of the Covenant which
states that ?everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his
conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according
to law?. May I also refer again to the communication of Your Excellency t s
Government to the United Nations Sub—Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities dated 29 May 1984
(E/CN 4/Sub.2/l984/l2/Add 2) , in which it is stated in particular that
?the state organs are trying to reduce the number of executions and
abolish capital punishment in Afghanistan . It would be appreciated
lf I were to receive from Your Excellency's Government any information
concerning the safeguards applied in the above—mentioned cases as well
as the cases referred to in my cables of 29 May, 27 June and
28 August 1984.”
No reply has been received from the Government of Afghanistan.
(b) On 29 May, 2 November and 14 November 1984, the following telexes were
sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Angola:
29 May 1984
have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/35
by which the Council renewed my mandate as Special Rapporteur of the
Commission on Human Rights on the question of summary or arbitrary
executions My attention has been drawn to the allegation of the possible
execution of six persons who were recently sentenced to death by regional
military courts in Angola. Their names were given as Simao Quintas,
sentenced on 25 April 1984 in the province of Bie, Abilio Sindaco and
Paulo Segundo sentenced on 1 May 1984 in the province of Moxico,
Albino Chimbaia, Alfonso Tchiamba and Felisberto Mateus Chitumbas, sentenced
on 6 May 1984 in the province of Kuando-Kubango WithouI in any way wishing
to interfere with matters which may pertain to the domesl ic sovereign
jurisdiction of Your Excellency's Government, I am urged to emphasize that
the right to life is a most fundamental and crucial human right and appeal
to you on a purely humanitarian basis to ensure that no executions will take
place, especially if such executions result from summary trial or other
procedure in which the rights of the individuals are not fully protected.
In this connection, may I refer to articles 3 and 10 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6 and 14 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights It would be app 'eciated if I were
to receive from your Excellency?s Government any information concerning
the safeguards applied in the above—mentioned cases '
E/CN.4/l985/l7
page 9
2 November 1984
have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1984/35 by which the Council renewed my mandate as Specia.1
Rapporteur of the Commission of Human Rights on the question of summary
or arbitrary executions. My attention has been drawn to the allegation
of the possible executions of four persons, three of whom were sentenced
to death on 13 October 1984 by a regional military court at Lubango and
t.he fourth, whose name was given as Francisco Fragata, sentenced to death
by the people?s revolutionary court at Luanda on 30 October l984
According to the information received, Francisco Fragata was executed on
4 November 1984. 1 ithout in any way wishing to interfere in matters
which may pertain to the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of
Your Excellency's Government, may I emphasize that the right to life is
a most fundamental and crucial human right and appeal to you on a purely
humanitarian basis to ensure that no execution will take place,
especially if such executions result from a summary trial or any other
procedure in which the rights of the individual are not fully protected.
In this connection, may I refer to articles 3 and 10 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6 and 14 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It would be appreciated if I
were to receive from your Excellency?s Government any information
concerning the safeguards applied in the above rnentioned cases '
14 November 1984
HI have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1984/35 by which the Council renewed my mandate as Special
Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of summary
arbitrary execution. My attention has been drawn to the allegation of
the possible execution of four persons who were sentenced to death on
24 October 1984 by the regional military court at Menongue, Province of
Kuando Kubango. Their names were given as Manuel Lingumba,
Fernando Bango, Antonio Isala and Fioriano Manuel, Without in any
way wishing to interfere with matters which may pertain to the domestic
sovereign jurisdiction of Your Exce1lency s Governments may I emphasize
that the right to life is a rno t fundamental and crucial human right and
appeal to you on a purely humanitarian basis to ensure that no
executions take place, especially if such executions result from a
summary trial or any other procedure in which the rights of the
individuals are not fully protected. In this connection, may I refer to
articles 3 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. It would be appreciated if I were to receive from
Your Excellency's Government any information concerning the safeguards
applied in the above—mentioned case.”
No reply has been received from the Government of Angola. The Special
Rapporteur later received information that the death sentence imposed on
Francisco Fragata on 30 October had been commuted to six years' imprisonment
by the Luanda Court of Appeal on 7 November.
E/CN.4/1985/17
page 10
(c) On 19 and 27 June 1984, the following telexes were sent to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh:
‘ I have the Honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1984/35 by which the Council renewed my mandate as Special
Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of summary
or arbitrary executions. May I also refer to my cable 00770 of
2 February 1984 addressed to His Excellency, President H M Ershad
and the letter of Ambassador A KOH Morshed, Permanent Representative
of the Republic of Bangladesh in Geneva dated 9 March 1984
(Ref. No. rO/HCR/78) regarding a person named Ghulam Mustafa According
to information recently received the death sentenceon Ghulam Mustafa
was confirmed in early June by a review board and the execution will
be carried out shortly. It was also alleged that under martial law
regulation 1 of 1982 which provides that no judgement or sentence
I q ii rI hir F.h n r'i 1 M ‘Fi 1 T. w Cr ii 'F. m ir h r ri w r1 hv r ir r'i- in'F.
the death sentence on Ghulam Mustafa was not re;iewed bya highe;
tribunals Without in any way wishing to interfere with matters which
may pertain to the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of Your Excellency s
Government, I am urged to reiterate that the right to life is a most
fundamental and crucial human right and to appeal to you on a purely
humanitarian basis to ensure that no executions take place, especially
if such executions result from a summary trial or any other procedure
in which the rights of the individuals are not fully protected May
I refer to articles 3 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, and in particular to paragraph 5 of article 14
which states that ?everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right
to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal
according to law It would be appreciated if I were to receive
from Your Excellency s Government any information concerning the
safeguards applied in the above mentioned case
The following reply, dated 17 July 1984, was received from the Permanent
Mission of Bangladesh to the United Nations Office at Geneva
[ Original: English]
Tt Kindly refer to the telegram of Mr. S Amos Wako, Special Rapporteur
of the Commission on Human Rights on summary or arbitrary executions
addressed to the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh in the case of
Mr Golam Nostafa a former MP .
I am directed to convey that the President and the Chief Marshal Law
Administrator of Bangladesh has been pleased to commute the sentence of
former MP Mr Golam Mostafa to transportation for life I shall
accordingly be grateful if this decision is brought to the attention
of Mr Wako with a view to the removal of the above case from his
report on suamary or arbitrary executions ”
E/CN.4/1985/l7
page 11
On 28 January 1985, the following additional information was received from
the Permanent Mission of Bangladesh.
“As regards the points as to whether Mr. Golam Mostafa's trial
before a Special Martial Law Court conformed to international
standards for a fair trial, I would request you please to note that
all accused persons in a Special Martial Law Court are free to engage
lawyers of their choice The Special Law Courts are legally
constituted bodies in which Magistrates (first class) are also
included. Moreover, the officers of the armed forces included in the
courts possess the requisite training to conduct the proceedings of
the courts. Therefore, any doubts about the standards of the
proceedings of the courts and about the fairness of the trials held
before them are absolutely unfounded. The judgements/sentences passed
by such courts are all subject to review by the Chief Martial Law
Administrator, who is assisted in this work by a group of expert
jurists. The Chief Martial Law Administrator, on review may confirm, set
aside, modify or pass orders for retrial or such other orders as he
deems necessary for meeting the ends of justice as per law. The
convicted persons may also submit mercy petitions to the Chief Martial
Law Administrator.
In the case of Mr. Golam Mostafa, trial was held before Special
Martial Law Court No. 8, Jessore as per law and the procedure described
above. The court found him guilty and accordingly he was sentenced
to death which was duly confirmed after review.
Subsequently, Mr. Golam Mostafa's mother and he himself submitted
mercy petitions. The Chief Martial Law Administrator was then pleased
to commute the death sentence passed by the Special Martial Law Court
to a sentence of transportation for life. This information was conveyed
to you vide our letter No. IO/HRC/78, dated 17 July 1984. Since then
two thirds of the said sentence (transportation for life) has further
been remitted vide Government order dated 5 November 1984. The question
of not being fair in the trial of this case, therefore, does not arise.
May I also take this opportunity to invite your kind attention to
the statement made by the Honorable President of Bangladesh on
15 December 1984 which outlined a number of steps that the Government
intends to take with the objective of ensuring a smooth transition to
democracy and lifting of Martial Law through peaceful means by holding
free and fair elections. The salient features of the speech are given
below:
El CN .4/1985/17
page 12
(1) The posts and offices of the District Martial Law
Administrator and the Sub—Zonal Martial Law Administrator
will be abolished by 31 December 1984 and those of the
Zonal Martial Law Administrator by 31 January l985
(ii) The Special Martial Law Tribunal will cease to function
on 31 December 1984 and the Special Martial Law Courts
on 15 January l985
(iii) The suspended constitution will be fully revived and
Martial Law will be lifted after summoning of the newly
elected Parliament.
(iv) Fundamental rights and in some cases writ jurisdiction of
the High Court Division of the Supreme Court will be
restored with the partial revival of the suspended
constitution by 15 January l985
(v) From the very day the Election Commission announces the
election schedule, there will be no member of any political
party in the GovernmentS
Since then, in accordance with this declaration of the Honorable
President, (1) the posts and offices of the District Martial Law
Administrator and that of the Sub=Zonal Martial Law Administrator have
been abolished with effect from 31 December 1984, (2) the Special
Martial Law Tribunal has been abolished with effect from
31 December 1984 and the Special Martial Law Courts with effect from
15 January 1985, (3) the Election Commission announced on
15 January 1985 that the election to the Parliament will be held on
6 April 1985 and on the same day the Cabinet was dissolved and a new
Cabinet has subsequently been sworn in which does not include any
member of any political party, and (4) on 15 January 1985, the
Government has restored some of the provisions of the suspended
constitution thereby restoring fundamental rights and has enlarged the
writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, As stated earlier the
suspended constitution will be fully revived and Martial Law will be
completely withdrawn after summoning of the newly elected Parliament.”
The Special Rapporteur has taken note with satisfaction of the information
furnished by the Government of Bangladesh and wishes to express his gratitude
for its positive co—operations
E/CN.4/1985/17
page 13
Cd) On 18 June 1984, the following telex was sent to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cameroon:
I have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1983 /36 by which the Council renewed my mandate as
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of
summary or arbitrary executions. At its fortieth session the Commission
once again recommended to the Economic and Social Council to extend my
mandate. My attention has been drawn to the allegation of the possible
execution of 46 persons who were sentenced to death early this week in
secret trials by military tribunals following event,s reported to have
occurred on 6 April 1984. Three of the 46 were allegedly sentenced to
death in absentia. Without in any way wishing to interfere with matters
which may pertain to the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of
Your Excellency's Government, I am compelled to emphasize that the right
to life is a most fundamental and crucial human right and to appeal to you
on a purely humanitarian basis to ensure that no executions take place
especially if such executions result from a summary trial or any other
procedure in which the rights of the individuals are not fully protected.
In particular may I refer to articles 3 and 10 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. It would be appreciated if I were to receive
from Your Excellency's Government any information concerning the safeguards
applied in the above—mentioned cases. 1 T
No reply has been received from the Government of Cameroon..
Ce) On 4 May 1984, the following telex was sent to the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Guatemala:
UI have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1984/35 by which the Council renewed my mandate as
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of
summary or arbitrary executions. At its fortieth session the Commission
once again recommended to the Economic and Social Council to renew my
mandate. My attention has been drawn to allegations of the possible
execution by the navy of leaders of the area of Cantel, a town in the
Department of Quetzaltenango. The names were given as
Victor Manuel Morales Mull, his son Antonio Morales, his brother
Benito Morales, Calixto Sacalxoth, David Ordoi ez and his sons Juan Jacinto
and Alfonso Ordonez. It is also feared that further executions may take
place if the inhabitants refuse to take part in the civiiian patrol& .
Without in any way wishing to interfere with matters which may pertain to
the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of Your Excellency s Government, I
should like to emphasize that the right to life is a most fundamental
and crucial human right and to appeal to you on a purely humanitarian
basis to ensure that no executions take place especially if such executions
result from a summary trial or any other procedure in which the rights of
the individuals are not fully protected. In particular may I refer to
articles 3 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
No reply has been received from the Government of Guatemala. However, in regard
to the case mentioned in the telex, reference is made to the report on the
situation of human rights in Guatemala submitted by the Special Happorteur of
The Commission to the General Assembly at its thirty- ninth ession.
CA/39/635, paras.48—55).
E/CN 0 4/1985/ 17
page 14
(f) On 29 August 1984, the following telex was sent to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
I have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1984/35 by which the Council renewed my mandate as
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question
of summary or arbitrary executions. My attention has been drawn to the
allegation of the possible execution of 32 persons sentenced to death in
the Islamic Republic of Iran . Their names and places of detention were
given as follows: Shapur Markazi, Ahmad Bashiri, Sirru'llah Vahdat-Nizami,
Muluk Khadim in Tehran; Ghulam- Husayn Farhand, Na'im Badi'i, Firuz Athari,
Iriayatu 1lah Haqiqi, Jamshid Pur-Ustadkar, Jamal Kashani, Yunis Nawruzi
in Karaj; Munirih Vahdat- Parsa in Nashhad; ‘Inayatu'llah Tashakkur,
Fariburz Sana t i, Dhikru'llah Zayni in Gunbad Qabus; Dhikru t llah Tawfiq,
Zuhuru t llah Zuhuri in Gurgan; Dihnam Pasha t i (Kashani), Afrasiyab Subhani,
Ghaffar—Quli Ma 7 rufikhah in Simnan; Jalalu'llah Vahdati, Fathu t llah Laqa'i,
Mansur Shidanshaydi, t 4 lansur Anbili in Kirman, Farid Dhakiri, &lihran Tashakkur,
Vahid Qudrat in Yazd; Ata'u'llah Guran, ‘Abbas Kuhbur, Suhayl Adhari,
Firaydun (Kayumarth) Khudadadih and Ali Qiyami in Kirmanshah. According to the
allegation those 32 persons sentenced to death are Baha'is. Without in any
way wishing to interfere with matters which may pertain to the domestic
sovereign jurisdiction of Your Excellency's Government, may I emphasize that
the right to life is a most fundamental and crucial human right and appeal
to you on a purely humanitarian basis to ensure that no executions take
place, especially if such executions result from a summary trial or any
other procedure in which the rights of the individuals are not fully
protected. In particular, may I refer to articles 3, 10 and 18 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6, 14 and 18 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the
Islamic Republic of Iran is a party. It would be appreciated if I were
to receive from Your Excellency's Government any information concerning the
safeguards applied in the above—mentioned cases t?
No reply has been received from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran .
Information was later received according to which eight of those named in the
Special Rapporteur's communication to the Government of the Islamic Republic
of Iran were executed. The names and dates of executions were given as follows:
Name Date executed
Mr. Shahpur Markazi 23 September 1984
Mr. Ahmad Bashiri November 1984
Mr. Yunis Nawruzi November 1984
Mr. Ghulam—Husayn Farhand 9 December 1984
Mr. Firuz Athari 9 December 1984
Mr. Inayatu t llah Haqiqi 9 December 1984
Mr. Jamal Kashani 9 December 1984
Mr. Jamshid Pur Ustadkar 9 December 1984
E/CN .4/1985/17
page 15
(g) On 10 April 1984, the following telex was sent to the Deputy Premier
of Kuwait:
71 have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1983/36 by which the Council renewed my mandate as
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of
summary or arbitrary executions. At its fortieth session the Commission
once again recommended that the Economic and Social Council extend my
mandate. My attention has been drawn to allegations received of the death
sentences imposed on six persons by the State Security Court on
27 March 1984. Three names of the six persons facing possible execution
were given as Baker Ibrahim Abdul Ridha, Elias Fuad Saas and
Hussein Kassem Hassan. Three others whose names were given as
Ahmed Ali Hassan, Mustapha Ibrahim Ahmed and Jamal Jaffer Mohammed were
alleged to have escaped arrest and been sentenced in absentia
It was also alleged that the trial was held in camera and the right to
appeal against the sentences given by the State Security Court was denied.
Without in any way wishing to interfere with matters which may pertain to
the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of Your Excellency?s Government, I am
compelled to emphasize that the right to life is a most fundamental and
crucial human right and to appeal to you on a purely humanitarian basis to
ensure that no executions take place especially if such executions result
from a summary trial or any other procedure in which the rights of the
individuals are not fully protected. In particular may I refer to
articles 3 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
No reply has been received from the Government of Kuwait.
(h) On 10 April 1984, the following telex was sent to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Liberia:
“I have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1983/36 by which the Council renew my mandate as
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on summary or arbitrary
executions. At its fortieth session the Commission once again recommended
to the Economic and Social Council to extend my mandate. My attention has
been drawn to allegations received of the imminent execution of seven
persons. Three of the seven, whose names were given as Captain Acquah Dolo,
Lieutenant Arthur Suah and Private Wilfred Sanei, were convicted of
high treason, mutiny, murder and conspiracy. The other four, whose names
were given as Sergeant Johnny Davies, Police Sergeant Sackor,
Patrolman Moses Powen and Private James Garteh, were found guilty of
participating in an armed robbery. It was also alleged that all of the
seven persons were denied the right of appeal against decisions by the
Special Military Tribunal. Without in any way wishing to interfere with
matters which may pertain to the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of
Your Excellency's Government, I am compelled to emphasize that the right
to life is a most fundamental and crucial human right and to appeal to you
E/CN .4/1985/17
page 16
on a purely humanitarian basis to ensure that no executions take place,
especially if such executions result from a summary trial or any other
procedure in which the rights of the individuals are not fully protected.
In particular may I refer to articles 3 and 10 of the Universal Declaration
of Human flights and articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights . ' t
No reply has been received from the Government of Liberia.
(i) On 18 December 1984, the following telex was sent to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria:
I have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1984/35 by which the Council renewed my mandate as
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of
summary or arbitrary executions My attention has been drawn to the
allegation of the possible execution of five persons whose names were given
as Bernard Ogedengbe, Bisi Akinrinde, Jos Luis Pecina Mart nez,
Henderson Memberi and Cyprian Obi. According to the information received,
the five persons were sentenced to death by a 1 miscellaneous of fences
tribunalT in Nigeria after having been convicted on various charges. It
was also alleged that the procedures of the tribunals do not allow the
right to appeal and that Jos Luis Pecina Martrnez, Henderson Mernberi
and Cyprian Obi were sentenced to death for a crime allegedly committed
at a time when it did not carry the death penalty. Without in any way
wishing to interfere with matters which may pertain to the domestic
sovereign jurisdiction of Your Excellency T s Government, may I emphasize
that the right to life is a most fundamental and crucial human right and
appeal to you on a purely humanitarian basis to ensure that no executions
take place especially if such executions result from a summary trial or any
other procedure in which the rights of the individuals are not fully
protected. In particular may I refer to articles 3, 10 and 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6, 14 and 15 of the
international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 14,
paragraph 5, of the Covenant states that ?everyone convicted of a crime
shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a
higher tribunal according to law !. Also, article 15, paragraph 1, of the
Covenant states that Tno one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence
on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal
offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was
committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was
applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed . It would
be appreciated if I were to receive from Your Excellency's Government any
information concerning the jurisdiction and procedures of these tribunals,
in particular the right of the defendant to appeal, and also under which law
the five persons were sentenced to death . !I
No reply has been received from the Government of Nigeria.
(j) On 9 November 1984, the following telex was sent to the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan:
f?1 have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1984/35 by which the Council renewed my mandate as
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of
summary or arbitrary executions. My attention has been drawn to the
allegation of the possible execution of four persons whose names were given
E/CN .4/1985/17
page 17
as Abdul Nasir Baluch, Nohammad Essa Baluch, Saifullah Khalid Lashari Baluch
and Mohammad Ayub Malik. According to this information the four were
sentenced to death on 6 November 1984 by Special Military Court No. 2 in
Karachi after being convicted of abetting the hijacking of an airliner. It
was also alleged that the trial proceedings of the Special Military Court
did not provide adequate safeguards to protect the rights of individuals,
in particular, the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the right not to be
compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt and the right to
appeal. Without in any way wishing to interfere with matters which may
pertain to the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of Your Excellency's
Government, may I emphasize that the right to life is a most fundamental
and crucial human right and appeal to you on a purely humanitarian basis to
ensure that no executions take place especially if such executions result
from a summary trial or any other procedure in which the rights of the
individuals are not fully protected, in particular may I refer to
articles 3 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It would be appreciated if I were to receive from Your Excellency's
Government any information concerning the safeguards applied in the
above—mentioned cases • !
No reply has been received from the Government of Pakistan.
(k) On 15 October 1984, the following telex was sent to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Somalia:
UI have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1984/35 by which the Council renewed my mandate as
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of
summary or arbitrary executions. My attention has been drawn to the
allegation of the possible execution of seven persons whose names were given
as Abdi Damar Abdi, Abdirahman Mohamed Barud, Abdi Ismail Mohamed,
Ahmed Ibrahim Sheikh Ornar Sheikh Madar, Mohamed Sheikh Ali,
Abdirizak Sheikh Ibrahim Koshin and Yusuf Nohamed. According to the
allegation, the seven persons were sentenced to death by the
National Security Court in Hargeisa, Northern Somalia, on or about
2 October 1984 after having been charged under the National Security Law.
It was also alleged that the procedures of the National Security Court do
not guarantee adequate legal defence and, in particular, the right to appeal.
Without in any way wishing to interfere with matters which may pertain to
the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of Your Excellency t s Government, may I
emphasize that the right to life is a most fundamental and crucial human
right and appeal to you on a purely humanitarian basis to ensure that no
executions take place, especially if such executions result from a summary
trial or any other procedure in which the rights of individuals are not
fully protected. In particular may I refer to articles 3 and 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6 and 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It would be
appreciated if I were to receive from Your Excellency's Government any
information concerning the safeguards applied in the above—mentioned case..
E/CN 4/l985/l7
page 18
The following reply, dated 18 January 1985, was received from the
Permanent Mission of Somalia to the United Nations Office at Geneva:
‘We have the honour to refer to your telegram G/SO 214 (33—2) dated
15 October 1984, addressed to Mr. A J. Barre, the Somali Minister for
Foreign Affairs and copied to this f iission.
As soon as we received the copy of your telegram, we got in contact with
the competent Somali authorities in order to seek an early despatch of
the information that you have requested on the case of seven persons who
were allegedly victims of a summary trial by the National Security Court
in Hargeisa, Northern Somalia.
The Somali authorities have now informed us that the seven persons were
arrested on the charge, duly formulated by the Attorney -General of the
National Security Court in Hargeisa, of acting in contravention of
provisions contained in the National Security Law (law No. 54 of
10 September 1970).
The National Security Court thoroughly examined all the circumstances of
the case and the accused were given the fullest opportunity to defend
themselves. They were assisted by their lawyers: (1) Dr. Hussen Bile,
(2) Dr. Osman A. Ornar, (3) Dr Nohamed Abdalla Salah,
(4) Dr. Ahmed Wehelie Guled and (5) Dr. Bashir Hassan Abdi.
In the course of the hearing of the court, the accused were proven guilty—
beyond any doubt of breaching the National Security Law by forming a secret
association (in violation of article 3 of the N.S. Law) and undertaking
actions in fulfilment of that association's aims and objectives (in
violation of articles 9 and 18), thereby endangering the existence, unity
and stability of the nation The crimes perpetrated by the accused were
forbidden under death penalty.
Accordingly, after thorough and careful deliberations, the Court sentenced
the seven accused to death on 3 October 1984. As soon as the judgement
was passed, the condemned submitted to the President of the
Somali Democratic Republic a demand for pardon which is still under
consideration.
We hope that the above information gives you a clear indication of the
regularity of the procedure that was followed in dealing with this case and
that there is no question of a summary trial and an absence of guarantee
of adequate legal defence.
All the rights of the accused were respected and, in fact, the exercise of
these rights ensured
We hope that this answer is satisfactory and we are at your disposal for
any further clarifications ”
E/CN .4/1985/17
page 19
(1) On 16 January 1985, the following cable was sent to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sudan:
I have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1984/35 by which the Council renewed my mandate as
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question
of summary or arbitrary executions. My attention has been drawn to
the allegation of the possible execution of five persons whose names
were given as Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, Abdulatif Omer Hasabal lah,
Khalid Babikir Hamza, Mohamed Salim Bashir and Tajadin Abdulrazid.
According to the information received the five persons were sentenced to
death by a criminal court on 8 January 1985. It was also alleged that
they had been arrested for preparing and possessing leaflets critizing
the application of Islamic law in Sudan and charged with offences against
State security and organizing a prohibited organization under the
State Security Act.
Without in any way wishing to interfere with matters which may pertain
to the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of Your Excellency's Government, may
I emphasize that the right to life is a most fundamental and crucial human
right and appeal to you on a purely humanitarian basis to ensure that no
executions take place especially if such executions result from a summary
trial or any other procedure in which the rights of the individuals are
not fully protected. In particular may I refer to articles 3, 18, 19
and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6, 18,
19 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant states that ‘sentence of death
may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the
law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary
to the provisions of the present Covenant'. It would be appreciated if I
were to receive from Your Excellency's Government any information on these
cases and also on the above—mentioned State Security Act under which the
five were sentenced to death.”
No reply has been received from the Government of Sudan. Information was
received later according to which Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, one of the five named
in the Special Rapporteur's communication to the Government of Sudan was
executed, and the remaining four were released on 19 January 1985 after publicly
reading their recantations.
(m) On 19 March 1984, the following telex was sent to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates:
1?I have the honour to refer to Economic and Social Council
resolution 1983 /36 by winch the Council renewed my mandate as
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question
of summary or arbitrary executions. My attention has been drawn to
allegations received of the imminent execution of a woman whose name
was given as Shahila, a citizen of Sri Lanka. Also there was an
allegation that a man by the name of Kondela of Indian nationality
faced execution. Without in any way wishing to interfere with matters
which may pertain to the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of
Your Excellency's Government, I am compelled to emphasize that the right
to life is a most fundamental and crucial human right and to appeal to you
on a purely humanitarian basis to ensure that no executions take place,
E/CN 4/1985/17
page 20
especially if such executions result from a summary trial or any other
procedure in which the rights of the individuals are not fully protectecL
In particular may I refer to articles 3, 10 and 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6 and 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. t '
No reply has been received from the Government of the United Arab Emirates.
However, the Special Rapporteur received information that the death sentence
imposed on the woman was commuted to 35 lashes, one year's imprisonment and
deportation from the country. The death sentence given to the man was also
reported to have been commuted.
C. Visit to Suriname
20. In addition to the foregoing, the Special Rapporteur, in the context of
his mandate, visited Suriname from 23 to 27 July 1984 upon the invitation of the
Government of Suriname. He also visited the Netherlands on 30 and 31 July 1984
in order to meet a number of persons in connection with his visit to Suriname.
21. The Special Rapporteur wishes to express his deep appreciation to the
Government of Suriname for its positive co—operation and efforts to make the
Special Rapporteur 7 s visit meaningful. The Special Rapporteur was fully
satisfied with the arrangement made by the National Commission of Information
and Guidance on Human Rights for meetings with people from various sectors
of society, either official or private During his stay in Suriname the
Special Rapporteur was able to meet the persons he asked to seern (An account
of his visit to Suriname is contained in annex V to this report).
E/CN .4/1985/17
page 21
110 PROTECTION OF TI E RIGHT TO LIFE: REVIEW OF LAWS AND SITUATIONS
22 In chapter I of his last repcrt (E/CN 0 4/l984/29) the Special Rapporteur
examined national legislations, on which inforniatioti had, been received in the
course of his previous manaate, according to international criteria set up by the
International Covenant on Civil and Political llighis and, the Cod.e of Conduct for
Lava Enforcement Officials 0
23 In the course of his current mandate, tv o international instruments relevant
to the subject were adopted by the United , Nations 0
24 The Special Rappoi-ieur ould, like in the first place to refer to Economic
aM Social Council resolution 1984/50, adopted on 25 May 1984, in hich the.
Council approved the safeguard.s guaranteeing protection of the rights of those
facing the death penalty, recommended. by the Commit-bee on Criiuie Prevention and,
Control and annexed io the resolution 0 The annex covers the safeguard.s
r established unJer articles 6, 14 and. 15 of the International Covenant on Civil
and. Political Rights as ell as additional factors particularly related to the
death penalty, The Special Rapporteur considers that these safeguards v ill
contribute to further elaboration of the concept of summary or arbitrary
executions and, v ill serve as criteria for ascertaining whether an execution is of
a summary or arhitra r nature 0
25. Nention may also be made of the Convention against Torture and. Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted. by the General Assembly in
resolution 39/46 of 10 December l984 The Convention is nova open for signature,
ratification and accession 0
26. Article 2 of the Convention states:
l0 Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative,
judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory
under its jurisdictions
2 No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, vIIether a state of war or a
threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency,
may he invoked as a justification of torture,
3 . An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be
invoked, as a justification of torture
27 Arbicle 4 states:
Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torIIre are offences
under its criminal law 0 The same shall apply to an attempt to commit
-borIIre and. to an act by any person which constibutes complicity or
participation in tor-bure 0
2 Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate
penalties which take into accoimt their grave nature 0 t '
28 In regard to national legislations relevant to the mandate of the
Special Rapporteur, infoniation was receivea from a number of governments on
safeguard.s embodied, in their constituffions or other laws as well as from other
sources
E/CN.4/1985/17
page 22
29 The Special Rapporleur wishes o inenlion IIa , in response 1o his request,
in a note verbale d,a ed. 21 Seplember 1984 (see annex iv), for inforinalion
regarding measures and, prog amines imd.erlaken o enhance IIe irnporlance of IIe
righ t o life in the lraining of members of IIe armed forces, law enforceiaenl
agencies, paramililary forces and. oifier governiaenlal officials or agenls, he
received relevanl ini'ormaffion from several governiaenls explaining in deplII laws,
regiilaffions and. lraining programmes eni'orced or underlaken in IIeir courrIries
Ho ever, in the view of lhe Special Rappor1eur he has nol yel received
sufficien-1 ini'orniaffion 1o arran1 analysis 0
3O In IIe fol1o ing paragraphs, lhe ini'orniaffion oblained by lhe
Special Rapporleur in IIe course of his presenl mandate is reflected as an updale
of chaplers I and. II of he previous reporl (E/CN 4/l984/29)
.& Arlicles 6, paragraph 2, and, 15 of IIe Inlemational Covenant
U I! UJ _ VJ _ .i. iLU, .LLL ,L.iU
The d.ealh senlence is II be imposed for t,he inosl serious crimes
and IIe acl or omission must be one which consffiluled, an offence 11 a1 IIe
ffime when i-b as comnii ed ' 0
3l Several governnienls reporled. 1ha1 IIe d,eaII penally had, been o1ally
abolished. 0 Several oIIers s1a ed. 1ha IIe d.eaII penaliy could, be applied imd.er
lhe Mililary Penal Cod.e only in lime of ar 0
32 In ils general cominenl 6 (16) on arfficle 6 of IIe Inlernaffional Covenanl on
Civil and, PoliUcal Righls, lhe Human Righls Commi bee slaled. lhai the
expression most serious crimes must be read. restrictively to mean 1ha1 the
d.ea h penally should. be a quile exceplional measureU 0
33 In one country IIe follo ing decision as laken by IIe legislalive 1ody
PenalUes above IIe maximum sUpu1a ed in criminal law, up to and.
including -Ihe d ,ealh penally, naay be imposed, i1h respecl 1o lhe following
criminal elemenls ho seriously endanger public security:
(1) Ringleaders of criminal hooligan groups or IIose who carry leIIal
eapons 1o engage in criminal hooligan cUvities, when lhe circuinslances
are serious, or IIose ho engage in criminal hooligan acliviffies resulling
in especially serious harm;
(2) Those ho inlenlionally harm o1hers causing serious bodily
injury or d.eaII, when lhe circumstances are odious, or those ho use
violence againsl and cause injury 1o 51a1e personnel or cilizens ho accuse
expose or arres-1 criminal elemenls or slop criminal cond.ucl;
(3) Ringleaders of groups 1ha abd.ucl and. sell people, or lhose ho
abduct and, sell people when the circumstances are especially serious;
(4) Those ho illegally manufaclrnre, trad,e in, lransporl, sleal or
forcibly seize guns ammunilion or explosives when IIe circumslances are
especially serious or when serious consequences resuli;
• J Reporl of IIe Human Rights Commi ee, Official Records of lhe
General Assembly, Thir1y.- sevenII session, Supplement No 40 (A/37/40), annex v,
general comment 6 (16), para 0 ‘
E/CN.4/1985/ 17
page 2
(5) Those ho organize reactionary supers-Litious sects and. secret
societies or exploit feudal superstition to carry on counter revolutionary
activities, thereby seriously endangering public security;
(6) Those ho lure omen into prostitution, shelter them in
pros-titution, or force them into prostitution, when the circumstances are
especially seriousou
34. It was alleged, that a number of persons had. been sentenced. to death under
this decision and. executed.; ho ever, in the vie of one vernment, the death
penalty imposed. on serious criminal offenders did. not constitute a summary or
arbitrary execution,
35, In another country, the military authorities promulgated. decrees which
prescribed, the death penalty for 17 offences previously punishable by terms of
imprisonment, and. declared them retroactive, The offences for which the death
penalty was mad.e applicable for the first time included, arson, dealing in
counterfeit currency, sabotaging oil pipelines or power cables, illegal dealing
in petroleum products and. trafficking in cocaine 0
36. A number of persons ere allegedly executed. after having been convicted.
under these decrees,
37. In another country five persons were sentenced. to d.eath under the State
Security Act allegedly for their preparation and, possession of leaflets
criticizing the government s policy. It ‘was said. that those persons ‘were
charged. with offences against State security. It ‘was reported. later that one of
the five -was executed. and. the remaining four ere freed, after having renounced.
their opinions.
38. In some countries, persons ere allegedly sentenced. to d.eath for their
political opinions or religious beliefs, In one country it ‘was reported. that
practices such as having a mimeograph machine to produce religious tracts ‘was a
capital offence. In another country members of a specific religious group ‘were
(. executed. allegedly for espionage,
B, Article 6, paragraph 4 , of the International Covenant
on Civil and. Political Rights
“Anyone sentenced. to death shall have the right to seek pardon or
commutation of the sentence, .Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the
sentence of death may he granted. in all cases,”
39, In some countries the death penalty was allegedly carried. out within an
extremely short period. of time, thus, not allowing the convicted, persons enough
time to seek pardon or commutation of sentence, In several oases persons ‘were
allegedly executed. within a fe'w hours of having been sentenced. to death,
C, Article 6, paragraph ffi, of the Inten ational Covenant
on Civil and. Political Rights
“Sentence of death shall not be imposed. for crimes committed, by persons
below 18 years of age and. shall not be carried. out on pregnant ‘women,”
40, In one country, it ‘was alleged. that, among those executed. during' the past
few years, 430 persons had, been identified. as under 18 years old, as ‘well as
15 children and. 18 pregnant ‘women,
E/CN 4/1985/17
page 24
D 0 Ar'ticles6, para aph 2, and, 14 of ‘the Interna'tional Covenan't
on Civil and. Political Rights
The d.ea'th penal'ty can only be carried. ou't pursuan't ‘to a final judgernent
rendered, by a compe'ten't cour't where legal safeguard.s ‘to pro'tec't the rights
of ‘the accused. are guaran'teed 0 Those righ'ts include: an impar'tial and.
inde pend.ent cour't a public and. fair ‘trial, legal counselling and. defence,
IIe right to examine evidence and dtnesses agains't ‘the defendant, the
right to present evidence and. dtnesses for the defendants, ‘the righ't ‘to
have his convic'tion and. sentence reviewed. by a higher tribunal according to
la 9 and. ‘the right no't to be tried or punished. again for an offence for
which he has already been finally convicted, or aquitted 0
,-!—- —.
LYLe .L11 IILWIL)W U I. UULILJ ULUI UI 1' UI1 W L g U.L y e1I LIL U. L U
death in secret trials and execu'ted. either secretly or publicly
42 In one coun'try even ‘the families of the persons executed. were not informed.
of the execution 0 In another coun'try secret executions of a number of persons
allegedly followed . secret ‘trialsQ Those persons were suspected. of ‘their
involvemen't in a coup attempt agains't ‘the governmen't 0
43 In another count r persons were allegedly sentenced to death in a secret
trial by a military tribunal after the government ordered, the tribunal ‘to
reconsider the original sentence of imprisonmen't 0 In that counffly, under the
state of emergency eaforced. for an extended. period, by the mili ai r authorities
civilians were tried, and sentenced to d.eath by the military ‘tribunal which did
not allow the right to appeal to a higher tribunal 0
44 In a number of countries a special tribunal as allegedly established, in
order to try the accused. persons for specific crimes designa'ted. by decreesQ
In some countries ‘the judges in special tribunals were either governmen't
officials or military officers without a legal background In many cases ‘the
proced.ure of the tribunal did, not allow the defendant ‘the righ't to appeal and. he
was sentenced to d,ea'th and, later execu ed . In one count r a person as
sentenced. to dea'th with a special procedure prescribed for f?serious crimesu,
depriving ‘the rights of the d.efend .ant
45 In one coun'try ‘the legislative body rriad.e a d.ecision to se a time limit for
appeal by persons sen'tenced. to d.eath for murder, rape, robbery, explosions or
other serious endangerment of public securi'ty, to three days instead of 10 days
as provided, for in ‘the criminal procedure 0
E Article 7 of the International Covenant on
Civil and. Political Rights
‘No one shall be subjected. ‘to ‘tor'ture or ‘to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatmen't or punishrnent 0 t
46 In a number of countries, it as alleged ‘that despi'te strict prohibition
of tor'ture as a means of interrogation, persons were subjected. ‘to torture and
were forced. to make t?coafessionsu agains't themselves on the basis of which the
d.eath penalty as imposed,
47 In a number of coun'tries, prisoners allegedly died. as a resul't of torture,
deprivation of food. and. water, or refusal of medical trea'tmen't by prison
autitorities 0
E/CN .4/1985/17
page 25
F. Article 9 of the International Covenant on
Civil aM Political Rights
?INo one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention 0 I ?
4B 0 In a number of countries, persons were allegedly found dead after having
been arbitrarily arrested, without the legal procedures required by law and, having
d,isappeared
49 , In one country the bodies of persons who had disappeared were allegedly found
in mass graves, often with signs of mutilation and. torture 0
5O In a number of countries, persons died, in detention allegedly killed, by law
enforcement agents, military or other government agents 0 In some cases it was
officially explainea that those persons bad committed, suicide, had, been trying to
escape or had died of illness.
G Article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials
“Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary
and to the extent required, for the performance of their duty.”
5l According to several governments, police officers and, other law enforcement
officers are given a thorough training in order to ensure the observance of the
constitutional and, other legal requirements and, obligations imposed. on them.
52 One government stated that the use of force by police officers was strictly
controlled by the Disciplinary Coae of the Police Ordinance and the Criminal
Codee Any violation of such codes ere illegal as was the use of criminal
force
53 Regarding the use of firearms one government provided, detailed information on
the regtiations imposed on police officers ho might employ such force 0 It
stated that the Offical Instructions under the Police Act
“permit the use of force only in the exercise of dnty and establish the
principles that (a) force may only be used, as the last resort if other means
have failed , or can reasonably be expected, to fail (the principle of
secondariness) and, that (b) the use of force must be justified. by the
Importance of the objective (the principle of proportionality) 0
(CCPR/C/lO/Ad.d 3, p lO)
Furthermore, a detailed, explanation was given concerning how the fireann might be
employed in such situations as might require its use:
“A fireann may be used only if there is a reasonable aegTee of certainty
that an accurate shot can be fired, under the prevailing cond itions.”
“Immediately prior to aining a fireani and shooting, an officer shall give
a Jarning in a loud, voice or in some other unmistakeable maimer, that
the fireann will be fired if the order given is not obeyed without delay 0
ily if such circwnstances dictate otherwise, may this warning, which may
if necessary be substituted, by a warning shot, be omitted. 0 t 1
E/CN.4/1985/17
page 26
“Use may not be made of a firearm if the identity of the person to be
apprehended. is known to the officer and. if apprehension can reasonably be
postponed 0 This restriction means in fact that only in cases where the
suspect is caught red—handed may a firearm be used
54 Another government stated that:
s regard.s the use of firearms by police officers and. i1h a view to
ensuring that they employ these only when it is strictly necessary and. to
lhe extent required. by the performance of their duties, i1hin the strictest
in erpre aUon of he laws in force, it is sIa i ;ed. thai; police officials
must be given clear and. precise instructions on IIe manner and.
circuins i ;ances in which i ;hey may use their eapons
“The intent of i ;his provision is i ;hal IIe police, paying maximum
respect o ha right o life and. physical inte Tity enshrined in our
Cons i i ;uUon, shall reconcile i ;heir func i ;ion of proi;ecting i ;he free exercise
of rights and liberUes ii;h i ;he safe arding of public security 0 ”
55 One governinen i ; s i ;a i ;ed. i;hai;:
a person is not jus i ;ified. in using force ‘that is in'tend.ed. or is
likely o cause d.ea'th or ievous bod.ily harm unless he believes on
reasonable and, pro a le ound.s tbat it is necessary for IIe purpose of
preserving himself or anyone under his protec'tion from d.ea'th or grievous
bodily harin
‘ . peace officer ho is proceeding lawfully ‘to arres't i h or i'thou
warrant, any person for an offence for which thai; person may be arrested.
i'thou1 warrant, and. everyone lawfully assisting the peace officer, is
justified., if ‘the person to be arres'ted. ‘takes fligh't to avoid arrests in
using' as much force as is necessary to prevent ‘the escape y fligh't, unless
the escape can be prevented, by reasonable means in a less violent manner t
56 ccord.ing to another governinen't:
‘ ny officer to IIora a firearm is issued is aware thal it may only be
used. as a last resor't when he believes human life is at risks It would, be
for a court of la ‘to d,ecid.e in ‘the event of d.ea'th or injury resul'ting from
‘the police use of firearms whether reasonable force had. been used. in ‘the
circumstances ‘to preven't crime Any police officer ‘to whom a firearm
is issued is answerable personally in law as any o'ther priva'te ci'tizen
would. be for his actions
57 In one coun'try the Public Securi'ty Ordinance provid.es for ‘the obliga'tion ‘to
report the facts rela'ting ‘to ‘the d.eath of any person due ‘to ‘the ac'tion of, or in
the custody of, any police officer or any member of the armed. forces 0 It
further provides that:
‘(2) The Deputy Inspector—General of Police to IIom he body is
handed. over und.er regulation shall hand. over the dead, body ‘to any
rela'tions ho may claim the aead.. 1 oay, subject to such cond ,i'tions or
restrictions as he may d.eem necessary in the interes't of national security
or for the main'tenance or preserva'tion of public order:
E/CN.4/1985/17
page 27
Provided,, however, that that Deputy Inspector—General of Police may, in
the interest of national security or for the maintenance or preservation of
public order, authorize the taking possession of and. effecting the burial or
cremation of the dead, body irt accordance with such steps as he may deem
necessary in the circumstances 0 1 t
58 In a number of countries it was alleged. that persons were shot to death by
police forces or by the military 0 In some cases an official explanation was
given that those persons had. been shot dead, in armed. encounters or that they had,
resisted. arrest with firearms 0
H 0 guiries and,/or investigations of alleged,
violations of the foregoing provisions
59 In his report to the thirty—ninth session of the Commission on Human Rights
(E/CN 4/l983/l6) the Special Rapporteur stated that
Governments have been extremely reluctant to investigate cases and, to
punish those law enforcement officers or civilians who have acted, with
their authority, complicity or acquiescence who are guilty of summarily or
arbitrarily executing personsU (para, 224)
.A.pparently, this is mainly due to lack of political will on the part of
governments to investigate cases of excesses and illegal acts committed, by the
police, military or security forces,
60, In the same report the Special Rapporteur recommended that
Minimum standard.s of investigation need to be laid, down to show whether
a government has genuinely investigated, a case reported. to it and, that those
responsible are fully accountable!? (para 0 230 (4))
61, In the course of his current mandate the Special Rapporteur had. received,
information on investigations and criminal proced.ures undertaken by governments
( against members of the military, police and, security forces In some countries
commissions have been established, to investigate specific cases of death which
occurred. under previous regimes 0 In other countries investigations are carried.
cu-b within the normal judicial process, In one country there is a law which
provides for investigation and, inquiry when a person dies in custody, However,
the Special Rapporteur was told. that the National Police Commission recommended.
that in cases of death or grievous injury while in police custody there should. be
a judicial inquiry to ensure its objectivity and, impartiality,
62 .A. considerable number of governments replied, to the Special Rapporteur!s
request for information concerning the allegations brought to his attention,
The Special Rapporteur feels it necessary to examine those replies from the
governments and. to seek, if appropriate, further clarification on the specific
allegations, either from those governments or from other sources, As for the
previous report, there was limited, time for governments to carry out
investigations into the allegations 0 The Special Rapporteur is of the opinion
that this aspect should. be reflected, in his future reports 0
E/CN 4/1985/17
page 28
III, SITUATIONS MID CASES
A. General
63 In the coarse of his ccirrerrb man 1a e, IIe Special Rapporle r received.
infoi ation concerning siluaUons an cases in which the right o life might not
have been respecle 1. He has taken into consideraUon information conlaining
allegaffions of he occc rrence of summary or arbifflary exec rtions d.uring 1984 as
well as informaffion which ha 1 no been brought o his a enUon prior o the
submission of his previous report o the Commission on Ruma a Rights
(E/cN 4/l9e4/29).
64. The S ecia1 Rappoi cur 7 s ab enUon has been drawn partic iarl r o
allegations concerning a number of countries, as d.escribed. in IIe following
paragraphs He wou.1d like o make i clear ha1 in menlioning IIose allegaUons
regarding specific counfflies he is no in any way passing judgemenl or d.rawing
d.efiniflve concluisions on IIe ru h or accuracy of IIe allegaUons He also
wishes o s a e ha i is highly likely ha some incidents of summary or
arbifflaTy executions IIa took place d.uring the past year may no have been ma e
known o him
65 The Special Rappor eur is of he opinion 1ha he allegations as summarized.
in he present report should. be consid.ered. as an in 1icaffion of he ongoing
phenomenon of summary or arbiLrary execLrtions
66 In IIe case of IIose counfflies ha a e under review by oIIer specific
manda-tes es ablishe 1 by he Commission on Human Rights or he GeneTal Assembly,
namely, Afghanistan, Chile, El Salvadnr, Gualemala, IIe Islamic Republic of Iran,
Soulh Afflica an 1 Narnibia, reference should be made o he respective cha-p ers and.
paragraphs of IIe reports sv bmi ed. uiider IIose mand.a es
67 In his report o he forUeII session of he Commission on Human Rights
(E/CN 4/l984/29) he Special Rappor eur analysed he siIIa ions in which summary
or arbifflary executions usually took place (chaps II), and clivid.ecl such
si i2ations into the following broad. categories: political upheavals; inlernal
armed conflicls; sl2ppression of opposilion gro tps or individuals; abuse of power
by agencies en rits ed with law enCorcemen ; aM oIIer sfruaUons.
68 In he same chapler he Special Rapporteur exBmined he backgTound. of he
si ua ions in which summary or arbitrary executions took place. He iclenLified a
number of characlerisUc elements as ac ors likely o foment con iUons for IIe
occurrence of summary or arbitrary execi2tions, These Cac ors were d.ivided. inlo
civil and polilical factors and economic and. social Cac ors
69 The Special Ra.ppor eL1r considers ha1 IIe analysis inade in chapler II of his
last report still remains valid. for he si i2a ions d.ealt wfrh in his present
report
B , Sfrua ions
70, Having examined. the informafion on allegaffions of suiinmary or arbUrary
executions, IIe Special Rapporleur coinmunicated these allegations to IIe
21 Governments conceTned.
71. The Special Rappor eur received. replies from six Governments with relevant
infoimation and explanalions concerning he above—mentioned. allegations
E/CN .4/1985/17
page 29
Representatives of several Governments came to meet the Spe u ai Rap -porte or to give
their explanation of the allegations. The Special Ra-pporteor wishes to express
his gratitude to those Governments for their positive response to and co—operation
with him.
72. At the same time, the Special Rapporteur would like to express his hope that
the l Governments whioh have not replied to his inquiries concerning allegations
of summary or arbitrary executions will respond positively and provide him with
infoamation on the allegations summarized below:
(a) Executions carried out seoretly or publicly without a trial, or after
the defendant has been sentenced to death by special courts in public trials or
in camera without safeguards to protect his rights, in particular, the right to
appeal;
(h) Executions as a result of death sentences iicposed fur a wide range of
( •‘ criminal offences normally not punishable by death, such death sentences being
justified in connection with a nation—wide campaign against crime;
(c) Deaths in detention due to refusal of medical treatment, deprivation of
food and water and/or as a result of torture;
(d) Killing of persons,a including political and trade—union leaders, peasants
and lawyers, by the police, security forces or by hired assassins for their
suspected opposition to the Governicent;
(e) Killing of non—combatant civiliar.:s by aimed forces in areas where
guerrillas or armed opposition groups are active;
(f) Arbitrary killing of suspected criminals by security forces;
(g) Killing of members of certain ethnic groups by the aimed forces.
E/CN .4/1985/17
page 30
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
73. Since the submission of his last report to the Commission on Human Rights at
its fortieth session (E/CN.4/1984/29), the Special Rapporteur has received
information containing allegations of the occurrence of summary or arbitrary
executions in various parts of the world. This indicates that the practice of
summary or arbitrary executions still continues to be a wide—spread phenomenon in
the international community. OEe Special Rapporteur is of the view that the
information which has reached him may not be exhaustive or complete. In addition
to those cases known to the Special Rapporteur, a considerable number of persons
may well have become victims of the violation of the right to life. The
Special Rapporteur therefore strongly recommends that the Commission should not
only continue to monitor situations of summary or arbitrary executions which have
occurred and which are imminent, but should consider ways and means by which all
such cases can be brought to its attention so that an effective way can be found
to eliminate the abhorrent phenomenon of summary or arbitrary execution.
74, The updating of the review of national legislation which the Special
Rapporteur originally analysed in chapter I of his latest report (E/CN.4/1984/29)
has made it clear that a number of exceptions, in the form of legislation,
decisions or executive decrees, have been made to the national legislation
applicable in normal situations in regard to safeguards of the right to life.
The Special Rapporteur considers it a disturbing trend with negative effects on
the protection of the right to life, rendering the guarantees provided in the
constitutions and other legislation meaningless. In such a context, summary or
arbitrary executions can take place despite the safeguards of the right to life
meticulously stipulated in national legislation in conformity with the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
75. The Special Rapporteur stated briefly in his last report (E/CN.4/1984/29,
para. 145) that he had noted that the violation of the right to life through
summary or arbitrary executions was the responsibility of State authorities or
agencies in several instances. However, he again wished to make it clear that
the information before him also indicated that lack of respect for the right to
life could be attributed to groups other than Governments or quasi—governmental
agencies. During the past year under his current mandate, the Special Rapporteur
has noted that, in a number of situations, summary or arbitrary executions have
occurred as countermeasures taken by Governments responding to killings of either
government officials or civilians by non—governmental groups.
76. The Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize that the primary responsibility
for ensuring respect for the right to life rests with the State under national
and international law. However, this does not exonerate groups other than
Governments from observing the right to life; indeed the Special Rapporteur has
noted an increase in non—respect for the right to life by such groups. The
Commission on Human Rights should give urgent attention to the responsibility of
such groups in ensuring that the rignt to life is universally respected, as
required by the inter-national community.
77. In his previous report (E/CN.4/1984/29, pars. 147), the Special Rapporteur
referred to the increase in summary or arbitrary executions which were not
exclusively politically motivated but resulted from campaigns to curb a rising
crime rate. However, during his current mandate he has noted that, in some
countries, Governments have resorted to harsh measures to cope with the rampant
E/CN.4/1985/l7
page 31
phenomenon of crime. The harsh measures included a significant increase in the
number of offences punishable by death, accelerated trial procedures, retroactive
enforcement of new laws and direct action against suspected criminals. One
Government explained to the Special Rapporteur that, with the serious threat
posed to the State by the upsurge of crime, such measures were necessary in order
to restore law and order and that thanks to such measures the crime rate had been
drastically reduced. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that whatever
measures are taken must be consistent with the fundamental requirement of respect
for the right to life as enshrined in the International Covenants on Human Rights
and various declarations adopted by the international community.
78. The Special Rapporteur has been encouraged by the positive response of
Governments, in a direct or indirect manner,to his urgent communications as
described in chapter II and he appreciates the co—operation arid support given by
those Governments Bearing in mind the request by the Economic and Social
H— Council in paragraph 5 of resolution 1984/35 that the Special Rapporteur ?Ipay
special attention to cases in which a summary or arbitrary execution is imminent
or threatened t1 , the Special Rapporteur considers that his urgent communications
have become an important part of his mandate. Without making any judgement on
the allegations communicatedto him, the Special Rapporteur has established
criteria for making such urgent communications to Governments, on an entirely
humanitarian basis, while trying to eliminate any room for a discriminatory or
selective approach. The Special Rapporteur would like to make a strong appeal to
all Governments to which urgent communications have been sent tonco—operate and
assist him and the Commission by responding to such communications without delay.
79. After having examined situations of summary or arbitrary executions during
the period of his current mandate, the Special Rapporteur wishes to reiterate
the conclusions and recommendationsof his two previous reports (E/CN.4/1983/16
and E/CN.4/1984/29). In addition, the following points are raised for further
consideration by the Commission on Human Rights:
(a) The Special Rapporteur refers in particular to the conclusions of his
first report, in which he stated that there was a close relationship between
summary or arbitrary executions and violations of other human rights, in
particular the right not to be subjected to torture and the right not to be
arbitrarily arrested or detained. In this connection, he welcomes the adoption
by the General Assembly of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 6/ and urges States Members of the
United Nations to sign, ratify and accede to it. The Special Rapporteur further
recommends that Governments consider incorporating into their national laws or
regulations the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials 7/ and the
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners ; 8/
6/ General Assembly resolution 39/46.
7/ General Assembly resolution .4/l69, annex.
8/ First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the
Treatment of Offenders: report by the Secretariat (United Nations publication,
Sales No. 1956. IV. 4), annex I, A, as amended by Economic and Social Council
resolution 2076 (LXII),.
E/CN ,4Il985Il7
page 32
(b) The Special Rapporteur hopes that the trend being set for impartial
investigation, prosecution and punishment of those involved in summary or
arbitrary executions will become a permanent and accepted feature in all
countries where such executions take place;
Cc) Governments must be urged to set up training programmes for law
enforcement officials with empha is on the provisions of the instruments
mentioned in (a) above. The Special Rapporteur has noted in paragraph 30 that
the response to his note verbale requesting information on measures taken to
establish such training programmes was limiteII He hope6 that Governments will
respond to his request so that programmes can be formulated, where necessary, to
build awareness of the importance of the right to life, not only within the law
enforcement agencies, the army, etc. , but also in the international community a
a who1e
E/CN.4/1985/17
P nnex I
page 1
Annex I
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1984/35 */
Summary or arbitrary executions
The Economic and Social Council,
Recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the
right to life, liberty and security of person,
Having regard to the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, which states that every human being has the inherent
right to life, that this right shall be protected by law and that no one shall
be arbitrarily deprived of his life,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 34/175 of 17 December 1979, in
which the Assembly reaffirmed that mass and flagrant violations of human rights
were of special concern to the United Nations and urged the Commission on
Human Rights to take timely and effective action in existing and future cases
of mass and flagrant violations of human rights,
Mindful of General Assembly resolutions 36/22 of 9 November 1981, 37/182
of 17 December 1982 and 38/96 of 16 December 1983,
Taking note of resolution 1982/13 of 7 September 1982 of the
Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,
in which the Sub—Commission recommended that effective measures should be
adopted to prevent the occurrence of summary and arbitrary executions,
Taking note also of the work done by the Commission on Crime Prevention
and Control in the area of summary and arbitrary executions, including the
elaboration of minimum legal guarantees and safeguards to prevent recourse to
such extra—legal executions, to be considered by the Seventh United Nations
Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1985,
( Deeply alarmed about the occurrence on a large scale of summary or
arbitrary executions, including extra—legal executions,
l. Strongly deplores , once again, the large number of summary or
arbitrary executions, including extra—legal executions, which continue to take
place in various parts of the world;
2. Appeals urgently to Governments, United Nations bodies, the
specialized agencies, regional intergovernmental organizations and
non—governmental organizations to take effective action to combat and
eliminate summary or arbitrary executions, including extra—legal executions;
*/ OEe final edited text of this resolution will be published in
Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1984, Supplement No. 1
(E/1984/l).
E/CN.4/1985 /17
Annex I
page 2
3. Takes note with appreciation of the report of the Special Rapporteur,
Mr. S Amos Wako;
4. Decides to continue the mandate of the Special Rapporteur,
Mr. S .. Amos Wako, for another year, in order to enable him to submit further
conclusions and recommendations to the Commission on Human Rights;
5. Requests the Special Rapporteur in carrying out his mandate to
continue to examine situations of summary or arbitrary executions and to pay
special attention to cases in which a summary or arbitrary execution is
imminent or threatened;
6, Requests the Special Rapporteur in carrying out his mandate to respond
effectively to information that comes before him;
7, Considers that the Special Rapporteur in carrying out his mandate
should continue to seek and receive information from Governments, United Nations
bodies, specialized agencies, regional intergovernmental organizations and
non—governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and
Social Council;
8. Requests the Secretary—General to continue to provide all necessary
assistance to the Special Rapporteur so that he may carry out his mandate
effectively;
9. Urges all Governments and all others concerned to co—operate with and
assist the Special Rapporteur;
10.. Requests the Commission on Human Rights to consider the question of
summary or arbitrary executions as a matter of high priority at its
forty—first session, under the item entitled ‘ t Question of the violation of
human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, with particular
reference to colonial and other dependent countries and territories' t .
20th plenary meeting
24 May 1984
E/CN 4/l985/17
Annex II
page 1
Annex II
GENERAL ASSEMBLY I E3OLUTIOM 39/110 */
Summary or arbitrary_executions
The General Assembly,
Recalling the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which
states that every human being has the right to life, liberty and security of
person and that everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal,
Having regard to the provisions of the international Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which states that every human being has the inherent right to
life, that this right shall be protected by law and that no one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his life
Recalling also its resolution 34/175 of 17 December 1979, in which it
reaffirmed that mass and flagrant violations of human rights are of special
concern to the United Nations arid urged the Commission on Human Rights to take
timely and effective action in existing arid future cases of mass and flagrant
violations of human rights
Recalling further its resolution 56/22 of 9 November 1981, in which it
condemned the practice of summary or arbitrary executions, and its
resolutions 57/182 of 17 December 1982 and 8/96 of 16 December 1983,
Deeply alarmed at the occurrence on a large scale of summary or arbitrary
executions, including extra—legal executions
Recalling resolution l982/l of 7 September 1982 of the Sub Conirnission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in which the
Sub—Commission recommended that effective measures should be adopted to prevent
the occurrence of summary or arbitrary executions,
Taking note of the work done by the Committee on Crime Prevention and
Control in the area of summary or arbitrary executions, including the
elaboration of minimum legal guarantees and safeguards to prevent recourse to
such extra—legal executions, to be considered by the Seventh United Nations
Congress on the Prevention of Crime arid the Treatment of Offenders to be held
in 1985,
Convinced of the need for appropriate action to combat and eventually
eliminate this practicer which represents a flagrant violation of the most
fundamental human right, the right to life,
L Strongly deplores the large number of summary or arbitrary executions,
including extra legal executions, which continue to take place in various parts
of the world;
*/ The final edited text of this resolution will be published in Official
Records of the General Assembly thirty—ninth ses upplement No. 51 (A/39/51).
E/CN 4/l985/l7
Annex II
pace 2
2 Welcomes Economic and Social Council resolutions E/1982/35 of
7 May 1982, in which the Council decided to appoint for one year a special
rapporteur to examine the questions related to summary or arbitrary executions
and 1983/36 of 26 May 1983, in which the Council decided to continue for another
year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur;
3. Also welcomes Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/35 of
24 May 1984, in which the Council again decided to continue the mandate of the
Special Rapporteur 9 Mr. S,A, Wako, for another year and decided that the
Commission on Human Rights should consider the question of summary or arbitrary
executions as a matter of high priority at its forty—first session;
4. A peais to all Governments to co—operate with and aE-sist the Special
Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights in the preparation of his report;
5. Requests the Special Rapporteur in carrying out his mandate, to respond
effectively to information that comes before him in particular when a summary or
arbitrary execution is imminent or threatened;
6. Considers that the Special Rapporteur, in carrying out his mandate,
should continue to seek and receive information from Governments, United Nations
bodies, specialized agencies, regional intergovernmental organizations and
non—governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and
Social Council;
7, Requests the Secretary General to provide all necessary assistance to
the Special Rapporteur so that he may effectively carry out his mandate;
8. Again requests the Secretary .General to continue to use his best
endeavours in cases where the minimum standard of legal safeguards provided for
in articles 6, 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights appear not to be respected;
9, Requests the Commission on Human Rights at its forty—first session, on
the basis of the report of the Special Rapporteur to be prepared in conformity
with Economic and Social Council resolutions l982/35 , 1983/36 and 1984/35, to
make recommendations concerning appropriate action to combat and eventually
eliminate the practice of summary or arbitrary executions,
101st plenary meeting
14 December 1984
H -
E/CN.4/1985/17
Annex III
Annex III
NOTE VERBALE DATED 25 APRIL 1984 FROM THE SECRETARY—GENERAL
TO GOVERNMENTS
The Secretary—General of the United Nations presents his compliments to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan and has the honour to draw the
attention of his Excellency's Government to General Assembly resolution 38/96 of
16 December 1983, entitled Summary or arbitrary executions”. A copy of the
resolution is attached.
E/CN .4/l985/l7
Annex IV
Annex IV
NOTE VERBALE DATED 21 SEPTEMBER 1984 FROM THE
SECRETARY—GENERAL TO GOVERNMENTS
The Secretary—General of the United Nations presents his compliments to the
Prime Minister and Minister for Finance and Foreign Affairs of ... and has the
honour to refer to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/35 of 24 May 1984,
entitled “Summary or arbitrary executions!?. A copy of the resolution is
attached.
The attention of His Excellency's Government is drawn to paragraphs 2, 9 and,
in particular to paragraph 4, in which the Council decided to continue the mandate
of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. S. Wako, for another year, in order to enable him
to submit further conclusions and recommendations to the Commission on
Human Rights.
The Special Rapporteur would be most grateful if he received from
His Excellency's Government its views on and any information relevant to his
mandate and in particular on the following matters:
1. Incidents of summary or arbitrary executions or threatened or imminent
summary or arbitrary executions.
2. Policies and measures which Your Excellency's Government thinks should
be adopted both at national and international levels in order to prevent
the occurrence of summary or arbitrary executions.
3. Information on constitutional, legislative and administrative controls
in the exercise or use of force both in peace time and war—like
situations, affecting the right to life by armed forces, law
enforcement agencies, paramilitary forces and other governmental
officials or agents.
4. Information on the programmes and the measures undertaken to enhance
the importance of the right to life in the training of members of the
armed forces, law enforcement agencies, paramilitary forces and other
governmental officials or agents.
The Special Rapporteur would greatly appreciate if His Excellency's
Government could transmit such information to the Assistant Secretary—General for
Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, CH—1211 Gen ve 10, if possible by
30 November 1984.
E/CN. ,4/1985/17
Annex V
page 1
Annex V
VISIT ThY THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR TO SUEINAME
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
1. The report of the Special Rapporteur of the Comrnis ion on Human Rights on
summary or arbitrary executions submitted to the Commission at its
thirty—ninth session (E/CN 4/i983/l6, Add.i and Add i/Corr l) referred to an
allegation received by the Special Rapporteur of the summary or arbitrary
execution of a number of persons in Sur narne on or about 9 December 1982. a!
At the thirty ninth session of the Commission on Human R:Lghts, the observer
for Suriname indicated that an invitation to the Commission to visit Suriname
would be made in order to examine the human rights situation. For a number of
— reasons, the visit of the Special Rapporteur could not take place prior to
the fortieth session (see E/CN.4/1984/29, paras. 22 and 25—29).
2. At the fortieth session of the Commission on Human Rights, the observer
for Suriname confirmed his Government's invitation to the Special Rapporteur
to visit the country and evaluate the unfortunate events which had taken place
in December 1982.
B. Visit to Surinarne
5. The visit to Suriname by the Special Rapporteur took place from
22 to 27 July 1984 and was followed by a visit to the Netherlands on
30 and 31 July 1984.
1. Aims of the visit
4, The subjects for examination during the visit by the Special Rapporteur
were as follows:
(a) The alleged occurrence of summary or arbitrary executions in
December 1982 and the official measures taken to determine the facts of those
incidenis;
(b) The safeguards adopted or envisaged to enhance the protection of the
right to life.
2. Arrangements
5. Prior to his visit, and by a cable dated 18 June 1984, the Special
Rapporteur communicated to the Permanent Representative of Suriname the names
of those persons whom he wished to meet in Surir arne. Furthermore, on the
request of the Special Rapporteur, a public announcement was made in newspapers
and other media concerning his visit to Suriname, prior to his arrival as
follows:
a! Subsequently, a letter was received from the Government of Suriname
which explained that these persons “were killed in an unfortunate accident as
a result of their attempt to escape custodyu.
E/CN.4/1985/17
Annex V
page 2
“By a resolution adopted by the Economic and Social Council on
24 May 1982, the Council appointed Mr. S. Amos Wako as Special
Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights with a mandate to examine
the question of summary or arbitrary executions. In another resolution
adopted on 24 May 1984, the Council decided to continue the mandate of
the Special Rapporteur for another year. Mr. Wako presented a report to
the Commission on Human Rights at its thirty-ninth session in 1983. The
report contained a statement concerning Suriname and, in particular, the
events which occurred on 8 and 9 December 1982. In that connection, the
Government of Suriname extended an invitation to Mr. Wako to visit the
Republic of Suriname. That visit will take place from 23 to 27 July 1984.
Mr. Wako will meet Government officials, military and prominent civil
leaders. Mr. Wako will also be available to meet any persons wishing to
provide information concerning the events referred to above. The
Special Rapporteur has been assured by the Government of Suriname that it
shall grant the pertinent guarantees to all those who may provide the
Special Rapporteur and his staff with information, testimony or evidence
of any kindS Mr. Wako may be contacted at Hotel Krasnapolsky tt .
3. Schedule
6. With the assistance and co—ordination of the National Commission of
Information and Guidance on Human Rights, meetings were arranged with
Government officials, military personnel, trade—union leaders, professional
and religious groups and the business community. The Special Rapporteur also
met a number of private individuals. b/
II. ALLEGATIONS
7. It was alleged to the Special Rapporteur in several communications that
15 persons ci (listed below) had been summarily executed without recourse to
bi In all the Special Rapporteur met with over 100 persons.
Cl The names of the individuals were. given as follows:
(1) John Baboeram, lawyer
(2) Bram Behr, journalist
(3) Cyril Daal, trade—unionist and Chairman of the Moederbond
(4) Kenneth Gon alves, Dean of the Surinamese Bar Association
(5) Eddy Hoost, lawyer and former Minister of Justice
(6) Andre Kamperveen, businessman, owner of the ABC radio station
and former Minister of Culture and Sport
(7) Gerald Leckie, Professor at the University of Suriname
(8) Suchrin Oemrawsingh, professor at the University of Suriname
(9) Leslie Rahman, journalist
(10) Soerindre Rambocus, army officer serving a sentence of
imprisonment for his involvement in the coup attempt in March 1982
(11) Harold Riedewald, lawyer
(12) Jiwansingh Sheombar, army officer serving a sentence of
imprisonment for his involvement in the coup attempt in March 1982
(13) Jozef Slagveer, journalist
(14) Somradj Sohansing, businessman
(15) Frank Wijngaarde, journalist of Dutch nationality.
E/CN .4/1985/17
Annex V
page 3
legal safeguards and that they had been tortured while in custody. Two of the
persons were military officers who were serving sentences of imprisonment.
8. It was also alleged that the military leadership had decided to arrest
and execute a number of persons who were believed to have been involved in a
series of anti—Government or counter—revolutionary activities in December 1982
and that the execution was actually carried out by the military authorities.
It was further alleged that no autopsy had been performed on any of the dead
and that there had been no investigation into their deaths.
9. In addition it was alleged to the Special Rapporteur that, on
3 February 1983, Maj. Roy Horb, second in command in the military and allegedly
involved in the arrest and death of the above- rnentioned persons, had been found
dead hanging in the cell where lie had been detained after his arrest on
30 January 1983 for an alleged plot against Lt. Cob Bouterse. Serious doubts
were communicated to the Special Rapporteur by a number of sources as to the
official explanation of suicide by hanging.
10. In essence, the allegations relate to the following provisions of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: article 6, paragraph 1,
on arbitrary deprivation of life; article 7, on torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment; article 9, on arbitrary arrest and detention; article 10,
paragraph 1; and the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners , d/
paragraph 37, on respect for the inherent dignity of prisoners and contacts
with their families and friends; article 14, paragraph 1, on a fair and public
trial.
III. REPORTS BY OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
11. The Special Rapporteur has taken note of reports prepared on Suriname by
the following organizations:
(a) International Commission of Jurists, Human Rights in Suriname , Report
of a Mission (February/March 1983) by M. Bossuyt and J. Griffiths;
(b) International Labour Office, 230th Report of the Committee on
F'reedom of Association (GB.224/9/7), Case No. 1160, annex “Report on the direct
contacts mission to Suriname carried out by Mr. W. R. Simpson, Chief of the
Freedom of Association Branch, International Labour Standards Department”
pp. 117—131.
Cc) Organization of American States, Inter—American Commission on Human
Rights: Report on the situation of human rights in Suriname (OAS/Ser .L/II.61,
Doc.6 Rev.l, October 5, 1983).
12. The Government's observations on the report of the Inter—American
Commission on Human Rights submitted-to its Chairman in September 1983 was made
available to the Special Rapporteur by the Government of Suriname.
d/ First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the
Treatment of Offenders: report by the secretariat (United Nations publication,
Sales No. 1956.IV.4), annex LA, as amended by Economic and Social Council
resolution 2076 (LXII).
E/CN.4/l985/l7
Annex V
page 4
13. The Special Rapporteur has taken note of the findings and conclusions of
these reports and also the observations by the Government of Suriname as far
as they are relevant to his mandate.
IV. INFORMATION OBTAINED DURING THE VISIT
14. During his visit to Suriname and the Netherlands, the Special Rapporteur
did his utmost to inform himself of the events of December 1982 regarding the
allegations described above and of the measures taken by the Government to
prevent the recurrence of such events. His activities in this respect, however,
cannot be considered as a formal investigation which might correspond to or
replace the investigations envisaged in criminal procedure in the domestic
legal system or an inquest. The following paragraphs therefore describe as
comprehensively as possible, the information gathered by the Special Rapporteur
as a result of the invitation kindly extended to him by the Government of
Surf name.
A. Developments leading up to the December killings
15. In the view of the Special Rapporteur, if the events which led to the
killings are to be fully understood, they must be seen in the light of the
circumstances prevailing since the military take—over in 1980 and especially
the circumstances immediately before the killings took place.
16. It would appear that, since the military take—over in 1980, the human
rights situation in Suriname has been through a process of restriction largely
as a result of circumstances linked with attempted take—overs, of which at
least three are generally acknowledged. This situation was further characterized
by periodic unrest inc1uding in particular, strikes and demonstrations. The
process gathered momentum throughout 1981 and 1982 when, in March 1982, an
attempted coup was foiled. A series of strikes continued thereafter. (These
developments are reflected in more detail in paragraphs 42 to 46 below).
17. In October 1982, a strike was called by the Moederbond led by Cyrill Daal.
The Special Rapporteur was told that the strikes called by the Noederbond were
politically motivated and aimed at returning soldiers to the camp and restoring
democracy. Both the Progressive Workers Association (PWO) and the Civil
Servants Association (CLO) informed the Special Rapporteur that they had not
joined the strikes because they had thought that they were not being called for
purely trade—union activities but mainly to achieve certain political objectives.
The Union C—47 told the Special Rapporteur that it did not support the strike
and the demonstrations. According to the members of the Steering Committee of
the University, the strike had been timed not only to cause the military
maximum embarrassment but also to have a showdown with them One source
informed the Special Rapporteur that it was not by chance that the strike
had coincided with the visit to Suriname of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop of
Grenada, who was reportedly a friend of Lt. Col. Bouterse; he had arrived
when the air.-controllers and the electricity workers were on strike. The
Special Rapporteur was informed that, on the day and time that Lt, Col. Bouterse
and Mr. Bishop addressed a meeting at Fort Bornika, Cyrill Daal had also called
a meeting in the grounds of Moederbond. Whereas the former meeting had been
attended by some 1,500 people, the latter had been attended by over 15,000
people. Consequently, Lt. Cc l. Bourterse promised at the public rally held
for Maurice Bishop to pay Daal's account in cash and Daal could keep the
change T7 . The extent to which the situation had thus polarized is reflected
in the statement attributed to Mr. Bishop at that time to the effect that ‘ T the
Surinamese revolution was too friendly and that the reactionary forces are too
strong .
E/CN.4/l985/l7
Annex V
page 5
18. In the course of his speech at the rally, Cyrill Daal exhorted his listeners
to continue to strike until Bourterse was ready to hold elections and to restore
democracy.
19. The strike was eventually called off on 2 November 1982 after Major Horb
allegedly acted as an intermediary with Daal. The Special Rapporteur was told
that thereafter the relationship between Lt. Col. Bourtese and Major Horb
became strained and on at least two occasions during meetings in the
Memre Boekoe barracks Lt. Col. Bourterse was reported to have accused Major Horb
of working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
20. On 31 October 1982, the three union federations, C—47, CLO and PWO issued
the First Plan of Reconstruction for the return to democracy. The fourth
federation, the Moederbond, also joined in the support for the First Plan after
Daal had been briefly arrested and released following intervention by
Mr. F. Derby, the President of C—47. The discussions on the Plan continued
between the four federations and the Policy Centre until 15 November 1982;
on that date Lt. Col. Bourterse announced on television that groups or
organizations which met the requirements formulated as regards “democracy as
the basis” would qualify for consultations and participation on further
development of the democracy. The trade—union organizations informed the
Special Rapporteur that at the time they had construed that as tantamount to
cancellation by Bourterse of the ongoing discussions on the First Plan and
had issued a joint declaration to that effect.
21. In the meantime, the Association for Democracy el addressed a joint
letter dated 23 November 1982, to the Chairman of the Policy Centre,
Lt. Col. D. D. Bouterse in which they challenged and criticized his conception
of democracy and the manner in which he proposed to proceed with consultations.
They thought that the military's view of democracy was in fact totalitarian in
concept. They further informed Lt. Col. Bouterse that:
“By persisting in this point of view, the consequences will be fully
predictable. Considering the fact that your views are rejected for
reasons of principle by a largemajority of the population, you will be
relying on an ever decreasing minority and in the ultimate resort you will
be inclined to adopt a power enforcement policy of a repressive nature,
unheard of according to Suriname standards”.
In the same letter, the Association proposed the discussion of certain basic
principles which in its view were fundamental in any democratic society.
22. During the same period, problems arose at the University. The
Special Rapporteur was informed by the members of the Steering Committee of
the University that, at the University, “the battle of ideas turned into a
battle of power between those who wanted the University to be back to what it
e/ The Association for Democracy has the following members: The Committee
of Christian Religions, the Hindu Religious Community Sanatan Dharm, the Hindu
Religious Community Aryans, the Association of Managers and Chief Editors of
the Press, Madjlies Muslimin Suriname, the Suriname Islamic Association, the
Suriname Muslim Association, the Suriname Business Association, the Association
of Suriname Manufacturers, the Suriname Bar Association, the Association of
Medical Practitioners in Suriname, the Central Organization of Farmers' Unions
and the National Suriname Woments Council.
E/CN .4/1985/17
Annex V
page 6
was before the revolution, led by the Union of Lecturers and those who wanted
the University restructed and led by the Interim Board of the University .
In October 1982, the Union of Lecturers tried to call a general strike of
students which, according to the members of the Steering Committee of the
University, failed due to lack of student support. The Special Rapporteur was
told by the Steering Committee that the students from the Faculty of Medicine
had joined the lecturers in their demand that the Interim Board should be
dissolved and had occupied the Medical Institute for a number of weeks. On
10 November 1982, the students were removed from the building peacefully as
was subsequently shown on television.
23. According to the members of the Steering Committee, when the Union failed
to mobilize the students at the University, they took to the streets and
succeeded in mobilizing secondary school students. OEey told the Special
Rapporteur that there were only a small number of the University students in
that group. However, instead of the peaceful handling of the situation
achieved earlier at the University, this time, in dispersing the students,
on 2 December 1982, the security forces had beaten them up thus provoking
an immediate emotional reaction from the entire community. In the words of
one University lecturer: “If it was meant by the reactionary forces in th
army to have a national effect, it had. It was a major reason for the
escalation of social unrest . . ‘.
24. The following day, 3 December 1982, the Association for Democracy wrote
a letter to Lt. Cal. D. D. Bouterse in which it stated:
... As far as we are aware, this is the first time in our
history that students have been beaten up during an otherwise peaceful
dernojistration ....
It was unfortunately again shown on this occasion that a stubborn
attempt to impose the will of a small minority on a large majority
ultimately ends in the use of senseless violence ...
The trade unions also expressed solidarity with the students.
25. According to dons on the Steering Committee of the University whom the
Special Rapporteur had met, these events were co—ordinated with persons who were
behind the attempted coup of March 1982. The Special Rapporteur was also told
that the process of polarization was further accentuated when the Union
of Lecturers joined the Moeclerbond. As a result, on one hand, there were the
students, lecturers, religious communities, businessmen, professionals, women
and farmers and, on the other, was the military that wielded power.
26. The domestic pressure on the military thus increased considerably; however,
they were more worried about the external forces. As Mr. Sital, formerly
Minister of Public Health and now Deputy Director of the Ministry of Transport
and Industry, told the Special Rapporteur:
“We did not feel threatened (by strikes) because we thought we were
doing good work ... The Moederbond was mainly pushed by counter-
revolutionary forces to stage those strikes ... The military knew that
the counter-revolutionary factions had foreign support, not only moral,
but also financial. Their aim was to destroy the military authorities ...
Maj. Horb had travelled to the United States ... It was on that occasion
we got to know about the coup and all the plans of the strikes and the
problems that were being created ?.
E/CN 4/l985/l7
Annex V
page 7
27. The military leaders felt that their fears of CIA involvement were justified
when in January 1983 there was a television programme on ABC networks in the
United States showing that Suriname was one of the countries where the CIA was
planning activities aimed at overthrowing the Government.
28. It was in this setting, with the military feeling threatened by powerful
external forces which they thought were aiding the internal forces to return the
military “to the barracks t ', that the arrests of 8 December 1982 took place.
29. As the Prime Minister, Mr. Udenhout told the Special Happorteur, “the
tensions that led to the events of December 1982 created a basis for violence”.
The military officers informed the Special Happorteur that the events of
December 1982 were considered as tmnecessaryT and “based on the principle of
survival”; it was a question of either “them” or “us”.
B. Events of December 1982
30. The information in the possession of the Special Rapporteur on the events of
, 8 and 9 December is as follows:
(a) As a result of the events outlined in the preceding paragraphs, the
military decided to arrest the persons who were considered to be the leaders of
the ‘ T counter—revolutionary t ' forces in order, as the Special Happorteur was told
at the session with the military officers, “to prevent a catastrophe' 1 ;
(b) .Lt. Col. D. D. Bouterse, in an official announcement made on the
evening of 8 December (a video recording of which was made available to the
Special Rapporteur by the Government of Suriname), stated that the revolutionary
leadership had succeeded in frustrating” an attempted coup which was “designed
to restore the situation whereby a small economic elite would come to power and
trample underfoot the interests of the workers, peasants and masses of our
people' T and that a number of suspects had been arrested and held for questioning;
(c) On the same night the military destroyed what they regarded as
centres of counter—revolutions i.e. the headquarters of the Moederbond, two
independent radio stations and the offices of an opposition newspaper. A
person who stated that he had attended the meeting of military officers on the
evening of 7 December 1982 ir.formed the Special Rapporteur that, at that
meeting, the decision to arrest the leaders of the counter—revolution and to
burn the centres of resistance had been communicated to them by the military
leadership. One person still in the Government confirmed to the Special
Rapporteur that all these acts (burning or destroying buildings) and
arrests were part of the plan decided upon. In the ILO report, the Committee
noted that in the Government of Surinarne's written communication to it, the
premises of the Moederbond trade—union federation were destroyed by the
military. Lt. Col. D. D. Bouterse in his official announcement stated: “We
have simultaneously dealt with some major focal points that were spreading
alarm and were being used as centres for the counter—revolution. Circumstances
have been such that, in the process, a number of these centres have also
been physically destroyed”. The headquarters of the Moederbond is being rebuilt
by the Government;
(d) The Special Happorteur was informed that the arrests were carried out
on the night of 7/8 December 1982 by military personnel who, in at least two
cases, used gunfire and grenades against the houses of arrested persons. In
all cases, telephone wires were cut and guards posted;
E/CN .4/1985/17
Annex V
page 8
(e) On the evening of 8 December 1982, statements were made by two of the
arrested persons (Slagveer and Kamperveen) on the radio 9 a recording of which was
also made available to the Special Rapporteur by the GovernmentS Mr. Slagveer
made a confession implicating a number of persons in the conspiracy against the
military authorities, 11 of whom had already been arrested and were subsequently
killed. Of the 15 persons who were killed, including Mr 0 Slagveer himself,
Bram Behr, Leslie Rabman and Frank Wi,jingaarde were not mentioned in the two
confessions. According to the confession, the aim of the conspirators was to get
the soldiers back to the barracks and restore democracy by an uprising of the
people?!;
(f) Multiple sources informed the Special Rapporteur that the face of
Mr. Slagveer who made his statement on television was swollen, particularly on the
left side , A person who was in Fort Zeelandia at that time inlormed the
Special Rapporteur that he saw both Slagveer and Karnperveen in Fort Zeelandia and
that they were so badly beaten that he thought they were dead However, on
inquiring, the person was informed by the military leadership that they were alive.
Some sources maintained that the confessions had already been prepared and that a
high—ranking member of the military had been detailed to extract confessions from
Slagveer and Rambocus.
C , The military 's version of the events of December 1982
31. The Government has on a number of occasions stated its version of what
happened on the night the 15 persons were killed:
(a) At the meeting with the military officers 9 the Special Rapporteur was
told that Maj. Horb was put in complete charge of the entire operation of
arresting TTthe coimter—revolutionaries”. The Special Rapporteur was told by the
military officers he met in Memre Boekoe Barracks that Maj. Horb and his men were
the only ones who in fact knew the details of what happened that night. He was
told by the officers concerned that none other than Maj Horb and Sgt Maj. Zeeuw
were present in Fort Zeelandia during the killings;
(b) According to 2nd Lt, Gorr , who was the military commander at Fort
Zeelandia, on the morning of 8 December 1982, Maj. Horb ordered him to leave
Fort Zeelandia with his imit (the ECHO company) consisting of 100 to 120 men; he
accordingly left with his unit to a point some 25 km from Fort Zeelandia where
they set up camp. When he left Maj 0 Horb took over the FortS
(c) Sgt. Maj. Zeeuw, the second most senior officer at Fort Zeelandia on the
night in question informed the Special Rapporteur that he had been on guard duty
outside the office in Fort Zeelandia in which Maj Horb was interrogating the
detainees; he told the Special Rapporteur that Maj. Horb had questioned about
seven or eight detainees while Sgt. Maj. Zeeuw sat outside his off iceS This office
led to a small room, then to the corridor and to the terrace where the detainees
were being held awaiting interrogation by Maj Horb. 5gb. Maj. Zeeuw confimed to
the Special Rapporteur that the only officers present were Maj. Horb and himself.
According to Sgt, Maj. Zeeuw 5 at some point the persons manning the Bren gun had
opened fire without his or Maj 0 Horb's authorization. Sgt. Maj. Zeeuw recalled
at that time that Maj. Horb was probably interrogating Rahman or Slagveer. He
himself was in the corridor leading to the terrace and upon hearing the shots he
came out tt carefully in military style t ' and found a ‘ big mess, corpses and everybody
shouting and crying t7 . He then went to report to Maj. Horb who was flat on his
belly t ' and Maj. Horb telephoned Capt. Graanoogst and Lt. Col Bouterse . When
E/CN .4/1985/17
Annex V
page 9
Bouterse and Graanoogst came, Zeein left and we:tat around. tii.e Fort to see Uhat
everybody was at his post. “Some soldiers were even dozing”;
(d) The Special Rapporteur visited Font; Zeelandia where Sgt. Maj. Zeeuw
showed him the site on which 15 persons were said to have been shot. According to
Sgt. Maj, Zeeuw the persons were shot dead when a soldier manning the Bran gun on
the terrace opened. fire; Sgt. Maj. Zeeu.w could not explain the reason for the
shooting, but speculated that the soldier may have erroneously presumed that a
rescue attempt was under way. SgL. Maj. Zeeuw explained to the Special Rapporteur
that the prisoners could. only escape by jumping off the wall of the fortification
which rose some 20 feet above the bank of the Suriname River; other directions
were blocked. by the Bren—gun post and the deployment of the guards;
(e) At the meeting with the military officers, the Special Rapporteur was
told. by Capt. Graanoogst:
“Arrests were made and. the people were brought to Fort Zeelandia under
the command of the late Maj Rorb ... On the nights of 8 and
9 December 1982, planes arrived. over Paramaribo and. Maj. Horh and.
Sgt. Naj. Zeeuw, who is here, told. us that shots were fired. from a
Bren—gun post in the Fort at some detainees who were trying to flee.
The people manning the Bren—gun post had not received. any authorization
to fire either from Maj. Horb or Sgt. Maj. Zeeuw as they were busy with
the inquiry”;
(f) Among the questions put by the Special Rapporteur and. the answers given
at the meeting with the military officers were the following:
“Special Rapporteur: Did. the shooting occur within Fort Zeeland.ia?
Answer: Yes.
Special Rapporteur: ‘ From the report, 15 people died. and. they all
died. together — does it mean that these people
were on a parade inside the Fort?
Answer: They were standing, either standing or sitting”;
(g) The Special Rapporteur heard. from at least two persons who were present
at the ministerial meeting that, on the morning of 9 December 1982,
Lt. Col, Bouterse was reported. to have told. the Ministers that planes came over
Fort Zeeland.ia,tI' at there was an attack and. that the prisoners had. been shot when
the guards panicked.;
(h) On the evening of 9 December 1982, Lt. CoL Bouterse made a broadcast in
which he said.:
“... we had. already obtained. information from some other prisoners that
escape plans had been prepared on behalf of the military prisoners, for
which they had already won over some other conspirators. At the moment
when the transport from the Fort to the barracks was to have been carried.
out, the fatal occurrence took place, whereby some of the suspects lost
their lives”.
E/CN .4/1985/17
Annex V
page 10
(i) The same message addressed to the Secretary—General of the United Nations
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 11 January 1983 stated:
In an official statement of the MfiitaTy Authority it is stated that
on 8 December 1982, a number of persons, detained for their involvement
in activities to overthrow the Government by violent means, were killed
in an unfortunate accident as a result of their attempt to escape
custody ';
(j) The Special Rapporteur asked to see the persons who had been manning
the Bren-gun post and who had allegedly shot the detainees, ‘out nobody among the
military officers whom the Special Rapporteur met knew who they were The answers
to a series of questions which the Special Rapporteur put to the military officers
can. be sumrnarized as follows:
Nobody knows those persons except Maj. Horb because they were not part
of the professional military group but were doing their 18—month
military service. Maj Horb had his own staff and they all lived
together in one place. Maj . Horb had his own way of working an 1 did not
trust anybody easily'
D,, Other versions of the events of December 1962
32. A second version that was communicated to the Special Rapporteur described
the events as follows. This version is based on statements made to the
Special Rapporteur by a number of persons, including at least five eyewitnesses
who claim to have been in Fort Zeelandia on the night of the killings and a further
two who claim to have talked to two additional persons who were present and
eyewitnesses According to this version, the following occurred:
(a) A decision was taken by the military leadership to suppress the
opposition by arresting and killing the leaders;
(b) In the course of 8 December, the persons who had been arrested were
interrogated, some of them more than once During the interrogations they were
confronted with the confessions which had been made by Slagveer and Kamperveen;
(c) Reinforcements were placed inside Fort Zeelandia on the afternoon in
questiqn and orders were given to open fire with blanks at a given signal The
signal was given at about 11 p.m and firing continued for some hours during
which time the killings took place;
(d) Among those present at the time inside the Port were Lt . Col. Bouterse,
Maj. Horb, 1st Lt., Bhagwandas, Nelom, Sgt Maj. Mahadew, Brondestein, Rozendaal
and 1st Lt, Leeflang. Also present for part of the time were Mr. E Alibux and
Dr. Naarendorp and members of the current Government;
(e) The corpses of the victims were transported by military vehicles to the
hospital morgue and put under military guard;
(f) No autopsy was performed on the corpses and there was no request or
order to that effect Eyewitnesses, including family members and medical personnel,
viewed the bodies They informed the Special Rapporteur of their observations
including detailed descriptions (in some cases with photographs of the corpses
taken in the morgue) which indicated several bullet wounds. The Special Rapporteur
E/CN.4/1985/17
Annex V
page 11
was told that these bullet wounds indicated that shots came from the front of the
body at close range. The Special Rapporteur was further told that the majority of
the bodies carried other wounds indicating that most of the 15 persons had been
very severely tortured;
33. The foregoing para5Taphs give the two accounts of the circumstances
surrounding the death of the 15 persons as contained in the information received
by the Special Rapporteur.
34. The Special Rapporteur has attempted to give as correct a summary of the
circumstances surrounding the death of the 15 persons as possible on the basis of
the information received.
B. iestion whether any measures were taken to determine
the facts of the events of December 1982
35. The question arises why there was no investigation or inquiry into an
incident which, by all accounts, shook the entire country.
36. This question was put by the Special Rapporteur to the military officers whom
he met. No official inquiry into the incident of the night of 8—9 December 1982
was conducted. The Special Rapporteur was told by the military officers that
Maj. Eorb had been entrusted with the preparation of a report on the incident.
This was corroborated by Capt. C-raanoogst, who was the Minister for Army and Police
at the time and who told the Special Rapporteur that the military wanted to clarify
these matters. Maj. Horb was found dead in his cell on 3 February 1983; no
evidence of his report has been found.
37. This question was put by the Special Rapporteur to the Minister of Justice,
Dr. Prank Lefflang:
??special Rapporteur: May I ask if there was an investigation on the
events of December 1982?
Minister: This question is difficult as it is impossible
to answer if you don't know the Suriname reality.
There were no investigations. These were
special circumstances. No formal request was
made to investigate those facts, therefore, our
Government is not able to investigate because
it did not know all the facts concerning this
matter. The Government is in a very difficult
position.
Procurator: The facts were not brought to the Government.
Because of that no investigations could be made”.
38. The Special Rapporteur also put the same question to the Prime Minister,
Mr. Udenhout:
“Special Rapporteur: Are there any obstacles to the collection of
information on the events by the Government? I
assume that [ since you became Prime Minister]
you have tried to get a correct picture.
E/CN .4/1985/17
Annex V
pace 12
Prime Minister: .. It is a problem of having to ask the
question. What will be served by ascertaining
the facts and bringing to justice all those
responsible, directly or indirectly? What
would be served by this kind of justice? It
might lead to violence again ..
39. At the meeting with Lt Col Bouterse the latter confirmed to the
Special Rapporteur that ‘ no attempt has been made to set up a body to investigate
the events
F. Information concerning the safeguards ad opted or envisaged
to enhance the protection of the right to life
4O As stated above, in the course of his visit to Suriname and in the interviews
conducted by the Special RapporteuT in that connection, the Special Rapporteur
sought to inform himself of the measures taken or envisaged to enhance the
protection of the i ight to life The Special Rapporteur recalls the communication
from the Government of Suriname addressed to the Secretary—General on
11 January 1983 which states, in reference to the deaths of the 15 persons, that
the national army and Government will see to it that such occurrences are prevented
in the future.
4l Indeed, in the colirse of his meetings, the Special Rapporteur was told by
members of the Government and other present and past leaders that it was their
belief that the protection of the right to life was an integral part of the process
of return to democratic government. As stated above, the vicissitudes following
the take—over by the military in 1980 implied limitations to curtain fundamental
rights.
42 The Special Rapporteur was informed that prior to the change of government on
25 February 1980, politics had been based on race, not on programmes, that
Parliament had t een a show place and proceedings a ‘ comedy' . There had been
massive corruption and uneven development and lack of concern with the “have—nots
and the poLLtical leaders had lost the confidence of the people. It was commonly
ackriowle ged to the Special Rapporteur that the situation was such that, when the
Government had refused to negotiate with the union formed by the members of the
military and the military had effected a coup, it appeared to have popular support
The military immediately OErmed a National Military Council and delegated the
administration of the State to a Government formed by two military men under the
direction of Dr. Hendrik Rudolf Chin—a—Sen It was expressly announced that all
fundamental rights were recognized.
43 In August 1980, Bouterse announced the existence of a conspiracy to stage a
military coup involving three members of the National Military Council (Sital,
Mijnab, Joeman) and an undetermined number of civilians, Pi state of siege was
ixnposed all over the country and both Parliament and the Constitution were
suspended
44. On 15 August 1980, Dr. Chin—a-Sen was na ned as President. In February 1982,
Chin—a-Sen resigned as President and was succeeded by Judge L F Ranidat.
45. The Special Rapporteur as told that on 11 March 1982, there was an attempted
coup led by Lt. Rainbocus who demanded the holding of fflee and secret elections and
shortly thereafter a Government was formed on 31 March 1982 headed by Mr. Nejhorst
In the course of his meeting with the Special Rapporteur, Mr Nejhorst stated that
B/ON .4/1985/17
Annex V
page 13
one of the major objeotives of his Government wa to try to prepare the way for
a return to demooraoy and, to that end, a former Foreign Minister had been
requested to draft the concepts of a ciemocratio otruoture; he had requested that
this preparatory work be done together with trade unions, women's organizations,
religious oommunities and other representative groups. To that end, monthly
meetings were held with such groups to obtain their views. Regular contacts with
the press were maintained.
46. General Decree A—ll of 25 Mirch 1982 established the basic rights and duties,
including “the right to personal liberty and security” and “the right to physical,
moral and psychic integrity. No one shall be subjected to torture or degrading
or inhuman treatment or punishment” 0 On the same day, two other decrees (A—9 and
0—4) were passed, establishing bodies invested with governmental powers and, under
article 4 of decree A—9, the Government was to be exercised by a “Policy Oentre”
and the Council of Ministers. This Policy Centre was said to be the highest
administrative power in the nation and its composition was determined by the
military authorities, and was to include the Commander and Vice—Commander of the
National Army. This arrangement continued until February 1984.
47. On 28 February 1983 a new Government was formed and presented its programme
for the period 1983—1986. In it the Government declared its intention “of
educating the population in a new democracy that will allow the people's
participation and effective control of the Government”.
48. The Special Rapporteur was informed that in December 1983/January 1984, .
major strikes occurred. On 3 February 1984 after these major strikes, an interim
Government was appointed by the Military Authority. For the first time the
Government was formally appointed by decree (A—is). One of the main tasks of the
interim Government, which was to last until 31 December 1984, was “to create
democratic structures of a firm and long—lasting nature in mutual consultation with
the Military Authority, trade unions, trade and industry organizations”. Under the
decree, there was to be a Council of Ministers composed of a maximum of nine
persons. The Council of Ministers was to be appointed and dismissed by the
President upon the recommendation of the Military Authority, trade unions and trade
and industry organizations.
49. By another decree (A—l6) dated 13 July 1984 a “think tank” was appointed whose
main function was “to develop struotures and/or institutions that can guarantee
participation of the whole society in the future development of the revolutionary
process so that a firm and long—lasting democracy can be realized”. It was further
provided that the advice of the “think tank” was to be of a special nature and to
he treated as such by the Military Authorities and the Council of Ministers. The
“think tank” group was to be composed of seven members: three appointed by the
military, two by the trade and industry organizations and two by the labour
unions. Members could only be dismissed on the proposals of the organization
which appointed, them. Proposals or other contributions to the “think tank” were
only accepted from persons or organizations who were invited to make them.
G. Assurances given that the events of December 1982
would not recur
50. Virtually everyone in the military and the Government whom the
Special Rapporteur met in Suriname expressed assurances that the events of
8—9 December would never recur.
E/CN .4/1985/17
Annex If
page 14
51. Lt. Col. Bouterse told the Special Rapporteur: ‘We are very sorry about the
events of December 1982. We have said so internationally ... the events of 1982
are certainly not to be repeated '.
52. At the meeting jith the military officers, Capt. Graanoogst said:
‘We will do our utmost to prevent the same thing in the future. It is
not our intention to deprive people of life. We are very sorry about
what happened on 8 December l982 We have said so repeatedly and I do
not think that a similar thing has occurred since then . . With regard
to democracy in Suriname, you probably know that we are trying to do
this in a tripartite body of the military, industry and business and the
trade unions together. We have asked them to send their views on
democracy. We are now discussing the papers and trying to make this
into a final paper and when this is finished, we shall submit it to the
people and, when accepted, those will become our laws and we will have
to obey them”.
53. Some persons, however, expressed scepticism to the Special Rapporteur about
the intentions of the military to return to democracy and doubted that these
intentions would lead to practical measures for restoring democracy and with it
the basic guarantees of fundamental rights, in particular the right to life. It
was emphasized to the Special Rapporteur that, ever since assuming power, the
military had talked about the fundamental rights of individuals and engaged in
discussions on programmes to restore democracy, but that nothing concrete had
come out of the talks aa d discussions. Instead, it was alleged. to the
Special Rapporteur, that the military had at all times frustrated the discussions;
moreover, the Special Rapporteur was told that the fundamental rights of
individuals and, in particular, the right to life and liberty continued to be
violated under military rule.
54. The Special Rapporteur was infonned that the killing of the 15 persons on the
night of 8—9 December 1982 was not an isolated incident in which the right to life
was not protected, since before December 1982 and afterwards persons had been
killed or arbitrarily arrested after clashing with the military or with individual
members thereof.
55. Pears were expressed to the Special Rapporteur that similar events to those
which occurred in December 1982 could recur should the military feel that their
power as threatened.
56. On the other hand, some persons were of the view that the structuring of the
interim Government, in which the trade union sector the industry sector and the
military participate and in which no minister can be dismissed without the
concurrence of all three sectors, augured well for the future; in particular the
Government was charged with the task of submitting proposals for a aemocratic
structure by December 1984, The Special Rapporteur was told that the way had
therefore been paved for a dialogue between the various sectors of society,
including the military.
57 , During the discussions with Dr. Frank Leeflang 9 the Minister of Justice, the
Special Rapporteur put the following question:
ttSpecial Rapporteur: Suriname is a party to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
E/CN.4/1985/17
Annex V
page 15
Optional Protocols. Rave you ta3 cen into accoimi
these Covenants in creating the new democratic
structure?
Minister: The fact of having ratified the Covenants means
that in Suriname that is the law.
Special Rapporteur: Can I assure the international community that
account will be taken of the Covenants in
laying down the basis for democracy in Suriname?
Minister: Of course. You cannot definitely say how the
laws will be, but I can assure you that the
will to include and the tendency to improve the
principles contained in those Covenants are in
the Government!s plans”.
58. As part of the evidence to show the new flexibility on the part of the
military towards democratization, the Special Rapporteur was given the example of
the very serious strikes and demonstrations which took place in December 1983/
January 1984. It was said that the military did not confront the situation in the
same way as it had done in December 1982, although they could easily have broken
the strikes by force. During the discussions with Lt. Col. Bouterse, after
Lt. Col. Bouterse said that “the events of 1982 were necessary”, the
Special Rapporteur asked him whether, if the military were faced with the same
situation again, it would be handled in the same maimer as in December 1982.
Lt. Col. Bouterse said:
“The counter—revolutionaries struck once again in 1983, not only once.
The strike tried to paralyse the whole country but we managed to solve
it in a different way and this proved that what we had said after what
happened in 1982 was not mere words”.
59. The Special Rapporteur was told by Lt. Col. Bouterse and by the Prime Minister
of an agreement between the military and the President under which “whenever there
is an allegation of arbitrary arrest or ill—treatment, the President could at any
moment visit any place of detention, including Port Zeelandia”.
60, In talking to the representatives of the trade unions, commerce and industry,
the Special Rapporteur was told that their participation in the Government was
conditional upon serious steps being taken to restore democracy.
61. The representatives of the Progressive Workers Association, f or example, told
the Special Rapporteur that they had set two conditions on their participation in
the Government: that the democratic structures be established and that the
time—limit be six months and no more than a year. Similarly the representatives
of C—47 infomned the Special Rapporteur that their participation in the Government
was on two conditions: that the democratic structure be established and secondly
the economic crisis he solved. However, priority was to be put on the
establishment of the democratic structure. At the meeting with the Suriname Trade
and Industry Association and the Surinamese Manufacturers it was said by one
participant that
“We have participated in the interim Government not out of political
ambition but because we thought it our duty as citizens to build a new
democracy .... We have given ourselves the time—limit of 3 Augast
for drawing up the plan for a democratic structure, hut in any case no
later than 31 December 1984”.
E/CN .4/1985/17
Annex V
page 16
62. Although at the time of the Special Rapporteur's visit, discussions and
consultations were still going on the democratic st:ructuies suitable for Suriname,
the Special Rapporteur was given a great deal of material on this subject,
including:
(a) Popular representation at the national, regional and sectoral level on
the ‘oasis of pe:rmanent democratic structures;
(b) Report 1 y the Secretariat of the ‘think tank' . Analysis and evaluation
of problems concerning democratic structures;
(c) A theoretical view of the way in which the State of Surinaine should be
organized according to the trade imions;
(d) Industry t s view of differences and similarities between the revolutionary
leadership, the trade unions and business in regard to the democratic structure
(e) Minutes of a meeting of the think tanks with addenda concerning an
interim Government.
63. The foregoing is a summary of the information received by the
Special Rapporteur in the course of the interviews, meetings and consultations he
cond.ucted following the invitation extended to him by the Government 0
JL Concluding remarks
64 On the basis of the information in his possession, the Special Rapporteur
find.s that stwimary or arbitrary executions took place on the night of 8—9 December
in Fort Zeeland.ia In view of the fact that there can be no d.erogation from
article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and. Political Rights, that article
is bind.ing also in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation
and. the existence of which is officially proclaimed.u (art 4) and. therefore even
if such a threat had existed or as presumed to exist, the executions of
8—9 December 1982 cannot be justified. and cannot but be consid.ered. summary or
arbitrary. The executions had. a traumatic effect on the population of Suriname in
view of the prominence or stature of the victims.
65. There are people who believe that the right to life in Suriname cannot be
effectively protected. unless an independ.ent inquiry is conducted. into the killings
of December 1982 and. the persons who planned. and carried. out these executions are
charged. and. convicted. However there are others ho believe that the events of
8—9 December 1982 should. be considered. a closed chapter , and. that Suriname should.
now look to the future.
66,, It as universally acknowled.ged. to the Special Rapporteur that, in looking to
the future, sunimary or arbitrary executions can be prevented if democracy is
restored.. At the time of the Special Rapporteurts visit, a start had been mad.e
by Decree A—15 of 3 February 1984 and. Decree A—16 of 13 July 1984 creating the
framework for dialogue between the military, the trade unions and the trad.e and
industry organizations People may have d.ifferent concepts of democracy and of
the d.emocratic institutions and processes that are suitable for Suriname: what is
important is that mutual trust should be created enabling every Surinamese to
participate in the discussions about the future of his country and the diemocratic
structures on which it should be based.. Those structures should take into account
the international convenants to which Suriname is a party, so as to ensure, in
particular, protection of the right to life and to guard against sui mary or
arbitrary deprivation of life.
